In Chang-Rae Lee’s Native Speaker, Luzan asks Henry, “Who, my young friend, have you been all your life? (205). It is through the narrative form that Luzan is able to see beyond Henry's words. Luzan urges Henry “to embrace story forms” (206), and as Henry relates his dilemmas to the doctor, he also negotiates his identity through his narrative. Although Lee presents various markers of identity in the native speaker, including skin color, gender, occupation, language, and values, she reveals that these markers are inadequate to express a person's entire identity , because they carry within themselves stereotypes of different racial and social groups and therefore tend to establish binaries between the Self and the Other. Society imposes such markers on individuals, stripping them of the ability to construct their own identity. Identity is a representational form based on what an individual considers to define and be part of them. Faced with such a dilemma, Chang-Rae Lee presents storytelling as an alternative native-language means for an individual like Henry to negotiate his identity. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on “Why violent video games should not be banned”? Get an original essay Storytelling as a viable means by which one can discover one's identity may seem to suggest that verbal and written languages ​​are markers of 'identities are achievable, but storytelling and verbal language do not have to go hand in hand. At its core, storytelling is a universal activity that reveals humans' desire to share experiences and communicate with others. Although Ludwig argues that “language is a key; it tells you more about a person than their face or their "ethnicity" in the original sense...the way you speak defines you" (234), language can also be a tool for inflicting violence, as shown Henry's spy logs. Henry writes “like a sentient transcription machine” (203), giving him “the illusion of non-involvement” (Ludwig 226). Henry simply notes what he observes, and his transmission of information using only language without narration results in Luzan's death. Henry understands that he "can no longer...paint a character like Kwang with momentary language, but that...the greatest truths lie in our necessary fictions covering human events and time" (206), revealing that this is the narration, not language, which reveals a character's identity. Additionally, Lee shows us that language can be meaningless, as Henry's father begins throwing words like "my hot mom, shit, tight ass, suck dick" (63) at his wife in anger , and Henry intervenes by shouting big words like “socio-economic”. » (63) to his father in “complete sentences” (63). Even though the words themselves mean nothing in this context, it is the speaker's true intention, hidden behind those words, that conveys the message. When a person uses language to juxtapose and distance themselves from others, much like the other identity markers in the novel, it creates an “Other” figure. Rather than facilitating identity negotiation, such use of language locks people into binary stereotypes. Thus, language alone is not sufficient as a marker of identity because “the world is ruled not by demons and saints but by ten thousand dark souls in between” (196). Lee describes a style of storytelling that resembles that of P'ansori, a Korean. a narrative tradition in which it is not only the language of the story that is important, but also elements such asrhythm, sound and audience participation. In P'ansori, a singer tells a story, but he is not alone in telling a story. A drummer who accompanies and interacts with the singer “is not a passive responder but rather an equal partner” (Park 274) in telling the story through rhythm. Lee also draws attention to sound in the novel, asking Henry to describe Kwang's accents as "melodic" (150) and as "a languorous baritone" (297). Furthermore, Kwang believes that the “songs and chants” of black people (195) gave them power, even though he did not even understand the English language at that time. With P'ansori as the primary example, it becomes clear that storytelling transcends narration in verbal or written language. Although language is one of the means of storytelling, Lee demonstrates that stories can be told in many ways. For example, Lelia discovers Ahjuhma's story not through verbal or textual language, but through a physical struggle over laundry. Narration through verbal language fails for Lelia and Ahjuhma, as Ahjuhma refuses to speak to Lelia, but Lelia is nevertheless able to discern that Ahjuhma is "an abandoned girl" (73) after the fight over the laundry. It is therefore through the universal medium of storytelling that identity can be communicated, rather than through language alone. Henry is able to express his identity through the universality of storytelling, but this medium also requires action and personal involvement for it to be a feasible means of identity negotiation. As Okihiro mentions, “Our memories have been massaged by white hands, and how can we remember the past while our storytellers whispered amid the din of Western civilization and Anglo-Saxon conformism? » (Okihiro 34). Lee reflects this in Native Speaker when Henry's father "offers the classic immigration story, presenting himself as the heroic newcomer" (49-50) because he knows "what every native loves to hear" (49 ), thus allowing “indigenous[s]” (49) to define one’s identity as a member of the model minority. Yet Henry knows that the reason for his father's success, the ggeh, reflects communal rather than individualistic success, and although the ggeh occupies a significant part of Henry's father's life story, he renounces it in order to to fit into the larger narrative. “natives” (49). The abandonment of his personal story thus leads Henry's father to stereotype himself as part of the model minority, and he therefore renounces the true narrative that truly defines his identity. Likewise, there is a lack of personal involvement in the narration present in Henry's spy logs, as he simply writes down what he observes passively, as if he were not involved. Here, Henry does more than simply inflict violence through the passivity of his narrative. He attempts to tell others' stories for them, ultimately leading to Luzan's death, thus robbing Luzan of his chance to tell his own story. It is only when Henry moves away from passive writing and relates information about Kwang as a man rather than as a political figure that he discovers "the leap of [Kwang's] identity that no one in [Henry's] work would find no value apart from [him].” (211). As Henry begins to tell stories with more action and personal involvement, he begins to discern the identities of others, and through his communication with others, he also discovers himself. However, without an audience, telling stories would also be futile, because without someone to listen. for them, the stories would be lost and forgotten. Thus, although storytelling is a viable means by which to construct and negotiateidentities, “the inalienable human condition of access to language…means nothing if access to an audience is absent” (Lim 14). The audience in this case includes not only the readers of Native Speaker, but also the fictional characters in the novel. Storytelling is not just a one-directional activity where a story is simply told, but a story must also be told with the audience in mind. P'ansori is relevant here because audience participation in the form of ch'wimsae is a crucial element of this novel's narrative. Ch'wimsae involves "stylized shouts of encouragement...as a means of energizing the singer (if necessary)" (Park 275), and "the more accomplished the person, the more powerfully their voice blends into the rhythmic and melodic flow of the work”. the stage" (Park 275). Audience participation is therefore an essential component of narration because it supports the storyteller and becomes a crucial element of the performance. Henry, however, is unable to perform the ch'wimsae because he feels like "an audience member invited to stand up and sing along with the diva, that he knows every pitch and every note but can no longer conjure them up" (267) every time he enters a Korean store He suggests. however that if he “were able to speak” (316), the Korean waitress he knows “would turn around and be able to confide in a low voice” (316) the story of his life. However, Henry cannot do this. and chooses not to express himself through another means of storytelling, as an audience member, he does not participate in the storytelling process, leaving the story of the Korean waitress unspoken. not simply take an “educated look” (Moraru 71) on the narration, because such an approach would be too formal and distant and would thus lead to the stories losing their personal meaning. Without an audience, stories would remain confined to “whispers amid the din of Western civilization and Anglo-conformist conformity” (Okihiro 34). Not only must the audience or reader listen to the stories being told, but they must also interact with such stories in order to shape the story through their own imagination. For Mitt, a silver coin his grandfather gives him takes on meaning because the story his grandfather tells him of a "lost young prince" (102) sparks his imagination and, in turn, Henry understands the meaning even if Mitt dies. It is because Mitt gives the room meaning in his imagination that Henry is able to imagine that the room could still withstand “the pressure of a flesh” (102), thus leaving a trace of Mitt for Henry. At the end of the novel, Lélia participates in a similar engagement through sounds, as she speaks "a dozen beautiful and native languages, calling all the difficult names of who we are" (349). Throughout the novel, the only words that reflect accents textually are the names – “Leel-ya” (12), “Mahler” (232), and “Kwan” (238). This suggests that, as the names suggest their own origins (for example, "Ichibata" would indicate that the name comes from Japan), they are also words that potentially allow speakers to speak in different "native languages" (349) and d 'use their own unique pronunciation. With Lelia pronouncing all the names in different "native languages" (349), she thus participates as an audience member by engaging with the minority group children, producing their unique sounds rather than simply forcing them to produce hers. Additionally, by making Henry the speech monster, Lee also positions Henry to play, allowing the children to participate in a story where they say the "secret phrase" (348), or rather make the magical sounds to win. the monster ofspeech. Again, there are elements of P'ansori-style audience participation here, as storytellers and audience negotiate the narrative through "mutual shaping" (Park 283), thus acting as “a confirmation of the close relationship between singer, drummer and audience” (Park 275). The story told and sung in a P'ansori performance is therefore not static. It changes and shifts based on feedback from the singer, drummer and audience. For storytelling to be meaningful, readers and audiences must engage with the stories imaginatively to shape the narratives and give them meaning and meaning. At the end of Henry and Lee's stories, at the end of the novel, there is no real resolution. since stereotypes remain. However, the narration itself could be the way to conclude the novel. The novel ends with a scene that suggests nothing has changed, as the children hear Henry speaking and "wonder... as they check again that [Henry's] voice is moving in time with [his] mouth , truly belongs to [his] face” (349). Lee, however, might not necessarily offer a solution to the problem of racial stereotyping and classification. As Henry leaves his job as a spy, his story begins to take on the present tense. In the first part of the novel, Henry says "who we were" (240), but in the final scene he uses "who we are" instead (349). The shift from past to present in the novel reveals its cyclical nature, because as the reader reaches the narrator's present, the narrator begins to write the past, which is the story we have just read, and the beginning of his memory signifies the beginning of history. story for the public. This cyclical structure suggests that narration is a means of negotiating identity, as readers engage and re-engage with the native speaker's story according to this cyclical pattern. The reader participates in the rediscovery and reconstruction of Henry's tale in order to better understand what Henry thinks represents him. Such repeated engagements also allow readers to remember Henry's story, unlike the facts Hoagland shares with Henry about his clients. Hoagland "did the exercise" (39) on Henry's clients, making lists of facts about the clients and whether the information was useful or not, and these facts generally do not stick as clearly in the reader's mind only a story, because their meaning is not recorded. Meanwhile, storytelling gives meaning to an identity as the audience is able to listen, interact, and remember the tale. Whereas the potential weakness of Native Speaker is that the different accents of the different groups are not conveyed and the novel therefore comes dangerously close to them. Although he advocates what Ludwig calls the co-option of "a flattering model of ethnic pluralism as multiculturalism" (Ludwig 221), this flaw is justified because the story is told with and from the voice and the Henry's point of view. Henry himself tells us that he does not master the Korean language well, that when he speaks it, his tone is "uncertain, hesitant" (267), and it would be legitimate to say that Henry cannot tell his story only through “the figurative power of one’s own language” (Kim 251). As the story is a first person narrative, if Henry reflected the accents linguistically, his narration would not be as truthful because he would define others and fit them into stereotypes. Rather, Henry allows these other characters to speak for themselves, to tell their own stories with the voices and sounds that are natural for them to produce. Additionally, the text also demonstrates self-reflexivity by drawing our. 2010.