Weighing Meaning: Issues in Oral Literature

Peter Wasamba's lecture last Monday intrigued me because of its insistent relevance. While we could have spent the entire hour discussing theoretical issues of textuality as they pertain to oral literature, I felt that Dr. Wasamba chose to tell stories in order to illustrate their own functions within his society instead of making his culture fit into our critical theories. His form of oral literature has a purpose-- to bring about social justice. If we can include it in our discourses about theory, then that is fine, but its intended purpose transcends literary criticism.

Dr. Wasamba's lecture was filled with points of interest, but one of his statements struck me as particularly powerful. He said that the compiler of oral literature cannot merely collect information and subsequently walk away. He argued that the recorder's role should include action on the part of the oppressed, and he used the story of the Kenyan woman who was raped fourteen times to illustrate this. The recorder's compassion for the woman led him to help her find medical attention, and his story has helped to open the eyes of lawmakers concerning the country's injustices.

The lecture showed me how social justice and nonfiction intertwine, and it has caused me to question the importance of fiction. As writers, shouldn't we work to expose the horrors of the world through our works of nonfiction (or reality-based fiction) instead of writing fairy stories or internal musings about the sublime? How does such an outlook on fiction affect our literal "ethic" of reading? Is it ethical to spend our time reading works that seem to do nothing to improve the plight of the oppressed? Personally, after finishing a poem by Wordsworth or an essay by Barthes, I rarely feel moved to improve the world. I appreciate the world as a result of my reading, but I don't take action. Should I feel guilty?