Blog 3.5

creation

Question # 5: Narratives assume, in Blanca Chester’s words, “a common matrix of cultural knowledge.” The Four Old Indians are perhaps the best examples of characters that belong to a matrix of cultural knowledge, which excludes many non-First Nations. What were your first questions about and impressions of these characters? How have you come to understand their place in the novel?

In the beginning of my reading of “Green Grass, Running Water”, by Thomas King, the sections in the novel which narrate The Four Old Indians, created a confusing plot line for me to comprehend. Like most novels I read, I always find it important to start reading the story with an open mind, while getting a sense of how each character plays a role in the plot. Characters in the novel, such as Alberta, Lionel, and Eli, were easier to piece together in terms of getting to know exactly what they were about, as there was a thorough understanding of their personalities. However, The Four Old Indians’ narration followed a somewhat choppy dialogue through the four sections of the novel. This made it difficult for myself to understand because it was uncertain to know whom was talking at times. The Four Old Indians (Elders) were presented throughout segments of the novel, with little to no detail of their characteristics. I found that upon finishing the novel is where I finally understood their roles in the storyline, and pieced together their purpose in storytelling.

My first impression of the LoneRanger, Robinson Crusoe, Hawkeye, and Ishmael were that they were quite humorous. They added a lot of satire to the plot line, a goofiness that enrichened their creation stories. Additionally, they added a childish and non-structured way of telling stories. I quite enjoyed their method of telling stories because it painted a simple picture in my mind of how these creation stories occurred. Identifying their genders was another one of my questions; however as the novel unravelled, I slowly discovered more details about whom they were, and why they were.

As mentioned in the former, it was close to the end of the novel when I noticed a trend of The Four Old Indians’ narration stories. While each elder had recited a story in the four sections of the novel, each elder was also connected to the mythical being in their stories. There is an evident intersection of Judeo-Christian figures that are presented in every story, which contrasts with the protagonists of the creation stories, whom are characters from Native oral traditions. The genre of narration that The Four Old Indians used to express their stories merged Aboriginal oral tradition and European-American cultured stories. Whilst reading the first creation story involving The First Woman, it reminded me of The Miller’s tale, being a parody of The Knight’s tale, in “Canterburry Tales”, by Geoffrey Chaucer. For instance, Lone Ranger’s story about The First Woman alludes to the creation story of Adam and Eve, with a humorous twist. Details such as the “forbidden fruit” not only being the apple (like in Adam and Eve), but also included pizza and fry bread, which were humorous additions the Lone Ranger’s creation story.

millers tale

I quite enjoyed how each elder had a different type of creation story, which responded to Coyote’s question of why there was so much water everywhere. The plot is even more humorous when discovering that The Four Old Indians are actually mental institution escapees. Knowing this while reading the stories, really explains as to why the stories are told in such unstructured manners, although still very capturing and easy to follow. Another interesting aspect of The Four Old Indians is that they seem genderless for the majority of the plot. They are eventually revealed as being men, but they also possess a strong feminine side because of their associations to the female characters in their stories. I find it contrasts other creation stories, for example, the Christian creation story of man where the “Lord God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man” (Genesis 2:22-24), making “man” the alpha creation, because in all the Elders’ stories, the women were the creators, and the bearers of life.

Works Cited

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto:  Harper Collins, 1993. Print.

Chaucer,Geoffrey. The Canterbury tales. ChaosCafe. The Electric Literature Foundation. 1991-2012. Web. 26 June 2015. <http://www.canterburytales.org/>

Genesis 2:22-24. The Bible. Bible Study Tools. 2014. Web. 26 June 2015.
<http://www.biblestudytools.com/genesis/passage/?q=genesis+2:22-24>

3 thoughts on “Blog 3.5

  1. ArianneLaBoissonniere Post author

    HannahVaartnou
    hannah.vaartnou@gmail.com
    72.143.225.94

    “Additionally, they added a childish and non-structured way of telling stories. I quite enjoyed their method of telling stories because it painted a simple picture in my mind of how these creation stories occurred. ”
    Thanks for your post! I also answer question #5. I focused on Coyote as well as the four natives. And I agree with the comment I quoted of yours above. The childishness/playful attitude within the story is very poignant. I attributed coyote as responsible for this ‘trickster-like’ quality. Do you agree?

    “The plot is even more humorous when discovering that The Four Old Indians are actually mental institution escapees. Knowing this while reading the stories, really explains as to why the stories are told in such unstructured manners, although still very capturing and easy to follow. ”

    I’m going to ask you for clarity on this quote. I don’t like how you’ve phrased this to be honest. Perhaps you meant something else and your intention was lost in translation. To me, it insinuates that the Four Old Indians’ stories can be explained because they were “mental institution escapees”. This reads as a colonialists reading. I don’t mean to offend, but this line really bothered me. Perhaps you could share what you meant with me?

    Thanks! For additional info and intertextual explanations check out the “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water,” by Jane Flick. I found it really helpful to understand why King makes the literary choices that he does.

    Warmly,

    Hannah

  2. ArianneLaBoissonniere Post author

    Evan Franey
    ejfray_7@hotmail.com
    108.180.67.150

    Hi Cinnamon Sticks,

    The Four Old Indians befuddled me at first, but I felt some kind of understanding once they started sharing creation myths, and even more as their lines reverberated throughout the novel. Together with Coyote, they provide a kind of satire balancing magic with reality. The Four Indians perceive the world in a kind of magical, delirious way – and then we find out they’re mental institution escapees ; we see Coyote as a powerful (or just reckless) anthropomorphic being, not unlike Robinson’s – but he’s just a “scraggly dog” (289). While they’re kind of fringe characters, they are inserted into the plot at intervals–providing chaotic order. The indiscriminate consequences (good or bad) of their creation myths that Coyote seemingly gives life to reflect on the social commentary in the main narrative.

    I found it really interesting that you mention the fluidity of gender. Robinson’s Coyote is definitely male, whereas King’s Coyote is probably female (if you accept “The One About Coyote Going West”); however, King is so much more ambivalent about gender.

    I think it’s somehow connected to your reference to Canterbury Tales, as that has a great deal of humour revolving gender stereotypes as well as religion. By telling creation myths, they kind of reject the Christian world we live in that believes in Adam and Eve, so it’s interesting you draw that parallel.

    Love,
    Cinnamon Roll

  3. ArianneLaBoissonniere Post author

    JamesLong
    James_long@me.com
    154.20.161.85

    I too found the “Four old Indians” intriguing, specifically their apparent awareness of their own place in the physical novel.
    “‘We’ve done that already,” said Ishmael. . . .
    “Yes,” said the Lone Ranger. “Page fifteen.”
    “Oh.”
    “See. Top of page fifteen.’” (King 234)

    If one actually flips back to page 15 they would be pleased to find that Ishmael is correct. It appears that not only do they know they are in a Novel, but they also possess the physical copy. This creates a very interesting commentary on story telling but also on the idea of an All-knowing force attempting to “fix things”.

    Also, As you mentioned they tend to be gender fluid a little bit, earlier in the novel they are referred to as both women and as men.
    Why do you think this is ?

Leave a Reply