Language and Literature from a Pueblo Indian Perspective

I thought that it was intriguing to read about how language and storytelling is used among the Pueblo people. Silko's emphasis on language portrayed a fusion between the the two different societies. This fusion is unique because it represents how the stories have been able to unify the Pueblo people through change and time. By keeping the past alive, the Pueblo people have been able to keep their ways of life alive, in this case their way of speaking.
It is interesting to think how these stories have been passed down for so many years and still remain true to the past. I like how Silko says that by storytelling and by keeping true to the "boundless capacity of language," people can come together no matter the differences.

Language and Literature from a Pueblo Indian Perspective

I thought that Language and Literature from a Pueblo Indian Perspective had a very interesting view on language. The fact that so many groups of people in a small area spoke about seven different languages made words themselves less important than the ideas behind them. They just wanted to get across their stories and the lessons behind them, and this comes through in her writing. Her simple sentences and repetitions do a thorough job in proving her points and sending her messages. I think that the Pueblo's perspective is quite different than other US citizens, where there is a greater emphasis on style and how things are said than the message itself.

Response to "Language and Literature from a Pueblo Indian Perspective"

Overall, I think this essay was very insightful and interesting. It gives a different perspective to language, the way the Pueblos see it. The most interesting quote that stuck out to me was "a great deal of the story is believed to be inside the listener, and the storyteller's role is to draw the story out of the listeners" (127). This view on communicating stories and information is different from anything I've ever thought of, the fact that the story is actually in the listener. This perspective suggests more of a sharing experience and bond between the speaker and the listener. It also suggests that the listener has a large capacity for stories and information and the speaker just has to bring that out of the listener and show that the story exists. This view along with the many other beliefs of language and stories of the Pueblo people has shown me a greater depth of language, a different understanding of language. After reading this, it has definitely given me an appreciation for a different side of language that I would have never known before.

"Language and Literature from a Pueblo Indian Perspective"

Language and writing is America is, not surprisingly, different than that in the Pueblo culture. I knew that older cultures are based much more on stories and their history was passed on through more oral traditions but it is surprising to me that basically all of their literature is old stories an family stories. I feel that since America is a much more individualized society people do not feel connected through stories as the Pueblo people do. Language here is analyzed much more and the focus is completely different. We edit papers and books over and over again; none of our stories "come from the heart," as Silko says, which is important for the Pueblos. Storytelling truly brings people together there and it is unfortunate that Americans do not really have that connection with language and the community. The closest we get to that is gossiping. Here, gossiping is not a polite or nice way to connect with people. It is more of a rude, behind-the-back way of talking about people. I was surprised to see that in the Pueblo culture it does not matter if a story is gossip, true, or fake-it is a story that people tell. Such a difference in language is obviously going to exist, but such a different perspective on how language should be passed on and told is quite interesting.

Numbers

How can Universities be realistically compared numerically? If so what do these imaginary numbers really mean?

I have always though numerically ranking of Universities is a ridiculous practice, yet I do admit that I studied the Princeton Review and questioned the New York Times’ “Best Colleges”. Universities appear so similar, especially after visiting several. There are dorms, cafeterias, libraries, unions, and classrooms. They really are not that different, academically at least. Maybe studies should be done on Universities outside to the classroom, where real differences appear.

My parents told me that college is what you make it. Numbers should be considered, but realistically, a college experience is unique to each individual. No stereotypically path awaits freshman. Everyone is different, and I think this is okay.

So than, in regards to students, what is the purpose of the numbers? I think that their intent is to comfort parents and students alike. Confirming decisions made by students, while assuring parents of their commitment.

When I decided upon attending the University of Wisconsin- Madison, it was not because it was ranking, but rather because of its reputation. Graduates of the University of Wisconsin-Madison are allotted a great deal of respect within the academic world prior to attaining success, due largely because of name recognition.