Or is the problem that oral narrative, in its original form (that is, oral), has no official, authoritative form in the same way that something that's written down does, and therefore isn't literature until it's recorded?

That was the conclusion I was coming to ...

From what I can tell, his essays and work came about because oral historians (and historians) were taking people's stories and claiming them as their own and also making changes to the transcripts that changed meaning, without talking to the narrator. Then Frisch comes along and says, "That's not ok! We need to be collaborating with our narrators, working towards a shared authority."

Does that make more sense?

IOThesisN, I just sent the final version to my proofreader! The best part of this? I have NOTHING planned this weekend, because I blocked it all off to work on my thesis. And now, I don't have to work on my thesis. I can do fun things! I plan to quilt and crochet and do fun writing and clean my apartment! I'm also going to think about all of my fellow seminarians who are not as prepared as I am and laugh and laugh at their panic (on the inside, of course) while I am having a blissful, quiet weekend.

Lastly, I've started writing letters to the people who are getting copies of the thesis (and some who are just getting a link to the online version) because they somehow influenced me or the project (so, my grandmother, past teachers, my treatment team). It's really fun! "Hi! I haven't spoken to you in 20 years, but you influenced my senior thesis and have a cameo appearance! Here enjoy reading!"

Did I say YAY VW!!! yet, or just think it? Sometimes I forget that reacting to posts only in my head doesn't actually work.

she pointed at his fat little toes and said solemnly, "Bay. Bee."

She's a sharp one!

she was completely riveted by all the pictures of Cooper, even the first one--she pointed at his fat little toes and said solemnly, "Bay. Bee."

Awwww! So cute!

Does that make more sense?

It totally makes sense, I'm just not sure why anyone would tell you that makes it not literature.

Oh well. Just puzzled, like that's new!

Also, those pictures reminded me, I need to check eBay and see if I can find Matilda some Cubbies gear (Emmett's LL team this year is the Cubs).

Then Frisch comes along and says, "That's not ok! We need to be collaborating with our narrators, working towards a shared authority."

I'm just not sure why anyone would tell you that makes it not literature.

Yeah, I'm confused. Unless there is some strict definition of literature that says "It must be communicated more-or-less directly from the creative source of the story with minimal interference by any mediators (so editors are okay), else it is Not Literature."

Is that it? Like, it's okay if I tell Aimee a story and she just writes it down, that could be Literature, but if she adds something then there's the "shared authority" issue all of a sudden and it's Not Literature?

I remember when you were out here last year for that conference and met that Huge Important Researcher, and what a jolt of brainiac joy it gave you to have him get all excited about your thesis and tell you not to let his research stop you

It really was so cool, which is one of the reasons I decided to quote it in the discussion section. It’s one of those moments that will just stick with me forever. And this guy has an ego the size of a galaxy. So, to see him tell me, a lowly student, “Don’t worry about my research! Go for it!” was just such an amazing experience.

Also, I'm completely in awe of you, and everyone who's done a serious research thesis--I did a creative thesis because the research would have killed me.

Heh. There were moments I thought it was going to do me in. As a matter of fact, my Beauty and the Bug blog entry for today is about that very thing.

It totally makes sense, I'm just not sure why anyone would tell you that makes it not literature.

Because those people were not literature experts...they were oral history experts, and they didn't consider all of the ways that that just didn't matter. At least that's my very humble opinion.

Just puzzled, like that's new!

Oh, stop. The more I think about it, the more it puzzles me as well. Also, it makes me continue to wonder why I’m the first person (or one of the first) who’s come along and said, “Why aren’t we looking at the literariness of oral history narratives?” I mean, I know I’m bright and stuff, but I’m not usually *this* original.

Also, those pictures reminded me, I need to check eBay and see if I can find Matilda some Cubbies gear (Emmett's LL team this year is the Cubs).

Oh, how fun! If you don’t find anything, I can make my brother make a Target run for you. That’s where most of Cooper’s Cubs stuff has come from. Very reasonable, and SO cute! I love the little picture of him in the hat, where the bill is flipped up. He’s just already so cool!

Is that it? Like, it's okay if I tell Aimee a story and she just writes it down, that could be Literature, but if she adds something then there's the "shared authority" issue all of a sudden and it's Not Literature?

Actually, that would be very literary, in my opinion…the shared authority really is more of an historical issue. So, yeah. The more I think about it, I have no idea why I was told by so many people that it was also a literature issue.

Because those people were not literature experts...they were oral history experts, and they didn't consider all of the ways that that just didn't matter.

Huh. Maybe they just didn't want literature claiming their stuff -- like that thing on the Daily Show about Paterson (Patterson?): "The first black governor. Not the first blind governor -- you hear that, blind people? He's ours. Back off."

Congratulations, vw! Enjoy your unscheduled weekend.