Commenting on comments thus far

Folks:

Here are a few preliminary reactions to your comments on the readings thus far. Keep in mind that each student is asked to read and respond with at least 1 comment per reading by Thursday class.

On the Glassie ("Reading I"):

At 11:29 PM, Michelle mentions the orthography of Hugh Nolan's story. As you all know, in scholarly writing, one is expected to cite one's sources using double-quotes, block-quotes, and footnotes, and to quote them accurately. In what way might Glassie's orthography similarly be considered "accurate citation", and what additional/non-verbal information might it convey?

At 10:34 PM, Valerie alludes to ways in which Glassie "composes each quoted line as if it were poetry." Is he possibly making a comment not only about Nolan's presentation but more broadly about how speech is understood and valued in an Irish rural context?

At 7:02 PM, Amber "storytelling is an art all of its own" and makes some distinctions b/w written and oral storytelling. What are those distinctions and why might this "distinct art form" be especially valued in an Irish rural context?

At 8:17 PM, taiyo makes analogies between the sharing of stories and the sharing of tunes. What are the elements of both which may be lost in transcribing to the page? And, what mechanisms does the culture maintain in order that these elements are not lost?

At 10:17 PM, Esther makes a useful comment about how Glassie's orthography "slows the reader down." Do you think this is intentional? If so, what change in the reader's reception of the text might such a slowdown make possible? At 10:31 PM, Esther added an observation about patterns in the transcriptions; to what does she connect these patterns; and, do you agree with her?

At 12:18 PM, Alex commented both on the orthography and also on the density/difficulty of Glassie's prose style. What kinds of suggestions do you think can help us "read past" the difficulties and understand why Glassie might make certain stylistic choices?

On Reading II (Carson, "Ask My Father"):

At 10:59 PM, Michelle commented on borrowed words and tunes, and points out Carson's observation that "names [...]not only help to summon the tune into being, but recall other times and other places where [it] was played." What kinds of personal, autobiographical, social, and community "recollections" might tunes or words provoke? And how might this serve the community?

At 10:33 PM, Valerie commented on different names, and the way that versions of names and of tunes differ amongst different people. What is the relationship here between "culture received" (that is, words or tunes learned from someone else) and "culture personalized" (that is, putting one's own stamp on those words or tunes)?

At 6:45 PM, taiyo commented on the community which sharing, and, especially, exchanging words or tunes make possible.

At 7:36 PM, Amber makes a nice connection between the personal relationships of those sharing tunes and similar relationships of those sharing stories, and also comments on personal variation (see my questions just above).

At 12:38 PM, Alex has some very good observations about "ownership and sharing." In the case of a repertoire passed down to a community from anonymous authors, who "owns" the tune or the story? If the concept of "personal ownership" of the cultural artifact is removed, how does that change a community's sense of its shared "common property"? (Remind me to speak in class about "concepts of the Commons."

On Reading III (O hAllmhurain):

At 10:21 PM, Michelle commented on the power of music and language to share and spread ideas and opinions. Why much such sharing and spreading threaten invaders?

At 10:30 PM, Valerie also commented on a sense of "pride and community" that language and music present, and the ways in which this might in turn threaten an invader's control. As Valerie puts it "a united body of Irish people represented a more real danger than a handful of scattered farmers." We will see many political activists throughout Irish history using music and language to create just this sort of unity.

At 5:47 PM, taiyo has good comments about ways in which medieval respect for music and musicians still remains in some Irish contexts.

At 1:34 AM, Amber also comments on the ways in which suppressing music and language helped invaders control the Irish population. She also has a very apt comment on the ways in which removing a people's sense of cultural identity makes it easier to "re-program" them into another way of life. Can you think of other colonial situations in which an indigenous culture was suppressed in order to make its people easier to control?

At 12:48 PM, Alex puts it very well: "[Culture] is the most difficult thing for any invader to conquer and is typically the last thing a victorious invading force gets rid of."

Reading IV (Altramar liner notes):

At 12:32 AM, Michelle links medieval and modern concepts of "music as sacred sound" and quotes Altramar' s goal as being the recreation of "the sound, the impact, and the affect of these great works of sung poetry." Is this consistent with the (above-cited) idea of "making the music one's own"? Can you reconcile these two seemingly contradictory goals?

At 10:32 PM, Valerie lists the three categories of music.

At 6:00 PM, taiyo links these categories to nature and to magic. What do these links tell us about music, sound, nature, and the supernatural in the ancient Celtic world (and what aspects of these beliefs carried over into the Christian era?).

At 11:51 PM, Amber has good examples of modern circumstances in which music is still used to create community.