In Quechua - the language of the Incas - the word that means ”to be literate”, i.e. to know how to read and write, is exactly the same word that means “to see”. 

Being basically primarily oral peoples (although a lot of effort is now being put into “writing” quechua, the results of this are very mixed, basically since these ”writings” are seen as phony and artificial, and have not been able to really carry out the essence of what is being communicated) we can see by these naming of things, just how powerful words are, since, for them, it represents a whole new sense, that most of us in the “literate” societies take for granted.

Ong’s statements on what primarily oral people’s think of language: Formulas […] form the substance of thought itself, have led me to ask myself: perhaps the failure of commiting Quechua to writing is rooted in the fact that since it will no longer need to be formulaic in utterance, then, a big percentage of its essence is thus lost?

Another thing to notice is that, in spite of more than 500 years of Spanish being brought into the country, there are different quechuas spoken in different parts of Peru and neighbouring countries (Colombia, Ecuador, Bolivia). This posses an even bigger challenge for those who are trying to write it down: similar voicings just do not mean the same things, and really most people from different parts of the country just go to Spanish as a common code, because they are unable to understand each other. Which is to be expected anyway, since language is a dynamic, evolving thing.

So, should all this effort of writing quechua down should be made at all? Specially when most people send their children to school to learn Spanish, since quechua is the “at home”, “backward” of sorts language, and Spanish is the “road to progress”.

The author’s reflections on the standard thematic settings, such as the assembly, the meal, the hero’s helper and so on (p.34), made me recall the basic story line of “timeless” epics such as Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. The very core of those stories, is exactly the same. The little, innocent boy from the countryside (Frodo or Luke) who is found by the almighty magician (Gandalf or Obi Wan) and who has within him (the ring or the force) the power to bring down the Dark Forces (Sauron or the Emperor) or to doom all the rest of the universe.

In this book, Orality and Literacy, I have finally found some clues as to why this is so appealing to “the masses” (me definitely included): we - human beings - have been ”oral beings” for a much larger period of time than “literate beings”. Proof of that is that Of the 3000 languages spoken that exist today only some 78 have a literature (p.7). Therefore, as I will paraphrase here, stories had to be repeated over and over again, or they are lost forever. So, this particular story (of the little boy who saved us all) simply has to be appeal ling, since we have “heard” it once, wether consciously or unconsciously, as is part of those things that had been transfered from generation to generation by “word of mouth”.