For blog assignment 3.3, I have been assigned pages 174-186 of Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water. I found this task extremely challenging. Despite reading the novel and going over my designated passages multiple times, I found the allusions and meanings difficult to recognize and comprehend. Initially, in comparison to Harry Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England“, I found King much easier to read leisurely. As I am forced to analyze and decipher deeper meanings, I realized that outside research was necessary.

Option four.

In this context, “option four” (King 175) is referring to Alberta’s fourth option for having a child — artificial insemination. King, however, is making yet another reference to the Aboriginal sacred number four. Four is an allusion to the medicine wheel, which is an “interconnection of all life”. The circular wheel resembles the natural cycle that occurs within the world, in which each quadrant has a different representation. “The novel has four sections, with four headings that when translated, are the same as the names of the Four Old Indians” (Paterson). King uses the number four continuously throughout my selected passage. He says “damn” (King 182, 184) four times in two separate occasions, and there is mention of the “Four Corners” (185).

Bill Bursum.

Looking at Bill Bursum’s name, I wondered whether King had named this character after an actual Bill – and I was correct! The Bursum Bill “deprived the Pueblo of their land and their water and left several thousand Mexican and American claimants to fight each other legally for the possession of these lands and waters to the perennial enrichment of lawyers who were working to enact the bursum bill.” The Pueblo’s fought against the bill, and it was ultimately defeated. In King’s story, Bill is the Western character who shows agitation towards Indian culture.

Different women answering the phone. 

Alberta speaks to two different women over the phone regarding her artificial  insemination application progress. Her first call is to a “friendly” (King 178) and empathetic woman after receiving a letter from the clinic. The woman understands Alberta’s discomfort, and sympathizes with her anxiety caused by the process. The next woman calls her regarding a required interview. This woman is less personable, and shows no trace of empathy. She cuts Alberta off mid sentence, assumes a cultural familiarity, and doesn’t actually listen to what Alberta has to say.

The woman: “…you can see why.”
Alberta: “I’m not sure–”
The woman: “And when you get the interview….” (King 179)

This dialogue shows the contrast in characters between the two different woman answering the phone, and symbolically, two different ideologies regarding First Nations people. One addresses the problem with empathy, and is open-minded, while the other goes through the motions, says what is required to be said, and glosses over the bigger picture. The second woman is hearing — but not listening — to Alberta, something that is common in First Nation’s history.

Indian Act.

“Christ, Portland, things have changed. Not like the old days. Unions, rules, more asses to kiss. Who can predict it. It aint like the old days at all. Hell, you don’t even have to act anymore.” (King 184)

In this quote, C.B. Cologne is responding to Portland about potential job opportunities for the Westerns. However, his description makes me think that King is referring to the attitude many Aboriginals have towards the Indian Act. C.B says “hell, you don’t even have to act anymore”. Act, in this case, may work in the context of speaking about a working opportunity, but C.B.’s sentences before this shine a light on King’s perspective about the Indian Act. It is “not like the old days”; there are “more asses to kiss”; you can’t “predict it” (King 184); King is referencing the Indian Act and the mindset Indians have for this federal legislation.

Works Cited

“Aboriginal Medicine and Healing Practices.” Traditional Aboriginal Medicine. UOttawa. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.med.uottawa.ca/sim/data/Aboriginal_Medicine_e.htm>.

“The Bursum Bill.” Canton Asylum. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://cantonasylumforinsaneindians.com/history_blog/the-canton-asylum-for-insane-indians/the-bursum-bill>.

“The Indian Act: Historical Overview | Mapleleafweb.com.” The Indian Act: Historical Overview. Mapleleafweb.com. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://mapleleafweb.com/features/the-indian-act-historical-overview>.

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

“Manitoba Education.” Aboriginal Education. Government of Manitoba. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://www.edu.gov.mb.ca/k12/abedu/perspectives/concepts.html>.

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3.2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genres. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

“What Was the Bursum Bill?” WikiAnswers. Answers Corporation. Web. 16 Apr. 2014. <http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_was_the_Bursum_Bill#slide=1>.

Question 3:

What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story you are familiar with, and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories?

——————————————

My parents raised me in a Christian household; up until I started highschool, we went the church every Sunday, and I attended Sunday School for an hour once a week after the service. My parents are – what I would call – mildly religious. They did not pray before meals or follow the “rules of the bible” (cursing, tattoos, alcohol, etc), but they were clear on expressing their beliefs: they believed in God, and if you lived an honest life, they would be rewarded with admittance to heaven. Other than being forced to sit through church and memorize a weekly passage of the bible for Sunday School, my parents never pushed me towards a life of religion. Once I began highschool and had Sunday morning hockey practices to attend, my family stopped going to church all together. Towards the end of highschool, I began to verbally question religion and its effects to my mother. I explained to her my conflicting views: was the story of Genesis realistic? Why do we have religion in our world at all, when conflicting spiritual beliefs leads to many global issues, including death and destruction? Her response was that being Christian was a state of mind – she does not need to pray in church once a week to reaffirm her faith; instead, she trusts her beliefs, and tries to be the best person she can be in the eyes of God, which ultimately leaves with less stress and peace of mind.

After a lengthy rambling, I get to my point: I am still struggling with my personal beliefs, and I do not have a creation story that I am passionate about. I wouldn’t go as far to say I am a true atheist, because some part of me believes that we all have destinies, and that a higher power guides us there. I could sway more towards the agonistic approach, questioning the validity of God’s existence based on lack of living individual knowledge. For the sake of this assignment, I will focus on the story of Genesis with Adam and Eve, and compare it to King’s version of The Earth Diver. Both creations stories are essentially the same in that they introduce human beings to the world, but different because of the implications each story suggests.

“Curio[sity]” (King 10) plays a different role with Eve than it does with Charm. In Genesis, Satan encourages Eve’s initial curiosity with the apple for a harmful purpose; his deceit is stemmed by Eve’s vulnerability and her lack of self-reliance. The fall of man is given a negative connotation, and the existence of human beings and the pain and chaos we endure can be traced back to Eve and the consequences of her curiosity. Charm, on the other hand, is warned by the birds to “[not] be too curious” (King 11), but proceeds with her initial thoughts regardless of others opinions. Charm “falls” out of the sky, like Adam and Eve’s “fall” from grace, but Charm is not punished for her curiosity. The tone of the event remains neutral – neither positive nor negative – and Charm’s perception on life is not to make up for her mistake, like Adam and Eve, but to build on the situation. The feminist in me appreciates Charm’s independence. When the badger tells her to be mindful of how deep she digs, she responds with “mind your own business” (King 13). Both stories show different ideologies and values: Genesis appoints blame and demands repentance, whereas The Earth Diver emphasizes acceptance and harmony.

Genesis and The Earth Diver show contrasting perspectives on gender equality and feminism. In traditional aboriginal cultures, women are considered “the givers of life”, and are highly respected by their communities. King’s story, which follows this Aboriginal mindset, shows no evidence of sexist inequality. The handedness of the twins – right creating woman, and left creating man – show stereotypical male and female qualities. Adam and Eve have clear rankings; Adam is more superior because he is a man, and Eve is made out of Adam’s rib, therefore inferior. While The Earth Diver designates stereotypical qualities to the right handed twin (woman) and the left handed twin (man), it is not used to divide them, but to complement one another. Straight rivers are made flowing in both directions, but altered to be crooked with a continuous one-direction flow; forests are organized, then randomly placed for diversity; thorns are added to roses; summer and winter; sun and shadow (King 19, 20). The Earth Diver is a feminist creation story; it shows balance and cohesion, and takes integrates both gender qualities to create “one beautiful world” (King 20).

I find the presentation of The Earth Diver much more appealing than that of Genesis. King introduces Charm in an imaginative, impartial light, whereas Genesis seems more narrow minded and statement-orientated. Perhaps my own bias is shining through, as I had no previous opinion of Charm’s tale, and a contradicting opinion of Adam and Eve’s. I have found a couple different presentations of the story of Genesis that take on a more creative delivery. They are very short, simple, and streamlined, saying almost identical information, but I find this visual/verbal display more appealing (what a coincidence… I take more interest in ORAL STORYTELLING… oh orality!). You can find links to these videos here and here.

Overall, I am still uncertain of my spiritual beliefs. That being said, The Earth Diver is an creative alternative to Genesis, and my new go-to creation story.

Works Cited

“Bible Story Series: Genesis The Creation of World.” YouTube. YouTube, 13 Aug. 2010. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bLHB_hNk42g>.

Courtney MacNeil, “Orality.” The Chicago School of Media Theory. Uchicagoedublogs. 2007. Web. 19 Feb. 2013.

“The Creation Story.” YouTube. YouTube, 13 Oct. 2009. Web. 15 Apr. 2014. <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVUBg7___w4>

King, Thomas. The Truth About Stories: A Native Narrative. Peterbough: Anansi Press. 2003. Print.

Question 5:

In her article, “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel,” Blanca Chester observes that “the conversation that King sets up between oral creation story, biblical story, literary story, and historical story resembles the dialogues that Robinson sets up in his storytelling performances (47). She writes:

Robinson’s literary influence on King was, as King himself says, “inspirational.” When one reads King’s earlier novel, Medicine River, andcompares it with Green Grass, Running Water, Robinson’s impact is obvious. Changes in the style of the dialogue, including the way King’s narrator seems to address readers and characters directly (using the first person), in the way traditional characters and stories from Native cultures (particularly Coyote) are adapted, and especially in the way that each of the distinct narrative strands in the novel contains and interconnects with every other, reflect Robinson’s storied impact. (46)

For this blog assignment I would like you to make some comparisons between Harry Robson’s writing style in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and King’s style in Green Grass, Running Water. What similarities can you find between the two story-telling voices? Coyote and God are present in both texts, how do they compare in character and voice across the stories?

—————————————

After reading the first two lines of King’s Green Grass Running Water, I had to flip back to the front cover to check whether I was reading the correct novel; I felt as if I was reading a continuation of Robinson’s story. As I progressed through King’s novel, I recognized both differences and similarities in the style of writing between both works.

As I have mentioned in a previous post, Robinson overuses the word “so” in his story, to the point where it is present on every page. “So” creates a casual tone and informal atmosphere – similar to what one would expect when listening to a story. King’s immediate use of Robinson’s language to begin his own story shows “the [clear] influence of Robinson’s voice [in his] own written storytelling” (Chester 44). King says, “So. In the beginning, there was nothing. Just the water” (1). Short, choppy sentences prepare the reader (or listener) for a similar voice like Robinson’s. King incorporates Robinson’s style of abstract syntax choices and incomplete sentences to mimic the effect of his storytelling. The narrator speaks to the audience, engaging them directly by saying “I can tell you that” (King 1) – again, addressing the listener in an oral fashion. Paterson notes in lesson 3:1 that King’s novel is “deeply rooted in the story-telling tradition of Harry Robinson and in literary imitations of orality”.

While there are aspects of Robinson’s voice in King’s novel, Green Grass Running Water uses a variety of stylistic changes as King jumps back and forth from voice to voice and story to story. King integrates the storyteller voice by strategically spreading those pieces out throughout the story; this acts as a constant reminder of oral literature, and brings attention back to the atmosphere of traditional storytelling. There is “no real beginning, no middle, and no end [in Green Grass Running Water] – it is a continuous cycle that is always beginning again, as the world itself is being re-created, through story” (Chester 46). Here, Chester sees how the frameless structure of King’s novel elaborates further on Robinson’s idea of story presentations. After the introduction of Green Grass, King alters his writing techniques by switching to a more academic style with increased fluidity. Vast amounts of dialogue still remain, but it is connected to the rest of the writing in a fashion that is easier to follow. Chester notes King’s heavy use of dialogue as well, and also comments on how the relationship between writer and reader is imitated through dialogue between storyteller and audience.

Overall, Robinson distinctly influences King’s writing style, but King strays away from an informal voice in order to artistically portray the story he needs to tell.

Works Cited:

Chetser, Blanca.  “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature. 161/162, 1999. 44-61.

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

Paterson, Erika. ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, 2013. Web. 13th April. 2014.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

Question 1:

In “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England”, Harry Robinson uses a variety of literary techniques to mimic oral literature.

Reading the story silently in my head was difficult. Unlike other academic texts, where syntax assists the fluidity of the language, Robinson chooses an arrangement that makes me double-guess my reading. Grammar errors, incomplete sentences, a limited vocabulary, and repeated phrases, are the initial issues I pick up in my internal reading as an academic. The short, choppy sentences adds emphasis and emotion to the story, and also creates most of my problems as I read in my head. These sentences are clearly meant to be read in an oral fashion. After reading the story out loud, I immediately noticed the difference with the presentation of the story. The sentence structure forces me to slow down, pause after each period, and put more emphasis on certain words. He selectively chooses where to incorporate grammar mistakes. He shows this kind of placement when he says “They never think about it. They never thought to report that stranger” (Robinson 69). Here, Robinson purposefully uses “think” in its incorrect form in the first sentence, and correctly uses the right tense, “thought”, in the sentence immediately following. He goes back and forth with correct and incorrect grammar; this quality of writing breaks down the narrow-minded reader who follows strict guidelines, and requires an open-minded reading – similar to the imaginative state of mind necessary to fully indulge in an oral telling of a story.

This type of story reminds me of Di Brandt’s poem “but what do you think my father says“. Unfortunately, I am unable to find a web version of the whole poem, but I have linked you to a criticism of her work. In this poem, Brandt removes all punctuation, allowing the reader free reign on interpreting sentences as they see fit. This kind of writing, like Robinson’s, forces the reader to slow down and verbally read in order to grasp the full meaning of the piece. The meanings in Brandt’s poem differ based on the way it is punctuated, and which words you choose to emphasize. This changes interpretations – like how interpretations are changed based on silent and oral readings.

Robinson uses informal language to create a storytelling effect. He uses words like “’em” (Robinson 67), and phrases like “you write it down just the points, like” (Robinson 73), showing the casual tone of the story.  It was necessary for me to read out loud to appreciate Robinson’s syntax choices to recreate oral literature. The language is casual, and similar to the words used in day-to-day conversation. While I initially judged the narrow range of vocabulary, I realized in my reading out loud that it was done purposefully to initiate a conversational atmosphere and oral quality.

I read the story to my mother. Seeing as this was the third time engaging with the story, and I knew what to expect through this text, and I did not encounter the problems I initially had. I noticed that the speed of my presentation got progressively slower through each exercise. My silent reading was quick and analytical, with the exception of re-reading troubled phrases; reading out loud was significantly slower, and involved much more of the qualities King hoped to embed with this verbal telling; reading out loud to my mother was slightly slower, most of that caused by overemphasizing certain words and taking longer pauses between sentences. This shows how my increased familiarity with the story (as well as an oral presentation verses silent reader) creates a real-life story atmosphere.

Robinson imitates storytelling through the presenter in many ways, one of which is through engaging with the audience. He asks questions, like “Who? What is it?” (Robinson 65) and “Do you know what the Angel was? Do you know?” (66).  These questions are directed towards the listener, and is a method used to increase the interaction between presenter and receiver. The overuse of casual language is a quality of storytelling; for example, Robinson uses the word “so” on every page. While “so” implies an air of informality through an internal reading, it shows a storytelling quality recognized through an oral version, as if the story is merely continuing on and on. The sentence “Shouldn’t be that way” (Robinson 70) particularly stood out when I read it out loud to my mother. The lack of “it” at the beginning of the sentence is a conversational cue to show emotion and passion – something that I missed in my first two readings of the story. Like real story telling, where you do not have a piece of paper with the words written neatly down upon it, I also noticed myself looking up and making more eye contact with my mother. Familiarity plays a big role in this; as in real storytelling, stories are tweaked through each regurgitation.

Overall, I found this exercise enlightening. Robinson’s usage of syntax forces the reader to appreciate the different effect reading in your head makes to reading out loud. At the end, I tried reading the story in my head one last time, and found myself mumbling the words verbally regardless.

References:

“Nationality and Belonging in Mennonite Women’s Writing: Di Brandt’s Poetry and Criticism.” Academia.edu. Web. 14 Apr. 2014. <http://www.academia.edu/4248193/_Nationality_and_Belonging_in_Mennonite_Womens_Writing_Di_Brandts_Poetry_and_Criticism._>.

Robinson, Harry. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England.” Living by Stories: a Journey of Landscape and Memory. Ed. Wendy Wickwire. Vancouver: Talonbooks, 2005. 64-85.

Question 1: First stories tell us how the world was created. In The Truth about Stories, King tells us two creation stories; one about how Charm falls from the sky pregnant with twins and creates the world out of a bit of mud with the help of all the water animals, and another about God creating heaven and earth with his words, and then Adam and Eve and the Garden. King provides us with a neat analysis of how each story reflects a distinct worldview. “The Earth Diver” story reflects a world created through collaboration, the “Genesis” story reflects a world created through a single will and an imposed hierarchical order of things: God, man, animals, plants. The differences all seem to come down to co-operation or competition — a nice clean-cut satisfying dichotomy. However, a choice must be made: you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right? That’s the thing about creation stories; only one can be sacred and the others are just stories. Strangely, this analysis reflects the kind of binary thinking that Chamberlin, and so many others, including King himself, would caution us to stop and examine. So, why does King create dichotomies for us to examine these two creation stories? Why does he emphasize the believability of one story over the other — as he says, he purposefully tells us the “Genesis” story with an authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” story with a storyteller’s voice. Why does King give us this analysis that depends on pairing up oppositions into a tidy row of dichotomies? What is he trying to show us?

———————————————————————

King uses dichotomies to show those from a Western society how different perspectives can alter the overall message, tone, and opinion of – in this case – a creation story.

King intentionally presents both creation stories in a different manner as a way to create a division between the two. Charm’s story is told in an imaginative storyteller’s voice, and goes on for ten pages; the story of Genesis “maintain[s] a sense of rhetorical distance and decorum” (King 22), and lasts a mere page and a half. The text itself if broken up into many smaller paragraphs and dialogue in The Earth Diver, whereas the story of Adam and Eve is simply a couple blocks of straight prose. Already, a dichotomy is being formed by the direct contrasts King incorporates. It is much easier to accept “clean cut” (Paterson) choices, but allowing yourself to believe in a one-or-the-other ideal leaves us oblivious to deeper meanings and issues that still exist. “Good vs evil”, “rich vs poor”, and “black vs white” (King 25) are all dichotomies that go from one end of the spectrum to the other, without acknowledging that there is indeed a degree of middle ground in between. The two stories have different values attached to them, and King purposefully presents them in contradicting ways to emphasize such differences.

I believe that truly open-minded people are the most difficult to come by – and I am not embarrassed to admit that I myself fall short in this category. When I say open-minded, I am referring to a person who can put their own judgments aside, see, respect, understand, and accept another’s perspective, without integrating their own biased opinion. By “trust[ing] easy oppositions” (King 25), the complexity needed to comprehend the perspectives of others is extinguished.

Lutz talks about how it is “[difficult to comprehend] the performances of the indigenous participants” (32). This, again, goes back to understanding alternate perspectives. The story of Genesis is more formal and easier (depending on personal religious views?) to accept as reality compared to the story of the Earth Diver.

It is important to expand ones mind past the presentation and given information, especially with the media. A close friend of a friend of mine has been diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis (MS). Her case in particular does not effect her physically or mentally; she has good muscle control and is very intelligent. Her speech, however, is much slower and slurred. One day, she was biking down the street, and a news crew asked to interview her about a political issue occurring at the time. She answered their questions, and, being the open person she was, also explained her speech impairment and struggle with MS. The reporter then asked her about the new bike she was riding, and they spoke briefly about that. Later that night, she watched the news hoping the reporter included her interview in their story. Instead of using her for their political story, the news channel chose to use the footage of her talking about her bike at the end of the program as the happy-go-lucky ending to their show. It was captioned “woman with Multiple Sclerosis”. Not only did they exclude the part of her actually explaining her condition, but they spun the story to emphasize her slurred speech and make her appear blissfully ignorant.

While this is not directly related to dichotomies, I do believe it is relatable to King’s message about the importance of perspectives, and how the presentation of information in crucial in storytelling. Unfortunately I cannot find a clip of the interview, but it is horrifying to know what news channels will do to create stories they believe will please their target audience. Knowing her side of the story changes MY OWN PERSPECTIVE on things I see on the news – and also makes me question how much truth is in their stories.

Works Cited

Lutz, John. “First Contact as a Spiritual Performance: Aboriginal — Non-Aboriginal Encounters on the North American West Coast.” Myth and Memory: Rethinking Stories of Indigenous-European Contact. Ed. Lutz. Vancouver: U of British Columbia P, 2007. 30-45. Print.

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 2:2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies Canadian Literary Genres. University of British Columbia, Web. 04 April 2014. <https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl470/unit-2/lesson-2-2/>.

“What Is Multiple Sclerosis? What Causes MS?” WebMD. Web. 05 Apr. 2014. <http://www.webmd.com/multiple-sclerosis/guide/what-is-multiple-sclerosis>.