2) Coyote Pedagogy is a term sometimes used to describe King’s writing strategies (Margery Fee and Jane Flick). Discuss your understanding of the role of Coyote in the novel.
In “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water“, Margery Fee and Jane Flick consider the ways in which the Coyote interacts with (and breaks down) borders. Fee and Flick insist that King’s novel introduces the “pleasure of moving across the border separating insider and outsider” (Fee & Flick, 132). In Green Grass Running Water, readers must navigate the borders between the known and unknown. Coyote, a Transformer, breaches these borders throughout the story. In this way, “Coyote pedagogy” refers (at least partially) to “training in illegal border-crossing” (Fee & Flick, 131).
“Anyone who wants to understand (or teach) the novel has to be prepared to cross the political border between the two countries, the disciplinary borders between English literature, Native Studies, and Anthropology, the literary border between Canadian and American literature. The most important border is between white ignorance and red knowledge” – Fee & Flick, 132
My understanding of Coyote’s role in the novel was greatly informed by the ways in which he crossed borders, often deconstructing them and subverting their significance. In this post, I will focus on Coyote’s interruptions into the borders that protect European understandings of religion, specifically Christianity.
The very beginning of the novel provides an example of how the character of Coyote breaks down the barriers of European Christianity. King’s novel begins with “So. In the beginning, there was nothing. Just the water. Coyote was there, but Coyote was asleep” (King, 1). The biblical creation story starts by saying “In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1). Therefore, immediately a direct connection is being drawn between the two narratives and a border is addressed.
The bible describes God creating life on earth while Coyote’s creation is a manifestation of his dream. Coyote declares that Dream can be a dog, however, in the dog’s confusion, the word gets turned around into god and Coyote allows him to be “a big god” (2). Therefore, King has Coyote cross a border into European understandings of God (through the “in the beginning” reference) and then reconstruct God as a by-product of Coyote (Coyote Dream). I find it particularly interesting to consider the significance of Dream being deemed a dog (beyond it being god spelled backward). Dogs are domesticated descendants of wild canines (such as coyotes and wolves) and so this is another way in which King can be seen to reconstruct God as a by-product of Coyote.
Another example of Coyote’s role as border-crosser occurs just after the dam breaks. Coyote immediately denies causing the disaster and Robinson Crusoe points out that “The last time [Coyote] fooled around like this the world got very wet” (King, 416). Robinson’s comment inserts Coyote into the Christian story in Genesis, in which God commands Noah to build an ark before flooding the earth. The character of Coyote subverts this narrative by providing an alternative one in which he was responsible for the floods.
Within the same passage, Coyote references being “helpful” to “That woman who wanted a baby” (416). Robinson reminds Coyote about the consequences of “the last time [he] did that” and Hawkeye comments that “[They] haven’t straightened out that mess yet” (416). Once again, the character of Coyote destabilizes borders (specifically the ones between European religious stories and Indigenous narratives) by crossing them. In this portion of the passage, it is suggested that Coyote was responsible for Mary’s pregnancy with Jesus. This intersects with (and contradicts) the story of her immaculate conception from God in the bible. This would indicate that the “that” which Hawkeye refers to is Christianity itself. This marks a complete deconstruction and removal of the border. By having Coyote become integral to the story of Christianity, King makes it impossible to separate Coyote’s narrative from European religious narratives.
Therefore, my understanding of Coyote in this novel was greatly informed by the work of Flick and Fee and by understanding Coyote as a character who demonstrates the border-crossing that King is challenging his readers to do. This understanding was especially based on the ways in which Coyote breaks down the (very solid) barriers that surround European ideas of God. By inserting Coyote into stories that are typically isolated within the borders of Christianity, King uses this character to challenge the divisions between European narratives and Indigenous narratives.
Found this online: credit to https://mackydraws.tumblr.com/post/165212868454/project-i-did-for-my-indigenous-literature-class
For the sake of this blog posts length, I will not expand on the following two points too much but I felt they were important to add:
- Fee and Flick refer to illegal border-crossing and so I would like to highlight the significance of the term “coyote” in that context, as it is used to describe people who help to smuggle migrants over borders illegally.
- Throughout this post I refer to Coyote as “he/him” in order to avoid repetition of the character’s name, however, I don’t think Coyote was ever referred to with gendered pronouns throughout the novel. This is another interesting connection to Christianity, which teaches that God has no gender.
Works Cited:
Eva,
That infographic of the characters in GGRW is genius! I am definitely going to be using that for the rest of the class – thank you for including it.
Your references to how Coyote subverts Euro-Christian understanding of Creation and spirituality makes me feel like an Indigenous telling of these stories reveal the truth or secrets that the Christian renditions are keeping quiet, as if the same stories are being told from opposing perspectives. Telling the Biblical Genesis story with the inclusion of the creation of God as a product of Coyote makes God seem less almighty, and if the Bible included Coyote was the true “father” of Jesus Christ, followers of the Bible might be less committed to the story. If we are to argue that God in King’s novel is the same Christian God as the Bible, this makes the latter feel a lot less frightening and is less mysteriously powerful than generally perceived. Why do you think the Indigenous stories portray these characters and occurrences in a lighthearted manner? Do you think this has more to do with challenging Christian spirituality, or is it simply a byproduct of the nature of Indigenous storytelling?
Hi Jacob,
That’s a very interesting question! I perceived the lighthearted tone as being both a catalyst for and a result of the challenge to Euro-Christianity that is being made. However, I think it is likely that it could be attributed to the nature of Indigenous storytelling as well. I also think that the constant interruption of humour throughout the text contributes to making these characters and occurrences seem less frightening and more tangible.
Thanks for building on my ideas and for your good questions!
Hi Eva!
That is a very interesting explanation of Coyote’s interaction with Christianity in Green Grass Running Water. I agree, Coyote’s presence in Christian genesis stories does subvert their significance. For a long portion of history, in Europe and beyond, Christianity was seen as the only truth and therefore its stories were thought of history. Stories from other religions and beliefs, such as Indigenous stories, were viewed as pagan myth. Coyote’s presence in Christian stories and King’s interpretation of characters like Noah function to bend and break the borders between Indigenous and European and their reputation as myth and history. Do you think it was crucial to this process that Coyote’s character be as humorous and relatable as he is? It seems to me that the relaxed and funny nature of Coyote’s character and his interactions with religious stories is crucial to making the Christian stories feel less untouchable and unquestionable.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks,
Emily
Hi Emily,
I absolutely agree with what you said in your last sentence. Your comments and questions align closely with what Jacob asked me about (and what I replied with). I think by having Coyote be a humourous and fallible character, King encourages readers to step away from that idea of Christianity as being “untouchatble” or “unquestionable”. I think it is really vital that King did not interrupt the Christian idea of god with another figure that appears god-like when viewed through a settler lens. By doing so, I think his deconstruction of and challenge to these structures is empowered.
Thanks!
Eva
Hi Eva,
This blog was a very interesting read, I think it is one of my favorites so far!
I like how you pointed out the parallelism between the creation story in Genesis and in Green Grass Running Water. I also noticed this correspondence, but particularly found your point about dogs being domesticated wild canines intriguing. Like you said, how Coyote’s Dream is manifested as a dog definitely helps to represent God as a “byproduct of Coyote” and ultimately, together with the “in the beginning” similarity, allows Coyote to cross this border into a European perspective on God.
My question is regarding your point about God being genderless. Because of the use of terms like “Almighty Father” and the pronouns “He/Him” to refer to God, there is no surprise to me that (according to your link) only 1% of the survey participants think God is female, and 36% think God is male. Why do you think, after all these centuries that Christianity has been in existence, that God has mostly been portrayed as male, and the argument that God is genderless has not been supported enough by the general population? Is it merely a function of most established societies and nations around the world being patriarchal (going back to the writing of the Bible), or is there something else that could explain it?
Chino
Hi Chino,
I think the portrayal and interpretation of God as being male is largely due to the dominance of patriarchal structures within Christian societies. However, by identifying God as a male, Christianity likely ended up enforcing patriarchal structures for centuries. I also think that people have come to really connect with the idea of God as The Father and The Son (within the theory of the Holy Trinity) and so are reluctant to view “Him” as anything other than that now. Perhaps also, by viewing God as an entity with gender, it makes “Him” easier to try to comprehend and know.
Thanks!
Eva
Hi Eva,
I really enjoyed your exploration of Coyote’s role in “Green Grass, Running Water”. When reading the novel I was struck by the way placed King placed Coyote as the primary actor in many key elements of the Christian mythos. Specifically Coyote serves as the catalyst for many of these events. In many of them he acts as a creating or providing figure, he aids Mary in having a child and also allows the Dream to be a “big god”. What do you see as the implications for Coyote’s actions as a enabler for Christianity.
Hi Sophie,
I think by having Coyote as a catalyst for many events and as an enabler for Christianity, King is working to interrupt dominant, European narratives (that are so often based in Christianity). By having an Indigenous interruption into these stories (via Coyote), King demonstrates the ways in which these narratives can both intersect and be warped. I think ultimately he does so to prove that Indigenous narratives are just as legitimate as settler/European narratives.
Thanks!
Eva
Hi Eva! This post was so helpful to read. I have been so inundated with western ideas and ideals about the Coyote. Where I grew up Coyotes are everywhere and we had drills in school as to how to protect yourself from them in the trails. We were taught to stand tall and be loud and that they would run because they were more afraid of us than them. Through this curse I have been exploring Coyote as the transformer, nor he or she, nor good or bad. Coyote’s role as border crosser is a great thing to add and to think about. How do you place intention with Coyote? Do you have any ideas of Coyotes intention or do you think that is irrelevant?
Hi Sarah,
I also grew up in close proximity to coyotes and so, like you, was familiar with certain narratives of them. I was familiar with their characterization as Tricksters but have come to really appreciate understanding them as Transformers instead, as it has less of a negative connotation. I think the reader’s interpretation of Coyote’s intention is very different based on whether they identify Coyote as Trickster or Transformer. I found it difficult to pin-point Coyote’s intention. I felt that King’s intention was to use Coyote as a boundary-breaker and an interrupter, but determining the intention of the actual character was more difficult for me.
Thanks for your thoughtful comment!
Eva
Hi Eva!
Firstly, I would like to say how wildly impressed I am with your understanding and interpretation of the Coyote. I was particularly intrigued by your infographic. I answered the same question but took a very different approach, focussing less on the religious aspect and more so on the Coyote’s character and mystery. You picked up on a variety of things that I did not, such as God being spelled backwards as “dog”. I am curious – are you religious? In addition to doing research both through Flick and other sources, did you pick up on some of these allusions independently? If so, how did it make you feel to observe Coyote crossing such boarders?