Modern society tends to portray oral traditions as inherently inferior to written records in pretty much all cases. It's frequently compared to the Telephone Game, since we can never trust that the version we're hearing now is the same as the "original."
In terms of transmitting knowledge about the world, historical events, diplomacy, or other matters of worldly pragmatism, that's pretty much right. Unless we're dealing with one that utilizes strict mnemonic techniques to make sure the original statements are preserved wholly intact orally across centuries(as we see in the Vedas), oral traditions are simply inferior to writing if being close to the "original" is at all important.
However, that doesn't make it inherently a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that oral traditions are superior in areas where keeping to some nebulous "original" is not important at all, or even not desirable, such as at keeping cultural elements alive and relevant through several generations.
For example, take one of the most common places where oral tradition is still pretty strong today: fairy tales. The European story of the Frog Prince (for those not familiar, the short version is that a frog becomes a prince due to the actions of the princess and they get married) is quite different in its modern American form than it was when the Brothers Grimm collected it. In that version, the princess throws the frog against a wall in disgust, and that's what changes him. In the modern version (no, I'm not talking about Disney's recent adaptation), the princess kisses the frog, and that's what does it.
Now, for those like me who grew up with the American version, what the bloody flip is up with throwing him against a wall?! What's that supposed to mean, or teach kids? (EDIT: The answer to that second question is nothing; these stories weren't "for kids".) I honestly don't know. However, I do know exactly what kissing the frog is supposed to teach: love a person despite their ugly appearance, and they're true beauty will come forth. (But for any kids who might be reading this, kissing frogs is a REALLY bad idea.) That's pretty meaningful in American culture, where we're taught (unsuccessfully, I'll grant) to not judge people by external appearances. Thus, the story, through oral tradition, has relevance and meaning here and now, that it might not otherwise have had had it fully retained its original form; it would have been forgotten by our wider culture, much like about 90% of the other fairy tales the Grimms collected.
What does this have to do with religion? Mine, Heathenry, is not based on any book. Oh, there are historical books that most Heathens are at least aware of, even if they've not read them (the Edda, the Lays, the Sagas, etc.). However, most of our exposure to the older stories comes from people just ... telling them. Either over the internet, or in person. The stories are just told and retold, as they've always been. This is how our new religion came to be half a century ago, it's how our religion is growing now, and it's our religion's only hope for survival in the future.
"In each retelling, these our myths are told. In each retelling, we make new of old."
-Kyle "Oancitizen" Kallgren, speaking of Shakespeare adaptations
In terms of transmitting knowledge about the world, historical events, diplomacy, or other matters of worldly pragmatism, that's pretty much right. Unless we're dealing with one that utilizes strict mnemonic techniques to make sure the original statements are preserved wholly intact orally across centuries(as we see in the Vedas), oral traditions are simply inferior to writing if being close to the "original" is at all important.
However, that doesn't make it inherently a bad thing. In fact, I'd argue that oral traditions are superior in areas where keeping to some nebulous "original" is not important at all, or even not desirable, such as at keeping cultural elements alive and relevant through several generations.
For example, take one of the most common places where oral tradition is still pretty strong today: fairy tales. The European story of the Frog Prince (for those not familiar, the short version is that a frog becomes a prince due to the actions of the princess and they get married) is quite different in its modern American form than it was when the Brothers Grimm collected it. In that version, the princess throws the frog against a wall in disgust, and that's what changes him. In the modern version (no, I'm not talking about Disney's recent adaptation), the princess kisses the frog, and that's what does it.
Now, for those like me who grew up with the American version, what the bloody flip is up with throwing him against a wall?! What's that supposed to mean, or teach kids? (EDIT: The answer to that second question is nothing; these stories weren't "for kids".) I honestly don't know. However, I do know exactly what kissing the frog is supposed to teach: love a person despite their ugly appearance, and they're true beauty will come forth. (But for any kids who might be reading this, kissing frogs is a REALLY bad idea.) That's pretty meaningful in American culture, where we're taught (unsuccessfully, I'll grant) to not judge people by external appearances. Thus, the story, through oral tradition, has relevance and meaning here and now, that it might not otherwise have had had it fully retained its original form; it would have been forgotten by our wider culture, much like about 90% of the other fairy tales the Grimms collected.
What does this have to do with religion? Mine, Heathenry, is not based on any book. Oh, there are historical books that most Heathens are at least aware of, even if they've not read them (the Edda, the Lays, the Sagas, etc.). However, most of our exposure to the older stories comes from people just ... telling them. Either over the internet, or in person. The stories are just told and retold, as they've always been. This is how our new religion came to be half a century ago, it's how our religion is growing now, and it's our religion's only hope for survival in the future.
"In each retelling, these our myths are told. In each retelling, we make new of old."
-Kyle "Oancitizen" Kallgren, speaking of Shakespeare adaptations
Last edited:
