Uneven story telling in Canada

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.

 

When one first reads Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water, it is almost impossible to understand all of the novel’s depth and illusions.  Although due to a religious upbringing I was able to immediately understand most of the Judea-Christian references, I was amazed when reading Jane Flick’s “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water” that there was so much more to his illusions regarding Indigenous culture, Coyote Pedology, as well as references to literature and film.  I am examining pages 640-657 of the iPhone edition of the book (for reference it made it about double the length, but I believe its around page 270 in the print  novel) 

The first segment begins with Buffalo Bill Bursum examining the map of Parliament Lake.  Buffalo Bill Bursum’s name refers to two men infamous for their hostility towards American Indians: Senator Holm O. Bursum and Buffalo Bill.  In the novel, Bursum is one of the first people to buy a lake front property set around where the damn is to be constructed.  Senator Bursum is most infamously remembered for also having “his eye on the map” (Flick 148) and proposing the discriminatory Bursum Bill which legally justified stealing land from the Native Americans.  Further intertwining the names, Buffalo Bill, also known as William R Cody is commonly known on and off screen as an aggressor towards Indians. In 1857 Cody became one of the most celebrated Indian fighter on the Great Plains after he killed a Native American who helped attack the cattle drive on which Cody was working.  His reputation continued to grow as it is believed that he had engaged in 16 Indian fights, including the famous scalping of the Cheyenne warrior Yellow Hair.  Buffalo Bill  also acted in many Western movies, further discriminating against Native Americans, as he portrayed the stereotypical cowboy.  King makes additional references regarding Buffalo Bill, also known for killing well over 4,000 buffalos, that were subtly incorporated into the text including a moment when he depicts the rangers as “galloping off looking for Indians and buffalo… and other good things to kill” (King 167)  King further characterizes Bursum as one that “had lived with Indians all his life” (King 644) and has strong ties to Eli’s family.  However despite this he is dreaming of his land on Parliament Lake.  King suggests that regardless of how kind the ‘White Man’ is to ‘Indians’ all he  ever strives for is more land.

One of Bursum’s largest feuds throughout the novel is with Eli Stands Alone, an owner of a little cabin on Parliament Lake, blocking the construction of the new damn, and subsequently the construction of Bursum’s new lake front property. Eli Stands Alone’s name and character draws reference to Elijah Harper who blocked the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord in 1990.  The name also references Blood Elder, Pete Standing Alone, who was — ironically, a Native American Cowboy, who although was more comfortable in “White mans culture” he made a great effort to help his community of the Kainai nation, and ensure that traditions are continued to be passed on.  As Eli Stands Alone says to Bursum, “As long as the grass is green and the waters run” (King 643) implying that traditions will always be passed on, emulating the actions of Pete Standing Alone. 

As Long as the Grass is Green and the Waters Run the title phrase from the novel only  appears four times throughout the book (not a very surprising number of times considering the connection of the story to the medicine wheel). The phrase is significant as it contains grammar that was historically used in reference to treaties between the Canadian and American governments and Indian Nations as a way to show the governments sincerity in regards to land treaties.  It appears at this point in Kings novel in conversation between Eli and Bursum as a reply to Bursum contesting Eli’s property, saying you “cant stay there forever.” (King 643) Eli stands alone admits that “It was a nice phrase, all right. But it didn’t mean anything.  It was a metaphor.  [He] knew that.  Every Indian on the reserve knew that”. (King 643) King then references treaties in the novel, saying that they are merely a contract, not sacred documents, and no one signs a contract for forever.  In saying this, King is criticizing the government for how they have approached land feuds between Indigenous people and the government as most of the referenced treaties even today in regards to land disagreements over projects such as the pipelines, often refer back to treaties made over a century ago such as the Indian Act.  As Flick points out, the irony with this phrase being attributed to  dam is that “The building of dams kill[s] the grass and stop[s] the running of waters.” (Flick 158) 

The next segment beings with Coyote trying to learn the story of Thought Woman in a conversation with the character “I”. Coyote, a familiar figure in Indigenous story telling is a specifically prominent part of Navajo Methology is not only a trickster (the most common understanding), however is the holder of tremendous powers.  They created the world, instituted human life and culture and are capable of being brave or cowardly, conservative or innovative, wise or stupid. (Flick 143)  Coyote is arguably the most prominent figure in the entire novel as they are they only charter to consistently interact with every plot line throughout the book.  At this stage in the novel Coyote is being portrayed as slightly childish and foolish. It is very condescending when “I” tells Coyote that their “very impressed” (King 647) that Coyote can remember the smallest segment of story they’ve been hearing for the past 600 (300) pages, it is reminiscent of how an adult will talk to a child for completing a simple task. As well, as the dialogue continues and Coyote asks: “did I get it right” ‘I’ replies that they did not, therefore making Coyote seem foolish.

This segment continues with the return to the story of Thought Woman.  The reader was previously introduced to Though woman — another character from Najavo Mythology, at the begging of part three as Robinson Cursoe tells their version of the creation story.  Thought Woman was last seen “float[ing] right out of [the] River and into the sky” (King 554)  and her story continues after she floats ashore after a long time floating around the ocean. 

Ashore, Thought Woman meets A. A. Gabriel who first is introduces himself on his card as a part of the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) which is commonly known as Canada’s version of the secret service.   King is alluding to the disproportionate amount of government surveillance attributed to watching it’s First Nations peoples . However, because this is a ‘well kept secret’ when Thought Woman saw the CSIC job title on Gabriel’s card he immediately turns it over which then reads: “A. A. Gabriel Heavenly Host” (King 649).  A. A. Gabriel’s character is a direct reference towards the Christian angel Gabriel, whom appears in the New testament in the book of Daniel and the book of Luke. The Angel Gabriel is most famous for appearing to the Virgin Mary and telling her that she will birth Christ. Gabriel then continues to asks incriminating and discriminatory questions that tie back to the connection to his work with the CSIS.  He first asks if Though Woman is apart of the American Indian Movement.  (King 651) Flick explains that “King substitutes AIM for the Communist party. This question was asked in the witch hunt investigations of Senator Joseph McCarthy’s Committee on Un-American Activities” (Flick 160)  He also asks it she is carrying “and firearms…alcohol or cigarettes?” (King 651) further stereotyping Native people as well trying to target her for possible “Indian goods” smuggling.

The card that A. A. Gabriel handed Thought Woman begins to sing: “hosanna da, hosanna da, hosanna da”. (King 650) Hosanna da, is a Hebrew phrase first taken from the bible and is used in both Judaism and Christianity to mean help, deliver or our saviour.  However past the base meaning the two religions have used the phrase in different ways.  Judaism uses the term as a name for the final day of Sukkot, which is call Hosanna Raba, (הושאנע רבא) (the great hosanna).  It is also used in some prayers including one during the passover holiday which is chanted: Anna Adoni Hosanna da ((אנא יי הושאנע נא which means “O – lord, deliver us!.“ Christianity however, uses the phrase mainly in song.  Coyote even says in regards to the card’s singing “I know that song…Hosanna da, in-in the highest, hosanna da forever…” (King 650) however “I” responds by saying “you got the wrong song…This song goes ‘Hosanna da, our home on Natives’ land” (King 650)  This is an example where King uses contextual decolonization as he makes a parody out of both a religious Christian hymn and the patriotic Canadian Anthem by joining them together.  Instead of the classic words “Our home and native land” King shows that Christians were not natives on this land, however they did steal it from Native people by saying “Our home on Native’s land”.   

Amidst the conversation with Thought Woman, A. A. Gabriel pulls out the White Paper from his briefcase, and returns it quickly by saying “wrong paper, that one is for later.” (King 652)  The White Paper is a policy that  Pierre Trudeau’s government presented int 1969 purposing the removal of Indian Status, thus severing the legal bond the Canadian government has with their Indigenous community. The White Paper treaty also says “as long as the grass is green and the waters run”(King 652) This element connects Cursoe’s creation story to the earlier conversation between Bursum and Eli. 

This portion of the story concludes with a drawn out conversation between Thought Woman and A. A. Gabriel regarding her virginity. This is done as a method to compare Thought Woman with the Virgin Mary.  King begins this comparison with the renaming of Thought Woman to Mary.  Renaming was a common practice done by the ‘White Man’ to Indigenous people, this is contrasted later in the novel as Old Woman renames Christ as “Young Man Walking on Water” (King 839).  Gabriel asks Though Woman to sign a “Virgin verification form” (King 652) and pointing out where on the map she is going to have a baby.  However Though Woman naturally answers “I’m not pregnant”. (King 652)  The allusions towards virginity continue as Gabriel asks Thought Woman to take a photo next to the snake which is an image that is often associated with the Virgin Mary, as she is often seen standing on a snake head.  This allusion grows as King writes “Hello, says Thought Woman to Old Coyote.  What are you doing here? Beats me, says Old Coyote. But I would appreciate it if you don’t stand on my head.” (King 653)  Ironically however, in Judea-Christian beliefs, serpents also represent sexual desire, and in Buddhism it represents fertility.  Gabriel then gets Thought Woman to lie down and begins reciting the Christian prayer that the Angel Gabriel said to the Virgin Mary before her ‘immaculate conception’: “Hail Mary… Full of grace…Blessed art thou among woman…And blessed be the fruit…” (King 654) To this Thought Woman responds, “no absolutely not.” (King 654) This is significant as Coyote then says “So she really means yes, right” (King 655) which implies the lack of sexual consent that is prevalent in the Christian religion and bible.  Mary never agreed to have a child, never asked for it, Angel Gabriel just said it was going to happen. This is further supported as Gabriel then says “you really mean yes, right?” (King 655).  Appalled by the notion of implied heterosexual sex, Though Woman ups and leaves, concluding the scene with Gabriel yelling after her “Theres lots of Marys in this world” and Coyote responding “But there is only one Thought Woman” (King 656) This further negates Christianity as it takes away the spectacle that is the Virgin Mary and attributes it to Thought Woman. 

————

TL;DR 

If this was only 10 pages of this novel, it is crazy to think how King organized all the allusions he wrote throughout the entirety of the novel.  This assignment definitely gave me a new appreciation for the complexity of the book, while making it harder to answer the question “so what is the book about”  

Thanks for reading!

 

Works Cited

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

Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. 18 March 2016.

“BURSUM, Holm Olaf, (1867 – 1953).” BURSUM, Holm Olaf – Biographical Information.  Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Certo, Joseph J. Di. “Buffalo Bill.” Encyclopædia Britannica. Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 22 Feb. 2019. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“What Was the Bursum Bill?” Study.com. Study.com. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Blakemore, Erin.  “The Truth Behind Buffalo Bill’s Scalping Act” Politics and History. JSTOR Daily. 26 Feb. 2017. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Ivits, Shantel, and Shantel. “BC Reads: Adult Literacy Fundamental English – Reader 4.” BC Reads Adult Literacy Fundamental English Reader 4.  Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“Meech Lake Accord Fails.” Your Museum. Your Stories. N.p., 17 June 2017. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

National Film Board of Canada. “Standing Alone.” National Film Board of Canada. N.p., 22 Apr. 2010. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“As Long as Grass Shall Grow and Water Run: The Treaties Formed by the Confederate States of America and the Tribes in Indian Territory, 1861.” American Indian Treaties Portal. N.p. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Cooper, Guy H. “Coyote in Navajo Religion and Cosmology.” The Canadian Journal of Native Studies VII, 2 (1987).  181-93. Print.

“Navajo Mythology | Navajo Code Talkers.” Interviews, Videos & More.  Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Intercontinental.Cry. “Why Does Canada Spy on Its Own Indigenous Communities?” Intercontinental Cry. N.p., 25 Sept. 2018. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Stewart, Don. “Who Is the Angel Gabriel?”. N. pag. Blue Letter Bible. Web. 1 Apr. 2019.

“American Indian Movement – AIM -.” AIM.  Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“Hosanna!, Please save Us! – הוׄשַׁע-נָא.” Hebrew Word of the Day.  20 June 2016. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

Worship, Hillsong. “Hosanna – Hillsong Worship.” YouTube. YouTube, 03 Aug. 2017. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“The White Paper 1969.” Indigenousfoundations. 01 Apr. 2019.

“Virgin Mary and Jesus Treading on Snake Art at AllPosters.com.” AllPosters.com. Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

“Serpents and Snakes.” Myths Encyclopedia.  Web. 01 Apr. 2019.

7. Describe how King uses the cyclical paradigm of the Medicine Wheel (and a little help from Coyote) to teach us to understand, or at least to try to understand the power behind the stories we tell ourselves.

The Medicine Wheel — though not originally an indigenous term, is a symbol used to described an Indigenous world view.   As one can see, the medicine wheel is divided up into four quadrants each representing different parts of one’s self and the world, and together the make up a wholistic and balanced life.  Although there are many versions of the medicine wheel, this is an example of an Anishinaabe wheel that include the nautical directions, (North, East, South West) healing herbs, (Sweet Grass, Tobacco, Cedar, Sage) parts of life, (Elder, Baby, Adolescent, Adult) parts of a person (Spirit, Mind, Body, Emotion) and more.   

King makes multiple connections between his story Green Grass, Running Water, and the symbol of the Indigenous Medicine Wheel.  Firstly, as Professor Paterson explains in lesson 3.2, the number four (representing the four quadrants of the wheel) is a symbol that is used repeatedly throughout the text.  “The novel has four sections, with four headings,…[and] Four Old Indians who narrate the stories of the four mythical women who fall from the sky.” (Paterson 3.2)  Additionally, as Professor Paterson pointed out, each of these four women correspond further to the medicine  as they each emulate the different stages in life as seen on the wheel: First Woman/ Birth, Changing Woman/ Youth, Thought Woman/ Parent, Old Woman/ Elder. (Paterson 3.2)

Furthermore, King also uses the symbol of the Medicine Wheel as a mechanism for the structure of the novel.  A major component of the wheel is that it is cyclical, it never ends.  Once there is death, someone is then reborn, the seasons never stop changing, and nighttime never fails to become morning…etc.  King takes this cyclical narrative and applies it to his novel.  The structure of the novel’s storytelling creates an interconnectedness between each of the four main plot lines of the story, (another four) the creation stories, the old Indians, the search for the Indians, and the story from the reserve.  This interconnectedness makes the story feel cyclical, as any at any point of plot progress, throughout the novel, the story  immediately changes  to a different plot, abolishing any notion of a linear story. This reflects the wheel as keeps the story cyclical and also  creates a feeling of  harmony and balance between each of the stories. 

Another way King creates a cyclical structure in his novel is by featuring a similar story at both the beginning and the end.  In the beginning of the novel, the Coyote asks the question “where did all that water come from?” (King 14).  That same question is the  posed in the final moments of the novel “but where did all the water come from?”  which ‘I’ responds “here’s how it happened” (King 1014).  Beginning the story in the same way as it ends immediately creates a cyclical structure, however by King ending the novel with a leading question that would suggest the the ‘I’ character was about to tell the same story we had just heard, makes the story not only seem as if it came full circle, but that it can keep doing circles over and over again, and that the cycle will never end — the same way the Medicine Wheel would never end. 

By creating this cyclical story King is trying to articulate to the reader the importance of stories in how they are able to stay with the reader/listener.  As we read in the truth about stories, all stories tell become “loose in the world” (Truth about Stories 10) and cannot ever be called back, they simply keep coming up in your life — the same way the Coyote continuously appeared through every plot line in the story.  Using the power that the story holds with the Medicine Wheel, the coyote is able to alter every point of the novel.  This is then expanded to the notion that any story that we hear, or learn, has the ability to alter any point of your life.

————

A personal regard to the Medicine Wheel:

I had never seen or heard of a medicine wheel before this lesson, however was surprised with how much the symbolism of the Medicine Wheel is showcased in my camp, even though I had no idea.  The ceremony called council ring, which I spoke of in my introductory post, has four different quadrants, each for the four sections of my camp, which sit in the four nautical directions, which represent the four stages of life, and each section wears one of the four colours shown.  

What I find incredibly interesting about tradition, and specifically in relation to my camp, is that people can continue a tradition however loose the ties to why it was made this way, however still follow it.  However there is a very special moment when one finds where that tradition came from, which is quite incredible and make one feel balanced and whole, the key ideas with the medicine wheel.  

Anyways thanks for reading, I was just thinking about this during the entire post and though I would share!

 

Works Cited

King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Bantam, 1994.

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

Paterson, Erika. “Lesson 3.2.” ENGL 470A Canadian Studies: Canadian Literary Genres May 2016. University of British Columbia, n.d. Web. 23 Mar 2019.

“The Medicine Wheel.” Curve Lake Cultural Centre. N.p., n.d. Web. 23 Mar. 2019.

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, and compares 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?

 

When reading the oral syntax of Green Grass, Running Water by Thomas King, one is immediately reminded of the similar structure and syntax in Harry Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England”.  While King emulates Robinson’s sentence structure, style of dialogue, and cyclical story line, King’s novel pushes further than Robinson’s work through the novel’s depth and King’s use of satire. 

Blanca Chester explains that “Robinson’s impact is obvious”(46), and when comparing the writing structure of each text that is definatly true.  It is clear that parts of King’s novel plays homage to Robinson’s work by tying in themes of oral story telling traditions.  Both authors use short, broken sentences to resemble the ways in which one would tell an oral story in order to grasp a listener’s attention.  Additionally, each author tends to write in a more colloquial manner.  They each use words such as “so”, “gonna” and “you know”, which are very casual and not often found in published pieces of writing. 

Secondly, both texts feature a large amount of back and fourth dialogue — in GGRW most is found in the parts about creation stories.  This dialogue is not limited to being between the characters in the novel, as it also expands to the reader/audience.  In both King’s and Robinson’s texts, the narrator asks multiple questions to the reader, and engages in a one-sided dialogue with them. Robinson writes: “Do you know what the Angel was? Do you know?” (66). Excessive dialogues, specifically those which address the reader is another tool King uses to echo the way one might be telling the story aloud. 

Furthermore, each author strays away from the classic linear storyline.  Whereas most novels, or written piece contain a beginning middle and end, (a notion which is heavily stressed when learning about stories at a young age. The BC curriculum stresses story structure in this linear and post-colonial way) both of these works follow a more cyclical story.  It is quite complicated trying to understand time, or simply reality in GGRW as the story jumps from a modern day context, to creation stories, all while the characters in each moment are interacting with one another, along with their story tellers.  This strongly challenges the notion of begging, middle, and end, as there isn’t a clear one.  

While the writing styles are quite similar, the texts tend to differ in regards to the depth and content (most likely largely due to the different lengths of the pieces). Both Robinson and King’s works challenge the relations between Indigenous and non-Indigenous ideologies, however the satire and back stories that King writes for his characters helps to further challenge themes of christianity throughout the novel as opposed to Robinson whom simply challenges the ideologies based on presenting both the Coyote and the King of England as political powers. 

First, through reading Jane Flick’s “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water” one is able to grasp the depth of the novel due to  every character in GGRW having a very specific historic connotation  attributed to each of them.   King  references these histories throughout the novel, not only through the character’s name but also in their actions.  An example of this includes  the back story to one of the Indian Elders, Robinson Crusoe.  Crusoe’s  name refers to the “narrative of a shipwrecked mariner, based on the true story of Alexander Selkirk”. (Flick 142)  Flick further explains that King also referenced the influencer’s actions as, Crusoe had a passion for making lists, which King mocks In GGRW by questioning if Crusoe “write[s] novels?”  And the Island responding “No…He writes lists.” (King 705)  King’s reason for using historical  references throughout the novel  is to provide  the opportunity to draw further connections between his work and a previous one.  Flick explains Cursoe’s back story by explaining that “Crusoe survives through ingenuity and finds spiritual strength through adversity…aided by his Man Friday, the “savage” he rescues from cannibals, and then Christianizes.” (Flick 142)  By noting the relationship of Crusoe to the savage that he later christianizes, one is able to further compare the relations between the Crusoe as an Indian, in comparison to any implication of Christianity throughout the novel.

Continuing with this theme, While Robinson’s character of God is seemingly simple,  God commands and then proceeds to provide Coyote the power to complete said task.  God is shown as an all powerful, all knowing, entity who’s actions show little regard for the people on earth.  King’s perception of God, provides a play on words from the word dog — which is a “lesser” form of coyote, and that god is simply a backwards kind of dog (or God). (Flick 143)  This God/dog appears in Coyote’s dream before it takes the shape of the Judea – Christian god which proceeds to simply cause trouble and act as childish and irresponsible.  King writes: “So that GOD jumps into that garden and…runs around yelling” (King 157) presenting that God as childish, and running wild.  The reasoning, and ways in which King presents the Judea-Christian God as an intolerable character is more though out in King’s novel, in comparison to Robinson whom writes the ‘character’ in a cliché and simple manner.

 

Works Cited

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

In order to address this question you will need to refer to Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation.” You can easily find this article online. Read the section titled: “Contrapuntal Cartographies” (468 – 470). Write a blog that explains Sparke’s analysis of what Judge McEachern might have meant by this statement: “We’ll call this the map that roared.”

As Moodie explains in her text Roughing it in the Bush, there are two maps, two ways of naming and knowing the landscape.  While the post colonial understanding of landscapes is through a series maps that express property lines, topography and borders; The First Nations knew their lands exceptionally well based solely on their uses and their names.  And while, as Moodie recounts, the Mississauga First Nations were able to perfectly understand where they were on every point of Mr. Moodie’s map, this knowledge was not shared.  

Nearly a century later during a Supreme Court hearing regarding the Gitxsan and Wet’suwet’en peoples’ land claim Judge McEachern was presented with a map drawn by First Nations People, once he was unable to orientate himself, he deemed the map as in adequate evidence.  McEachern was unable to understand the map which connected stories, songs and landscapes as the First Nations would have known it previous to the European colonialists.  When dismissing the map the judge made the controversial statement “we’ll call this the map that roared.”

Sparke’s article, “A Map that Roared and an Original Atlas: Canada, Cartography, and the Narration of Nation” deconstructs and criticizes this controversial comment.  Sparke first explains that by saying that the map roared he is comparing it to the idea of a paper tiger.  The paper tiger is a symbol for something that may appear powerful at first, but in reality bares no strength as it is just paper.  The reason behind this symbolism is that it is threatening that the First Nations had created a map that used Western language and terms, however in the end, it is irrelevant and they First Nations have no power. 

Sparke’s second explantation drew reference to a 1959 satirical movie called “The Mouse that Roared”.  Sparke believed that McEachern was comparing the First Nations attempt to reclaim their land, as ineffectual as the movie depiction of a small European country waging war against the United States economy due to wine exportations. 

In conclusion, this reading displays the intolerance and ignorance the Canadian government had (and still in some regards has) with First Nations traditions and culture.

In The Truth about Stories, King tells two creation stories, the story of “The Earth Diver”, and the story of “Genesis”.  King tells the stories in two different manners, the story of “Genesis” in a very authoritative voice, and “The Earth Diver” in a story telling manner.  I believe the clearest, and probably least controversial reason for him creating these dichotomies is because these were the ways in which they were meant to be, and originally told.  Genesis was originally written in an authoritative way.  The beginning reads:

 

[1:1] In the beginning when God created the heavens and the earth,

[1:2] the earth was a formless void and darkness covered the face of the deep, while a wind from God swept over the face of the waters.

[1:3] Then God said, “Let there be light”; and there was light.

 

Keeping in mind this is even a translation, the originally text is in Hebrew, which was even shorter and more to the point. There are no questions as to how this is written, and to what events had transpired, it is very clear, it is very simple, and most importantly, there is no way to argue it. 

On the other hand, King tells the story of Charm and the twins in a more storyteller tone, as again, that was the original intention.  As King wrote:

 

Back at the beginning of imagination, the world we know as earth was nothing but water, while above the earth, somewhere in space, was a larger, more ancient world. And on that world was a woman.

A crazy woman.

Well, she wasn’t exactly crazy. She was more nosy. Curious. The kind of curious that doesn’t give up. The kind that follows you around. Now, we all know that being curious is healthy, but being curious can get you into trouble

….

Now before we go any further, we should give this woman a name so we don’t have to keep calling her “the woman.” How about Blanche? Catherine? Thelma? Okay, I know expressing an opinion can be embarrassing. So let’s do it the way we always do it and let someone else make the decision for us. Someone we trust. Someone who will promise to lower taxes. Someone like me.

I say we call her Charm. Don’t worry. We can change it later on if we want to.

 

This tone is engaging and fun and makes you want to keep reading, however it is not authoritative because the language used is not.  “And on that world was a woman. A crazy woman. Well, she wasn’t exactly crazy”.  Not only is King’s writing casual, replicating the casual tone of voice of a storyteller, however, the story second guesses itself by saying she’s crazy then saying she’s not exactly crazy, immediately afterwards.  This makes the story less authoritative — however much more engaging to read and listen to.  

This uncommitted and questioning tone and language continues as he names the woman.  He throws out a few names, “How about Blanche? Catherine? Thelma?” and then continues to speak/write colloquially until he concludes with “I say we call her Charm. Don’t worry. We can change it later on if we want to.” Which is again doubting and non-committed.  On the other hand, the narrator in Genesis only mentions the name Adam five times, and never ‘names’ him Adam, they simply just beggin to refer to man as Adam in chapter four.  Similarity Eve is only named twice, once when Adam names her, and the other where she gives both to her son.  (We can go into a religion class and talk about as to why she is only named in reference to the men in her life for hours, however this is neither the time nor place, but I personally needed to point this out regardless) There is no hesitation, no participation with the reader/listener, these are the events, these were the people they happened to. Simple as that. 

So in asking why does King create these dichotomies, I would argue that he doesn’t, the stories create them themselves. I don’t believe that he necessarily emphasizes the believability of one story above the next, he tells the stories in the ways they were initially meant to be heard, and based on King’s readers, myself included, our biases make Genesis more ‘believable’ because I am taught to believe an authoritative voice, a text book or news article, and not a stylized piece, being a book or op-ed.  

King is further trying to appeal to our biases as the reader in regards to the story’s believability in creating the opposing dichotomies of a world created through competition or co-operation.  It is easier to see the world being created in the same way in which we we our work today.  The Western World is VERY competitive and capitalistic, therefore showcasing the “Genesis” story of one made out of competition is more believable as that is the way in which we know the world today.

King provides us with this comparison as I believe that he is trying to show us this bias towards authoritative written stories.  He is trying to prove that we automatically believe written stories — being authoritative facts and actions, above oral stories — a colloquial conversation.  

—

Changing pace a little, the first question that Professor Patterson posed said: “you can only believe ONE of the stories is the true story of creation – right?”. I believe this is wrong.  As I have mentioned in previous blog posts, I grew up in a Jewish house and attended Jewish schools from grades K-12.  In Tanach (Jewish Bible) class in grade 10 we were relearning the story of Genesis — you learn each story multiple times as at each age you learn something new from the stories.  By this age, speaking to a classroom filled with teenagers that are planning on being doctors and scientists, it is hard to sell a creation story in which god dictates the story.  So my teacher devoted a lot of his lessons on the book of Genesis to teaching us how this story can fit into science of evolution.  The one example which I always thought was very clever — which is proven because I remember it from my grade 10 class, was from the story in which Eve ate the apple.  As the story is told, Eve is persuaded from the snake to eat the apple, and once she did and all was found out, his punishment was for the snake to lose his legs. The story my teacher told was that Eve was actually persuaded by a dinosaur and him loosing his legs turned him into an alligator.  I mean it is still very much a story, however it incorporates scientific facts that dinosaurs existed that are not expressed explicitly in the bible. It wasn’t much, but it filled a gap.

I think it is hard to believe more than one creation story, because upfront they are all very different and yes, everyone feels very strongly the way in which they believe.  However each of the stories are telling the same story about how we have come to be.  Therefore they are all very much the same, and as my teacher showed my class, there are ways in which you can intertwine the stories together allowing more than one to be true

Read at least 6 students blog short stories about ‘home’ and make a list of the common shared assumptions, values and stories that you find. Post this list on your blog with some commentary about what you discovered.

First off, thank you to everyone who was willing to share an intimate story of home. Its very interesting to see the different ways people have grown up, and how they can connect to that point of their lives now in their adulthood.

Reading through a variety of blogs it is very clear that many people believe that home is fluid and is always changing. Many people question what attributes to a home, and how someone can choose one place — often their parents home, over another — usually their current apartment. Ross Hilliam questions in his blog, is home “where [he has] created the strongest memories, where [he has] been happiest, or where [he] simply [has] the most memories?”. He comments how different names and relationships can be attributed to different places, and he also mentioned that he strongly believes that homes can change. I agree with this questioning and share similar sentiments in my blog post. Trying to decipher between my current apartment, my summer camp and my parents home, I too have asked these questions and think of my different homes in very unique ways. Similarly Dana Truhar spoke of multiple homes, as opposed to the feeling of one overarching one that one can definitely call “my home”. She also comments on how a home is constantly changing. Another similar comment between Dana and I’s blog’s was that we both iterated that probably when we have a family of our own it will be different. As I expanded, I think our questions of home is highly due to the stage of life that we are in in university, because as the cliché would go, we are currently ‘trying to find ourselves’ not form a home.

Another similar sentiment I found in many blogs was the comment that home is a feeling, not necessarily a place. Cassie Lumsden spoke very well on this topic as she spoke of her and her family’s immigration story to Canada. Rachel Teasdale also spoke on the topic well as she wrote that homes “needs to be accompanied by loving people, and that feeling of safeness”.  Although it is not as drastic as Cassie’s story, Rachel explains how her and her brother had swapped rooms, and the different feeling of home between the two rooms.

Aside from the blog posts that are fairly similar to what I had wrote, there are two blog posts I find very unique which I can relate to, however were different from what I had originally wrote in my story. The first of the two blogs is Andrea Melton’s, and the way she explained her home through her genealogy. I found this very compelling as I am an Eastern European Jew. So, when someone asks me where my family is from, that is how identify, not as Polish, Russian, or German, but as an Ashkenazie Jew. I feel as if I have no connection to those countries as my homes, even though its where my grandparents and some aunts and uncles were born and raised. (I mean you can probably infer as to why the Jew doesn’t have a strong connection to Eastern Europe) So, the closest personal comparison to that comment  would be me seeing Israel — being Jewish and having the option of permanently moving there through the law of return , as a second home, and although many Canadian Jews do view Israel as their homeland, I do not.

On a similar theme, I also found Alexis Long’s blog post telling the story of her grandfather’s connection to home in Canada, even though he was discriminated against very interesting and similar to my family’s story. My grandparents and great grandparents immigrated to Canada not to long after Prime Minister Mackenzie King infamously said “none are too many”. Many places in Montreal had signs that read “no Jews” well into the 50s and 60s. Alexis posed a question in her blog about how one’s home can/should be affected if they’re not viewed as a citizen, regardless of growing up there, or having a good job and helping the economy. I found this comment very interesting because aside from the question of did my family feel as though Canada was their home when they immigrated here unwanted, I would wonder how my family felt with viewing these European countries as their homes during the atrocities of the Holocaust. As  both my grandfathers passed away either before I was born or when I was little, I was unable to ask them these questions, however my bubbie, that immigrated from Poland with her family when she was only a few months old, has explained that even though she lived in Montreal in Canada, her family still lived very similarly to the way in which they lived in Europe. They lived in a predominately Jewish community, ate kosher food, owned and would shop from Jewish-owned stores, and spoke Yiddish at home. She explained that they brought Europe to Canada, which I would figure would conflict your sense of home.

I think the notion of home is interesting, and it is has been a very fun and compelling exercise to read and compare everyone’s stories. Thanks!

 

References

Truhar, Dana. “Assignment 2:2 – My Home Story.” 31 Jan. 2019, blogs.ubc.ca/canlit470dana/2019/01/28/assignment-22-my-home-story/.

Teasdale, Rachel. “I’m not meant to live alone, turn this house into a home.” 28 Jan. 2019, blogs.ubc.ca/rachelteasdale/.

Melton, Andrea. “Belonging Home” 28 Jan. 2019. https://blogs.ubc.ca/andreamenglish470/2019/01/28/22-belonging-home/#comments

Lumsden, Cassie “Home: The Family and the Familiar” 28 Jan. 2019. https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl470blog/blog-posts/

Long, Alexis “Blog 2.2: The Canadian Home” 28 Jan. 2019, https://blogs.ubc.ca/alexis470/

Hilliam, Ross “Home – Beautiful British Columbia” 28 Jan. 2019. https://blogs.ubc.ca/rosshilliameng470/

A lot of weight placed on identifying one’s ‘home’.  The notion of ‘home’ is unique, as It is not the same as being asked where you’re from, or where you live.  A home is not stagnant, as one grows up and changes, then subsequently their home will change as well.  To me, home is a place I feel surrounded by family and love.  A place where I grew up, learned and experienced new things, and where I am not afraid to be myself.  

I grew up in Toronto as a relatively active member of the Jewish community.  I attended 14 years of Jewish education, had a Bat Mitzvah, went to youth group events, and celebrated the holidays with my immediate and extended family.  However, in my later years of high school, I learned more in depth about the religion and I naturally started questioning a lot of the values and rules I grew up to immediately follow.  Additionally, once my brothers had both moved out, and my parents started traveling a lot more for work I was home alone a lot by grade 12. 

Since I have moved to Vancouver I have felt more and more disconnected to my childhood home. I am living a secular life in Vancouver detaching me from my religious upbringing, as well between school and summer commitments, I am actually living in my parents home for about  a total of three weeks a year. With this being said, I have often started referring to my apartment in Vancouver as my home. However, even though over my past three years living here I have accumulated enough cards, art work, and school projects, it is yet to feel like a true home.  Though I have grown up a lot in this house and I have learned a lot from new experiences, this is not my home.  As I mentioned, a home is a place you feel surrounded by family and love — which I do not in my small studio apartment. 

The final place which I have often always seen as ‘home’ is my summer camp, Wapomeo.  I started attending the camp when I was seven years old, and is the place I feel most surround by love from family and friends.  It is the place where I have most grown up having experienced a significant amount of first in my life.  It was there I had made my first best friend, learned to cook, to build a fire, had my first period, my first kiss, experienced my first loss, and my first heart break. Wapomeo was my home for 15 years as this is the first summer that I will not be going. 

When asked to tell a story that describes my sense of home I’m conflicted.  I wonder if the right story to tell is me arriving home on Fridays from school to the smell of freshly made chicken, or early Saturday morning hockey games, where afterwards I would want to buy a Liptons cup-a-soup instead of the more normal red or blue gatorade.  Maybe I should be telling stories of my friends and I pulling all nighters trying to finish projects and build models.  Like the one time we were making a cantilever from bending plywood by soaking it in my tub, shaping it with coffee table books, and drying it with hair blow dryers till we accidentally blew my entire apartments fuse.  Or maybe the truest collection of stories of home are from my 36, 42 or 50 days canoe trips.  About making life long friends, building new skills, winning competitions or accomplishing decade long goals.

Right now, I am not sure where my home is, and thats okay.  My home is not my parents home, which feels more and more foreign every trip to Toronto.  It is not my university apartment, nor is it the summer camp I no longer attend.  Being in university allows one to not have a home, as homes ground you and disable you from moving, and growing and changing — to me the main goals of ones young adulthood.  My sense of home is thinking of these places and imagining what the next stages of my life may include. One day I will have a home again, and maybe I will continue making chicken soup, playing hockey, and even going back to camp, but for now its just me trying to figure the rest of it out. 

Thanks for reading! 

I am going to tell you a story, 

A large group of children are sitting together in a simple and empty room.  The room  has four shiny white walls and a shiny white floor.   There are no doors, or windows.   All there is, are the children and a single countdown clock.

The 196 children are sitting together in silence.  Looking around, sizing up one another,  after a long silence one of the children looks up and begins to speak. “I come from a land made up of 40 different shades of green. Of winding rivers, lakes and canals.”

As the child is speaking, vivd images captures the room, transforming it into the landscapes they’re describing.

“We are surrounded by the whitest sand beaches, which frame our beautiful mountain tops.”

The other children are amazed at the sights around them, trying to absorb all that they see, one can overhear the faintest “oh wow!” or “look at that!”.

The first child continues  “Our mountain ranges are mysterious, as they are scattered with huge caves and crevices fills with centuries of history. We are surrounded by the ocean…” 

In the middle of the sentence another child bolts up and exclaims “My home is made up of low mountains and and fertile plains filled with rice paddies.  There are sandy beaches, and coastal mountains on the islands which run along our coast.  Our northern mountains are next to some of the highest in the world, and they are decorated with granite ridges that were formed millions of years ago.  We have rivers and streams that run through our valleys, and rolling mountain ranges.  I am simultaneously surrounded by bright colours from our past and glowing lights from our present. 

One by one each child stands up and tells their stories, each  more vivid from the last.  The room is continuously transforming from mountains to valleys, deserts to ice fields, and lakes to rivers to oceans.  The children were in awe of  the beauty and colours from everywhere around the world. 

After the group had heard from the first 195 children, ecstatic and happy, thinking they have heard it all, the last child stands up, reluctantly,  knowing that it is their turn.  

Standing, they take a deep breath and begin to speak. 

“I recognize the places you have all spoke about, however I know them very differently.  I only  know of arid valleys, and barren mountain tops.  I have never seen pristine beaches, only shorelines full of debris of  completely abandoned and destroyed cities. I know of the deserts you have talked about, but where I am from they have spread much farther then you ever imagine.  They are far into the farms and grasslands everywhere around them, making food very difficult to find.  I have never seen a rain forest, a coral reef or a glacier. I have seen many fires, and storms of ice, wind rain and hail. 

Loud and upset whispers echoed throughout the crowd drowning out the voice of final child.

As images of destruction run through the room, the rest of the children shudder with fear.  ““Okay you win,” they said” weeping, looking at their beautiful world destroyed. 

““But what you said just now — it isn’t so funny. It doesn’t sound so good. We are doing okay without it. We can get along without that kind of thing. Take it back. Call that story back.”

But, of course, it was too late. For once a story is told, it cannot be called back. Once told, it is loose in the world” and it is too late to go back.

---

First off, thank you for making it through my story.  I really struggled with this assignment as I would never have referred to myself as a ‘storyteller’.  In school I study architecture, so we learn that every decision we make needs to have a purpose, nothing can be arbitrary.  So although they’re was definitely a formula that went along with changing this story, I really struggled with arbitrarily making one up.

However, I really enjoyed telling the story to my friends.  It was interesting how much the story changed every  time, mainly due to being interrupted mid sentence to answer questions. However each of these questions helped to formulate the final version of the story.  It made me understand what was working both story wise, and through the style in which I was telling the story.  Taking a note from King’s book, where he spoke about the difference in the ways he told each creation story, I hoped to tell my story in a stylistic manner, as opposed to a descriptive manner, and accomplishing this was difficult.  I hope you enjoyed it, and remember, turn off your lights, separated your garbage, and try walking instead of using a vehicle, because every little bit of effort can help the world.

 

References

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

“Ireland’s Special Landscapes.” Ireland.com, www.ireland.com/en-us/about-ireland/discover-ireland/landscapes-with-attitude/.

Hafner, James A., et al. “Thailand.” Encyclopædia Britannica, Encyclopædia Britannica, Inc., 18 Jan. 2019, www.britannica.com/place/Thailand.

From family histories to creation stories, story telling has always been a major aspect in human civilization.  Oral story telling, being the oldest method if story telling, was (and in some regards still is) often used in religion as a way to pass on laws and stories between generations. Although over time these stories go through a process of ‘broken telephone’ and subsequently change between generations, oral story telling has often been sought after due to the interactions it enables between the speaker the audience.  On the other hand in most western cultures, the second method of story telling, being written stories, are viewed as more factual, as the story or history has not changed since it were recorded.  Though factual, this method allows stories to become outdated as they do not interact with the readers and do not allow for questions to the author. 

There has always been a clear distinct difference between oral and written stories.  However due to the WWW, and the presence of digital publication and social media, this clear difference has become blurred through a new form of story telling combining the positives aspects of both original methods.

Firstly, the largest hurdle with written literature, is the ability for someone to get published and distributed.  This issue has been abolished with the WWW’s tools that allow for anyone to publish their work.  Between blogs and social media, everyone (with access to the internet) has the ability to publish their work, and tell their stories, for people all over the world.  However, while digital publication conquers one of the largest hurdles associated with literature, it does not quite contain the reputable advantages of written literature. The WWW abolishes the role of the editor, allowing for anyone to publish work, regardless of written quality, or accuracy.  This hurts the reputation of written literature, as no longer can one argue that if something is written then it is true, as much on the WWW is biased, and false. 

Additionally, as previously mentioned, another large issue with published literature is the lack of interaction between the author and the reader.  Drawing on the the largest positive from oral story, digital publishing has allowed the reader and author the ability to interact with one another.  It allows for online comments and replies, as well as the authors ability to return to their work at any time and edit anything they want.  However the most significant difference is the ability to hyperlink additional information into ones stories.  Allowing the reader to essentially ‘choose-their-own-adventure’, creates a new dialogue between the author and the reader as it allows for a different story to be told dependant on whether or not the reader clicks on the hyperlink.  Aside from hyperlinking and commenting, simply being on the WWW allows for anyone to easily search any additional information they may want on a topic they are reading about. This acts as the new form of question asking to a verbal story teller, that was not present in written and published literature. 

Overall, I believe that these additions have positively impacted literature, as they are not taking away from the previous methods. Hard published written stories and articles are still the most reputable, and well written sources and stories.  Additionally, verbal stories are still more interactive, regardless of how much editing or hyperlinks an author puts into their work.  However this new form of publishing allows for an easier access to more wide spread publishing, with some interactions to written work, which has created a whole new, and more accessible, form of story telling.