Green Grass Running Water by Thomas King is full of allusions and connections to the works beyond the novel itself. Below are a few that caught my attention:

N. Bates

For horror fanatics or anyone who has been on the internet for long enough, this allusion to Norman Bates in Hitchcock’s Psycho is obvious. An incredibly strange interaction accompanies this easter egg. Jane Flick notes that rather than Bates Motel like in the film, it is a “lodge, for Indian dwelling” because this novel is about native people (Flick 154). The allusion may not have a more significant role within the general plot or story, but it is a fun find.

 

Alberta Frank

Alberta Frank’s character is quite impressive both in terms of her name and as an individual. Her name alludes to the province of Alberta. The Province of Alberta, in colonial history, was a large part of the fur trade and later, a major agricultural centre. The floral emblem of Alberta is the Wild Rose, which has symbolic ties to life and vitality. Meanwhile, the provincial bird is the owl, which symbolizes wisdom and sacred knowledge. The surname Frank has two different allusions. The name Frank is of German origin, meaning free man. The word frank is a synonym for honest and sincere. All of these meanings seem to be incorporated into Alberta Frank’s character. The most exciting part of this character, however, is her desire for a child without marriage or a husband. This defies the social expectations made of women in which women should have both a man and a child. Moreover, single-parent homes, while common, are often frowned upon because some people believe that children need two parents to be raised well. Alberta’s defiance of these social expectations may suggest resistance against the misogyny, the mistreatment of women, or a starting point for a discussion in the women’s role and the patriarchy.

 

Pauline Johnson and The Shagganappi

Pauline ‘Polly’ Johnson appears in Green Grass Running Water alongside her book the Shagganappi. Polly’s friend introduces her to Latisha: “Polly here is part Indian. She’s a writer, too. Maybe you’ve read one of her books?” which Latisha denies and Polly simply replies “It’s all right, dear […] not many people have” (King 158). This interaction between the two may be alluding to the effort that it took for Johnson to be recognized as an author. The $20 tip under The Shagganappi, as noted by Jane Flick, maybe a way of telling Latisha to give her book a read. While there is no research material regarding her book on the internet other than E-book versions, Pauline Johnson is an incredibly influential person in Canada. According to Jane Flick, Johnson was the “daughter of a Mohawk father and white mother,” but what made her famous was “her public appearances – in buckskins- across the country to read her work” and share it with the people (Flick 154). Today, she is celebrated as an essential figure in sharing Indigenous and Canadian literary culture. She even has a monument in Stanley Park, Vancouver, BC.

 

 

Being Canadian versus Being American

The debate about being Canadian as opposed to being American is one of the most frequent contentions presented in popular media like CBC News and vigorously defended by Canadians. This tension is shown in the book as an issue of identity and personal values. Canadians are “dependent [… and] conservative,” while Americans are “independent […and] adventurous,” which very clearly indicates the divide between the two nationalities (King 156). Canadians are naive, innocent, and harmless, and Americans are assertive, judgemental, and rude. King makes the connection that being a specific nationality equates to having a particular set of traits. Latisha is shown holding her son and “whisper ferociously over and over again until it became a chant, a mantra, ‘You are a Canadian. You are a Canadian. You are a Canadian.” as if it will instil Canadian attitudes and behaviours into her son. It is an intense portrayal of stereotypes which may, in and within itself, allude to the perpetuation of native stereotypes in popular media.

 

Film Portrayals of Indigenous People

“‘A cowboy.’ And his mother had laughed. ‘Charlie, your father made a very good Indian’ […] Before the year was out, Portland was playing chiefs. Hy played Quick Fox in Duel at Sioux Crossing, Chief Jumping Otter in They Rode for Glory, and Chief Lazy Dog in Cheyenne Sunrise. He was a Sioux eighteen times, a Cheyenne ten times, a Kiowa six times, an Apache fives times, and a Navaho once” (King 151).

Charlie reminisces the story his mother told him about his father’s career as an actor in Portland, Oregon. During the 90s, Portland and Hollywood produced many films that had Indigenous people. These portrayals were racist and perpetuated negative stereotypes about Indigenous people. As noted in the novel, a native actor would act as members of tribes he was not a part of at the insistence of directors. While it can be argued that a good actor can play any role, this emphasizes the lack of care that the producers had about Indigenous peoples and cultures. The movies often portrayed all Indigenous tribes as one entity rather than as separate tribes, which further displaced Indigenous identity in film. The negative and ignorant representations affected the way the public responded to the natives. This response generated more negative stereotypes such as the notion that Indigenous people are lazy, or alcoholics, or drug-addicts without considering the long-standing history of violence or causes. Indigenous people became a stock character with one or two traits that became a universal symbol.

 

Continue reading →

Question 6:

Lee Maracle writes:

In order for criticism to arise naturally from within our culture, discourse must serve the same function it has always served. In Euro-society, literary criticism heightens the competition between writers and limits entry of new writers to preserve the original canon. What will its function be in our societies? (88)

In the following paragraphs in her essay, Maracle answers her question describing what she sees to be the function of literary criticism in Salish society. Summarize her answer and then make some comparisons between Maracle and Frye’s analysis of the role of myth in nation building.

 

Lee Maracle, in her article “Toward a national Literature: A Body of Writing,” discusses the function of literary criticism within her Salish community. She defines it as a “process of gathering together to find what is new and being born, to learn as an ensemble, to discover as a group” to begin taking apart the story (Maracle 85). The act of literary criticism is a communal experience of shaping the myth together to allow space for each member to confront their understanding and grow from it. Salish people tell stories through understanding the story, then inserting the self and the community within the context of the story, and followed by seeing the commonality that the story shares with the people. After it has been taken apart and put back together, the Salish will “assess its value to continued growth and transformation of the community and the nation” because every single story shared within their community is a piece of their history and beliefs (Maracle 85).

The criticism of stories for the Salish is about self-reflection and personal development concerning the community because each individual has a duty to the community and, by connection, a responsibility to the continual telling of stories. The Salish welcome new stories from old stories because it is changing to fit the passage of time. The new ones are more fitting as guiding principles for the community because the new stories are attuned to new ways of life. This is a stark contrast from the European tendency to exclude and limit the creation of new stories while striving to protect and covet old stories with outdated beliefs. Salish myths give space for the community to grow with time while Europeans are obsessed with nostalgia and a glorified past – the latter is an idea explored by Northrop Frye

Northrop Frye, in “Conclusion to a Literary History of Canada,” explores the struggles of Canadian identity and nation-building as a result of the lack of myth. Frye explains the lack of renowned Canadian Literature and attributes it to the lack of connection that Canadian Literature has to place. The writing from Canada does not connect readers but instead shares a generic Western experience that is not specific to Canada; as such, the literature cannot develop the Canadian identity. Myths are a literary tradition of place that “become structural principles of storytelling, its mythical concepts, sun-gods and the like, become habits of metaphorical thought,” which provide a basis for the creation of original stories (Frye 234). Canada lacks that. Canadian history is not rooted in the place of Canada but rather in the experiences endured on Canadian soil like colonialism, confederation, or the immigration of people. Nothing is connecting Canada to its creation because those are stories known only to the Natives. These stories have been destroyed by the murder and assimilation of Native peoples. Most countries have national myths, but Canada will probably never will. Canadian writers today write from a place of experience or emotion connected to a history of the books they have read. These pasts are linked to Europe; thus, the stories from Canada are mostly monotonous do not define Canada.

Maracles highlights the importance of myth in her culture and, thus, as a part of her identity. The Salish stories simultaneously build up her community and her sense of self. The stories connect her to her people, to the land, and her nation, which helps create her identity. Frye, on the other hand, emphasizes the fact that the lack of myth in Canada makes it hard to create that link to place and self. Canada cannot define itself without correlation to other countries because Canada does not have an original myth. Without the myth, Canadians cannot feel connected to Canada in the fundamental ways that the natives do to the land. Both Maracles and Frye emphasize similar arguments – myth is crucial to nation-building because each myth lays a concrete foundation for a people to connect to in building their community; without the myths, there is nothing substantial and thus, no specific identity.

 

Continue reading →

Question 3: What are the major differences or similarities between the ethos of the creation story or stories you are familiar with and the story King tells in The Truth About Stories?

“The Earth Diver” is a native creation story about the formation of Earth as we know it. Thomas King’s version is a simple tale about a woman who fell through a hole and gave birth to a set of twins who then formed Earth with the help of some sea creatures. The Greek creation story is a little more complicated than that. The story begins with Chaos, the beginning of all things, and from Chaos came Gaia (Earth) and her siblings like Eros (love). From here, Gaia gave birth to Ouranos (the Sky), and through their relationship, created the Titans. Gaia then gave the Titans some siblings like the Cyclops and the Hecatoncheires (Hundred Armed Monsters). The eldest Titan Kronos and his wife (and sister), Rhea gave birth to the pantheon of gods and Goddess worshipped by the Ancient Greeks. The pantheon of Gods and Goddesses created humans. Long story short, the creation of Earth predated humanity and predated the gods they worshipped by a long shot.

The main difference between the two stories is that The Greek creation story is not a single story like The Earth Diver. It is a long, convoluted myth that builds the creation of humanity through different layers and different stories. The creation of humanity is often told as a whole separate myth with an entirely different set of characters. Gaia, in this case, is her own entity and modifies herself to accommodate her children as she sees fit – building mountainous ranges and deep caverns. The Greek myths are also much more violent, and while the stories have different versions for different ages, the tales are always a tad gruesome. The Earth Diver story, on the other hand, is very different from the Greeks. As noted, King presents it as a singular myth that explains all of creation, from Earth to humans, in one sitting. It is a story of harmony and community. All of the sea creatures extend a helping hand with no judgement and no insincerity. Moreover, the Greek creation myth has a pantheon of powerful gods with divine power as opposed to the community effort between nature, the earth diver, her twins, and human beings. The differences between the creation myths are more technical due to the cultural differences between the Greeks and the natives.

The similarities are more thematic and symbolic. Both creation stories involve the notion that creation began from a woman. In “The Earth Diver,” the creation of Earth as we know it comes from the birth of twins who then mould and shape the land. In the Greek myth, Chaos, a female deity, gives birth to Gaia, also female, who gives birth to the gods and moulds the Earth. In both cases, women are the primary source of creation and the beginning of life. Moreover, this is a reflection of the culture or society that created these stories. The Greek myths are violent, which suggests a likeness to the violence of Greek warriors. “The Earth Diver” focuses on creation being a communal effort in which all members must help, which is a trait noted in many native tribes – an emphasis on community and family. The creation story is a foundation of beliefs and teachings about cultural histories about each culture. Although there are some differences between the two creation stories, the essence is still the same because all creation myths serve the same purpose and thus, vitally important to society.

 

Continue reading →