Fiction vs. Non-Fiction

Fictional works and non-fictional works both have their individual strengths and weaknesses. In class, we started off by reading works of non-fiction, such as works by Elias Boudinot and Mary Brave Bird. These works were written by real people in response to real events. Their works attempted to address their current realities and the situations they were living in.

Non-fictional works are strongly based on reality. They deal with real people and real issues. However, this does not mean that works of fiction do not have the same power nor the same ability to reflect on real events. While non-fictional works stay true to reality, fictional works have the ability to reflect different shades of reality, even though they are not necessarily "real." Fiction can stick as close to reality as possible or drift into a completely different dimension and universe.

One strength of fiction is that authors have the ability to shape the outcome of events within the story. Essentially, authors of fiction have complete control over how the story plays out. This control can definitely add strength to their work's ultimate message. For example, in The Soft-Hearted Sioux by Zitkala-Sa, the father predicts his own death. By the time his son arrives with meat for him, the father is already dead. This unfortunate timing makes the death seem even worse. The father's unfortunate death could symbolize the death of the Indian culture, and Zitkala-Sa's placement of this event within the story made the storyline much more powerful.

Should fiction be considered any less real than non-fiction? I disagree with the idea that fiction should not be considered "real." Maybe the characters and events portrayed in fictional works are not necessarily real in our reality, but fiction definitely carries a message to the audience that is undeniably real. The words within fiction can be taken to heart and made very real for the reader.

The Bigger Picture

Greg Sarris' essay The Woman Who Loved a Snake was particularly perplexing and mind-boggling. Initially, after reading the essay, I felt confused and was not quite sure of where the essay had led me. My mind was running in circles, flitting from one question to the next. The story seemed to do so much with so little. Or maybe it wasn't supposed to. Maybe we are just supposed to take it for what it is. For me, this idea of just letting a work be what it is in its own right, without imposing our personal views and expectations on it, was hard. In school, I feel that we are often trained to search for the "point" of the story or the deeper meaning. While reading the essay, I felt like Jenny, the Ph.D. candidate who asked what the snake symbolized. Was it a man, a snake, or both? One can formulate an answer for any of those points and I agree with Sarris' idea that the reasons behind the way we answer is due to each of our own cultural and personal differences.

Sarris says, "Mabel's talk, which is oral, provides an opportunity to explore the territory for individuals who may in some ways share her territory...The territory, after all, is not empty, unpeopled" (152). Experiencing Mabel's story, orally or through the written word, allows our minds to explore the ideas of those who have come before us. Each person puts their own personal spin on the story, and if they pass it on to someone else, that person then has the ability to shape the story for themselves and for others later. This is what I think Mabel meant when she said that "there is more to me and you that is the story" (150). The story's circle of influence continues to expand and the story lives on in others, not just ourselves. The story's journey through different people and time is all a part of the bigger picture, which we will never fully see or understand because it will continue to change and grow.

The Sad Truth

This week of NAS5 was shocking, but informative. I learned of the many horrors in Native American history that my past history courses have neglected to point out to me. For example, I never really knew about the details behind the massacre at Wounded Knee, especially from the Native American standpoint. Also, I did not know much about the American Indian Movement until I read "We AIM Not to Please" by Mary Brave Bird. Her writing was so powerful and I found this reading much easier to identify with than the other readings, just because it is one of the more recent works that we've dealt with. One of the quotes that really stuck out for me was on page 114 in the reader, in which Bill Kunstler stated, "You hate those most whom you have injured most." I find this quote extremely disheartening because this mindset allows the cycle of hate to continue. No wonder the Native Americans grew so distrustful over time, after all the broken treaties, the violence, exploitation, and destruction of their cultures.

What happened to Native American tribes was essentially genocide, and I hadn't thought about it in that sense before. In my mind, I had associated the word "genocide" with the Jews and the Holocaust, but not the Native Americans. However, when I saw that picture of the mass grave at Wounded Knee, the terrible realization finally sank in. The history of the Native American Indians is one that has been pushed beneath the surface and we need to acknowledge this fact.