Friday, February 26, 2010
Can humor be used as a survivance strategy in native literature?
In reading the story "Hard Riding" the reader is given the impression that some form of survivance strategy is being exhibited even though the story is full of humorous statements from the main character. However, can humor be a survivance strategy? Would it be possible that an author can use humor as a tool to convey a survivance message more effectively than a more serious tone would? In some cases humor may actually be more effective because the situations that are discussed are upsetting and humor lightens the content of the story. This captures the attention of the reader and thus makes him/her look into the actual message that's being portrayed. Thus, humor can be used as a survivance strategy in native texts in such a manner. In "Hard Riding" a satirical look at Indian affairs in reservations was given and thus, provided survival to an issue that gets very little time in the limelight. This would also be a form of resistance as well because, bringing light to the issue would affirm it's position as an important issue that needs to be dealt with. Of course, I may be off track on humor being a survivance strategy but it all depends on the issue being discussed and the genre of the text. However, when humor is used properly in a text as a survivance strategy it may be one of the most effective strategies of all because of the "human factor" involved. People reading a text that they find humorous would be more inclined to accept the controversial issue being discussed as relevant than when reading a story that takes on a more serious strategy. While it may sound absurd that humor can be used as a survivance strategy it may come as a surprise that some of the most effective strategies in conveying controversial issues would be to take a less serious approach whether it's a text or a verbal debate.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think that human can be use as a form of survivance, for example in “Hard riding”, the human can be interpreted as a way of implying the meaning that Indians have it really hard and also that the government has been takes advantage of them. Someone in class on Tuesday made a connection to Wilson the man from the film we watched in class. Wilson was a very corrupt man to his own people. I can see that connection because Wilson was a very foolish man, he did not know how to govern the Indians I think that it could imply that the people that look over the Indians are fools, and try to take advantage of the them.
ReplyDeleteI don't think seeing humor as a survivance strategy is ridiculous at all. Humor is an incredibly strong tool, it can instantly connect people, make them at ease and more receptive to information being given. I don't think Hard Riding or Requiem for a Leg would be as effective if they were strickly business.
ReplyDeleteUsing comedy is an excellent way to achieve survivance. Sometimes experiences and conflicts can be so severe that the human mind needs to release some tension in order to better grasp the message being sent.
ReplyDeletelwbechelli, I agree humor is an excellent survivance strategy and in fact has been used in many texts and even media outlets such as films and television shows that convey critical messages which would otherwise be controversial if taken with a more serious look. If one doesn't use humor in those cases the message may not come across as well and therefore may be ineffective or not even heard.
ReplyDeleteShouting Subtitles, I agree that in some cases the conflicts can be so controversial that humor may be the only effective way to communicate the issue at hand. In these cases had the writer/artist/composer used any other strategy his message may not be accepted or heard by individuals who hold strong viewpoints on the subject or issue and refuse to even listen to what that author has to say. However, when humor is used it offers a new perspective without coming out directly as a new approach or viewpoint on the issue.
ReplyDelete