“Write a blog that hyper-links your research on the characters in GGRW using at least 10 pages of the text of your choice. Be sure to make use of Jane Flicks’ GGRW reading notes on your reading list.”
From Mirror News online
Pages 414 – 424, 1993 edition.
King is the master of hidden references (hidden, that is, if you don’t attempt to decipher them). As Fee and Flick point out, Green Grass Running Water arouses the readers desire to understand the allusions, jokes, and unanswered questions throughout the novel. King combines several networks of cultural knowledge within his story, expecting that every reader is familiar with at least one of the networks, allowing them to cross the borders between what they know and don’t know through analogy – training the reader in Coyote pedagogy (Fee & Flick, 131).
Within the last section of the novel, there are many “jokes” and allusions to cultural references that even my familiar network of knowledge could not help me decipher without the help of Flick. Several references in particular impressed me once I began to understand their meaning.
A Nissan, Pinto, and Karmann-Ghia
The first name mentioned within my chosen pages is Clifford Sifton, the character in the book responsible for the dam. It is thought by Flick that this is a reference to the real Sir Clifford Sifton, who ultimately was a promoter of aggressive settlement of Alberta and a supporter of the displacement of indigenous populations so their land could be obtained for Western settlement.
The three missing cars are then seen by Sifton and a colleague to be floating on Parliament Lake, heading towards Sifton’s dam. According to Flick, the three cars are potentially a reference to the three ships – the Niña, Pinta, and the Santa Maria – which were sponsored by Isabella of Spain to sail with Columbus on his voyage to the West Indies. Instead, however, he landed upon North and South America and is now often credited with their “discovery”. The cars are then thrown into the dam by Coyote’s earthquake, and the dam fractures. At this point, King states that “the water and the cars tumbled over the edge of the world” (King, 414), referencing the flat earth theory that has been (falsely) attributed to early explorers, such as those in Columbus’s day.
Columbus initially led the way for European colonization of the Americas, and Sifton only further promoted it within Canada. The dam built by Clifford Sifton (the character) could be a representation of the promotion of European colonization of Alberta and the lack of regard of the Blackfoot’s traditional territory. Through its destruction by the cars, Sifton and Columbus’s colonial narratives are also brought down by Coyote, an Indigenous narrative, and Indigenous treaty rights are reasserted.
Bill Bursum is also present in this section of the text. Like Sifton, King based Bursum from two real historical figures: Holm O. Bursum and his Bursum Bill of 1921, as well as William F. Cody. The Bursum Bill of 1921 was proposed to give land and water rights to non-indigenous settlers of Pueblo lands, stripping the Pueblo people of large portions of their traditional territory in New Mexico. The “Bill” portion of Bill Bursum also could refer to William F. “Buffalo Bill” Cody, who exploited Native American peoples in the name of entertainment. In the story, Bill Bursum purchased lakeside property, essentially claiming land that was not his, and also using the exploitation of the Indigenous land for economic benefit.
Coyote the Trickster
Coyote also has a large role in this section of the story. According to Flick, Coyote is a familiar trickster figure within the traditional oral literature of Indigenous peoples in North America. Tricksters have tremendous powers, creating the world, human life, and human culture, but were also associated with being rule-breakers who crossed borders and ignored social harmony and order (The Canadian Encyclopedia). In this section of the story, Coyote starts an earthquake which eventually causes the destruction of the dam. The 4 old Indians begin to chastise him for fooling around, Robinson Crusoe specifically mentioning “the last time [Coyote] fooled around like this…the world got very wet” (King 416). This statement is potentially implying that, rather than God causing Noah’s flood, it had been Coyote. Coyote also tries to argue that he had been helpful in the past, as shown in the following passage:
“But I was helpful too,” says Coyote. “That woman who wanted a baby. Now, that was helpful.”
“Helpful!” said Robinson Crusoe. “You rememberthat last time you did that?”
“I’m quite sure I was in Kamloops,” says Coyote.
“We haven’t straigtened out that mess yet,” said Hawkeye.
(King, 416)
In the first line, Coyote is taking claim for Alberta’s pregnancy. Robinson Crusoe’s statement is referencing the immaculate conception of Jesus in Mary, yet again implying that rather than God’s actions creating the birth of Jesus, it had actually been Coyote. Likewise, the last statement made by Hawkeye is suggested by Flick to be referencing the creation of Christianity (through the birth of Jesus). The tone of the statement inferences that Christianity was the problem that resulted from Coyote’s mistake in impregnating Mary, again breaking down a generally Western, colonial narrative.
References:
Fee, Margery, and Jane Flick. “Coyote Pedagogy”. Canadian Literature 131 -139. (1999). Web. http://canlit.ca/canlitmedia/canlit.ca/pdfs/articles/canlit161-162-Coyote(FeeFlick).pdf. Accessed 17 Mar. 2019.
Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999). Web. 17 Mar. 2019.
Hall, David. “Sir Clifford Sifton”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 5 April 2018. Web. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/sir-clifford-sifton. Accessed 17 Mar. 2019.
King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993.
Martinez, Matthew. “All Indian Pueblo Council and the Bursum Bill”. NewMexicoHistory.org. Web. http://newmexicohistory.org/people/all-indian-pueblo-council-and-the-bursum-bill. Accessed 17 Mar. 2019.
Pritchard, Heledd. “How did this car end up submerged in a lake in a country park?” Mirror. 17 Aug. 2015. Web. https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/weird-news/how-car-end-up-submerged-6270762. Accessed 18 Mar. 2019.
Robinson, Amanda. “Trickster”. The Canadian Encyclopedia. 5 April 2019. Web. https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/trickster. Accessed 8 Mar. 2019.
“William F. Cody”. PBS. Web. https://www.pbs.org/weta/thewest/people/a_c/buffalobill.htm. Accessed 17 Mar. 2019.
Hi Cassie! I was drawn to read your blog post because I think King’s use of the “Nissan. the Pinto, and the Kharmann Ghia” is one of the funnier/more clever allusions in the story, and that so much of the story seems to come back to this reference. I also can’t help but wonder about the role they play in the destruction of the dam. Like the ships for which they were named, these cars arrive in Native territory and cause terrible damage, and the Eli and the loss of his home seem to symbolize the greater loss of Indigenous lives and land. However, at the same time, the destruction of the dam is potentially a GOOD thing for the community, as the dam was a very contentious issue to begin with. Do you think King is making a point here? Water in general plays a really interesting role in this story- for Christians, water was the source of great destruction, as God sent a flood to destroy the land. In many Indigenous creation myths, water is the source of the beginning of life. How do you think King addresses the role of water in his story?
Hi Marianne,
I agree with you about the names of the three cars! When I was reading through the reading notes, this particular reference actually made me laugh once I read the names of the cars out loud (this one, and also the Lou, Ray, and Al reference), which drew me to chose this section of the book.
King is most definitely trying to make a point. You are right in pointing out the connection between the dam breaking. The three cars representing colonialism break the dam and cause the destruction of indigenous life and land. However, I also find it rather interesting how Eli’s main goal was to prevent the dam from operating, which he finally succeeds at through the dam’s destruction, but he also had to die in order to succeed in protecting his land and way of life. Perhaps King is referencing the sacrifices and long struggles many Indigenous groups have had to fight through in order to gain rights to their traditional territory?
As for the water, I believe it is representative of new beginnings throughout the novel. In the section of the book I picked in particular, after the dam breaks and the water rushes over the land, Norma begins to build a new cabin, Charlie decides to create a new relationship with his father, and Alberta’s life is heading in a new direction because of the pregnancy. But all preceded by the dammed water running over the land.
Hey Cassie,
It was wonderful reading your post. I noticed that Marianne focused on the “Nissan. the Pinto, and the Kharmann Ghia” so I thought I’d respond to your discussion about Coyote. I found Coyote to be such a fascinating character – I only recently learned about his role within Indigenous stories, and I think what he represented emphasizes the how differently Indigenous and Western groups think – Coyote is such a contradictory character, but it’s such a natural thing for him to be powerful and Godlike at times, but also a mischievous troublemaker. I found that I had to constantly stop reading and look things up to understand the allusions the four Indians were making regarding Coyote. I didn’t grow up with any knowledge of the bible, so I think a lot of King’s allusions to the bible were lost on me, so I learned a lot from your blog post. I’m wondering if this novel has had a lot of backlash from the Christian community – have you heard of any groups protesting this book and how it presents Christianity (and white colonizers)? Has King commented on it in interviews? While I was doing my research for this blog post, I found an article that was pointing out that the only reader of GGRW who would be able to catch every allusion and reference would be King himself. How do you think that affects readers – do you think some find this book too full of things they don’t understand? I know that at some points I became frustrated at how often I would have to stop reading and research because I didn’t understand. But I also think that’s part of the beauty of King’s work – he doesn’t just solve the problems for you, he prompts you to figure it out on your own. I just wonder if many readers aren’t up to that challenge. What do you think? I would love to hear your thoughts.
Thanks!
Hi Kirsten,
Thank you for your comment! I agree that at times it was challenging to fully understand some of King’s allusions without a little help. Many times, I wasn’t even sure what I should be researching to figure it out (until we were told to use the Flick’s reading notes that is). After reading your comment, I did a quick search to see what I could find in terms of backlash from the Christian community in regards of how Christianity is framed in the novel, but I couldn’t find anything (which also makes me wonder exactly how widespread across the country this book is).
As for whether people are up for the challenge of fully understanding King’s references, I think some are and some are not. When I was initially buying the book on Amazon, this exact thing came up (although I didn’t know it at the time). There was a handful of 1 star reviews among 5 star reviews, with people commenting that the book made no sense or was confusing. At the time I thought it was strange, but now that I’ve read the book, I understand that they are the reader’s who most likely didn’t take the time or didn’t even know to try to research the allusions and tease out the hidden meaning.
In general, I think most readers would be up to the challenge of interpreting King’s references, but a little bit of guidance would help all reader’s along the right path to understanding.
Hi Cassie,
Very well written and clear blog post, it was definitely a pleasure to read. I really liked your explanation of the Nissan, Pinto and Santa-Maria, because – admittedly, this reference completely slipped over my head and at the end of the novel I was still left questioning “but why did it need to be three cars?”. What I found particularly interesting was when you attributed cars to “White Culture” and how that destroyed the dam at the had of Coyote which is representing indigenous culture. First, I found it interesting because the novel evokes the stereotype that ‘real Indians don’t drive cars’ (King 334 iPhone addition) therefore separating the symbol from western culture. Regardless I think one can also argue that the cars alone destroyed the dam, and thus white/western culture destroyed its self (wether employed by Indigenous powers or not) and then the previous treaty rights were preserved. However I think the metaphor can be push beyond the treat rights and one can argue that western culture is unsustainable and will die, therefore Indigenous people will be able to freely observe their traditions once more.
Sandra
Hi Sandra,
Thanks for your comments! I think that for many of the references within King’s novel, there can be more than one reading, and therefore, more than one interpretation. Thank you for sharing your interesting interpretation on the three cars though, it certainly makes you consider what the cars mean in the book, as well as in today’s reality.