I have chosen to tackle question 6 for lesson 3.2, concerning the ways in which King’s text encourages his audience to read out loud, rather than silently. This post will touch on and expand some issues I raised in my blog post for lesson 3.1.

In my blog for lesson 3.1, I discussed my initial reading of Green Grass Running Water, and touched on the new levels of comprehension and readability I experienced upon reading parts of the novel out loud. King’s writing is virtually impossible to read easily or “comfortably”, without a great deal of thought on the part of the reader, particularly if the reader wishes to attain any real attempt at understanding the narrative (Chester, 54). He blends two traditionally unblendable genres, orality and literature, to create a hybrid between the two. In doing so, King effectively negates the “us” vs. “them” conflict often present in a discussion about orality vs. literacy. Like many of the other blendings of radically opposing ideas in his novel, such as the combination of Christian and Indigenous creation stories, King tackles the divide between orality and literature through the medium of story, using elements of both types of narrative techniques to form a unified whole(Bailey, 43). To return to my initial reading of the novel, I noticed that many of the allusions and phonetic tricks were far easier to comprehend when read aloud, or even impossible to understand or catch without reading them aloud.

For example, it wasn’t until I’d re-read the passage a couple times that I got the reference to Louis Riel(King, 334), despite the fact the names are deliberately repeated by Latisha, in order, without the use of “and” to separate them: the meaning simply doesn’t come across unless spoken aloud. This was probably the best example for me of King’s brilliance and his subtle(or, as mentioned above, deliberately obvious) assertion of the importance of orality within what appears, in many ways, to be a purely written narrative (Chester, 55). If one is simply willing to be a bit confused, to not understand some points, the story can be read as a purely “literary” narrative, the oral elements glossed over or ignored. However, such a reading leaves out most of the impact and meaning behind the narrative, and accepts the standard status quo of the traditional superiority of written narratives over oral ones.

King includes a number of other names which can only be fully understood once read aloud. The most obvious example is that of Dr. Joseph Hovaugh(King, 11), who is a parody of the famous Canadian literary critic Northrop Frye. The character’s name is also a spoof on Jehovah-Joe Hovaugh. This allusion was also, I found, impossible to pick up when read silently, despite the fact I was looking for it based on my pre-readings prior to reading the text. However, like Louis, Ray, Al, this allusion has to be “heard” to be understood, demonstrating the level of context and information which can be conveyed by orality, which is lost when translated to the page(Flick, 144). It gives the phrase “lost in translation” a whole new meaning.

Another place King utilizes this technique is near the end of the novel, when Clifford Sifton and Lewis Pick observe the three cars which had mysteriously disappeared from puddles of water earlier in the novel floating down the flooded dam-“a Nissan, a Pinto, and a Karmann-Ghia”(King, 407). Here again, the names are repeated and emphasized without the use of any joining words, hinting strongly to the reader that something else is at play. While the cars also allude to the flood, and the mixing of Coyote and Flood motifs in the novel-Indigenous and Christian story elements being combined-they are also a reference to Columbus’ famous Nina, Pinta, and Santa-Maria(Chester, 55). As someone who had to memorize the names of those ships in elementary school, I still didn’t catch the significance when reading silently. The cars falling over the edge of the dam could also reference the old European superstition about falling off the edge of the world(Flick, 146). The allusion of the cars’ names is another example of the added depth and hidden information King conveys in his text, which can only be understood from the perspective and practice of orality.

King utilizes the different narrative mediums of orality and literacy to full advantage in the novel, combining the two seemingly completely opposite methodologies to create a discourse within the text where the whole meaning behind his narrative can only be understood when both halves are experienced and appreciated. King’s novel is full of mixed theories, methodologies, ideologies, narratives, and allusions, a veritable melting pot of combined meanings. King forces his readers to really think, to abandon passive reading, by “transgressing the boundaries that separate orality and literacy” (Ridington, 222). By creating names and allusions which can only be understood when spoken aloud, King highlights the value of orality, drawing his reader forcefully yet subtly away from a purely silent and passive reading experience.

Works Cited:

Bailey, Sharon M. “The Arbitrary Nature of the Story: Poking Fun and Oral and Written Authority in Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” World Literature Today. 73.1(1999): 43-52. Web. July 9, 2014.

Chester, Blanca. “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature 161-162 (1999): 44-61. Web. July 9, 2014.

Donaldson, Laura E. “Noah meets Old Coyote, or Singing in the Rain: Intertextuality In Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Studies in American Indian Literatures. 2.7(1995): 27-43. Web. July 3, 2014.

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162(1999):140-172. Web. July 9, 2014.

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

Ridington, Robin. “Re-Creation in Canadian First Nations Literatures: “When You Sing it Now, Just Like New.” Anthropologica. 43.2(2001): 221-230. Web. July 9, 2014.