AUTHORS

INTRODUCTION

I. SOCIOCULTURAL REALITY AND PRESENT-DAY BERTSOLARITZA

II. ACHIEVING A BALANCE AMONGST THE CHALLENGES FACING BERTSOLARITZA: KEYS TO THE CREATIVITY OF THE TRADITION

III. THE PROCESS OF CREATING IMPROVISED BERTSOS

IV. PROPOSALS FOR A THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

1.The dead-end analysis of oral art in terms of written poetics

2. Enchantment by .but lack of charm of the oralist theory

2.1. Orality in writing

2.2. Literature in orality

a) Formulas in present-day bertsolaritza

b) Intellectual experimentation

c) Distancing

d) Performance

3. A new theoretical framework for improvised bertsolaritza

V. GLOSSARY

2.2 Literature in orality

In the preceding section we saw how the reductionist idea of orality theory prevents us from capturing the influence of orality in written format. Much more interesting, on the other hand, is the obverse side of the coin.

Effectively, the theory of orality, at least in the canonical formulations byNotopoulos and Ong, establish a radical distinction between the oral and written modes of production.

It is categorically stated that, as a consequence of oral thinking or mental process deriving therefrom, oral expressions are necessarily:

• Accumulative rather than subordinate
• Accumulative rather than analytical
• Superfluous or verbose
• Conservative and traditionalist
• Close to essence of the human world
• Tones of anguish
• Empathetic and participatory rather than objectively distant
• Homeostatic
• Situational rather than abstract

If one tries, as we have done, to see how these nine features are reflected in current improvised bertsolaritza, one will very soon give the task up: effectively, one will discover the same G.S. Kirk found in Homer, that:

…the oral epic, at least at the unmatched level of Homer, can display some of the supposedly distinctive subtleties of written poetry.(43)

So, if in the previous section we discovered the relevance of the oral strategies in certain written texts, we now find ourselves with some oral texts that can be ascribed a similar subtlety as that of written poetry.

Which, evidently, does not mean that the achievement of such subtlety is the be-all and end-all of oral literature. It means, and only means, that one cannot discard out of hand the possibility that such poetic excellence might be expressed in oral texts, a feasibility rejected by oral theorists, it would seem.

When written poetics criteria are applied to oral literature, written poetry is, Notopoulos denounces, a kind of Procustean bed in which oral literature rarely comes up to scratch. At the other extreme, oral theory, applied strictly, turns out to be too small a bed. This is what happens, according to Rainer Friedrich, when oral theory is applied to Homeric art:

Here it is well to remember that the notorious Procustes was the happy owner of two beds. Could it be that an oral poetics, when applied to the Homeric epic, has the effect of Procustes´ short bed?

The same thing happens, we believe, although for different reasons, when an attempt is made to use the oralist theory as the unique instrument of analysis of bertsolaritza, at least of current improvised bertsolaritza.

We cannot here go into to what extent each and every one of the characteristics which Ong attributes to oral expression actually coincides with reality. We can only say that, taking it to its ultimate consequences, the oralist theory gives us a reductionist perspective of improvised bertsolaritza. We will now look at some of the reasons for this.