For this week’s blog assignment I was assigned pages 242-259 (which ended up being pages 244-250 in my newer version of the text). This segment of the novel contains Latisha’s reflection on a time when George had quit his job and was attempting to take up the house duties in an effort to alleviate some of her stress. This is ironic for two reasons, firstly because the text begins with her waking up, exhausted, to find her youngest daughter Elizabeth standing in a poopy diaper and only Latisha is there to help her (as George left her before Elizabeth was born). Also the text starts and finishes with Georges absence, but is mainly focused around his failure to cook and provide for the family.

George Armstrong Custer as George Morningstar

Latisha’s love interest in the novel is an American named George Morningstar which is an allusion to General George Custer, from the American civil war. Both George’s have similar appearances, tall with shoulder length hair, and both originated from Ohio and were raised in Michigan (Eldatari, 2009). Another factor linking the two men was that they both wrote detailed letters to their wives/girlfriends about their “journeys” through America. For Custer, these were to his wife while he was active in the Civil war, and for Morningstar, the letters to Latisha were after he had abandoned her and her children (Eldatari, 2009).

General George Custer famously died while in battle with Native Americans at the Battle of Little Bighorn (Bio, 2015). George Morningstar’s disregard of native traditions throughout the book as well as his disrespect towards Latisha parallels the disrespect that General Custer had towards the Native Americans. Custer’s biggest mistake was his pride, which lead to his downfall when he attacked La Kota without reinforcements, ending in his death. Morningstar also “underestimates the reaction that he will receive by attending the Sun Dance, and is summarily dismissed for disobeying the rules and attempting to photograph the event” (Eldatari, 2009). Another interesting link between the two men is Elizabeth, the name of General Custer’s wife and also the name of Morningstar’s daughter, who Latish finds out she is pregnant with after Morningstar has abandoned her.

George Morningstar is American nationalism and foolishness at its finest. In the assigned reading segment, George is ludicrously attempting to play “house-wife” by buying cook books and un-necessary cooking gadgets, but is failing miserably at cooking (and his new role). The two allusions that allow the reader to recognize his stupidity (apart from his obvious failure cooking croissants and ratatouille) are the names of his trusted cookbooks. Sam Molina’s book on pasta is a pun on semolina, the flour used to make pasta’s, and David Karaway’s cookbook on bread is also a pun for caraway seeds which are generally put into rye breads for added texture/flavour (Flick, 1994).

Reflections

I found King’s allusion to George Custer to be very cunning and thought provoking. To begin with, the average reader may not understand the reference, unless they were familiar with the history of the American Civil War, as I myself did not. However the likeness between the two George’s is uncanny. From their physical descriptions to their actions and treatment of other characters in the story, both Georges are ‘failures’ of a sort. In this section of the text George Morningstar fails miserably at household work, especially cooking. Since he is unable to hold a job and cannot even provide for the family by cooking, his frustrations lead him to abandon them. Custer was a failure by his own stupidity, sending his men and himself into a battle without waiting for reinforcement, which ended in his death and many more. There is also a theme of heroism in Green Grass Running Water as most of the characters are strong, selfless, and independent people. Latisha shows many signs of heroism, raising a family on her own, running a successful business, and always standing up for herself and her beliefs. In the section I was assigned, Latisha’s strength was defiantly displayed as she reflected upon her unhelpful and absent husband, in an almost comedic manner as she describes his attempts and failures at supporting her family.

Work Cited

George Custer. Bio. A&E Television Networks, 2015. Web. 16 Mar. 2015.

Flick, Jane. (1994) “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water”. Canlit. Harpour Collins.

“Semolina”. Wikapedia. Web. March 16, 2015. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semolina

Alfaro, Danilo. “Caraway”. About Food. Web. March 16, 2015. http://culinaryarts.about.com/od/glossary/g/Caraway.htm

Eldatari. (2009). “George Armstrong Custer and George Morningstar”. Lit Studies. Web. March 16,2015. https://litstudies.wordpress.com/tag/green-grass-running-water/

St. Rosemary Educational Institution. “Green Grass, Running Water Character Anaylsis.” http://schoolworkhelper.net/. St. Rosemary Educational Institution, Last Update: 2015. Web. March 16, 2015. http://schoolworkhelper.net/green-grass-running-water-character-anaylsis/.

“The battle of the Little Big Horn, 1876” Eye Witness to History. Web. March 16, 2015.  http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/custer.htm

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

I grew up in a household with both Christian and Catholic influences. I remember going to Sunday school and being read to from a colourful picture book that was supposed to educate young children about an all-powerful entity named God who astoundingly was able to create our entire world in under seven days. If you as a reader are unfamiliar with the story of Genesis 1 from the bible, here is a link to a webpage that I found best described the story in simpler terms.

I was a natural sceptic, especially because of all the non-realistic elements such as God himself and the utter “magic” behind his creation air, water, trees, animals and the human race. As an adult I follow a much more atheist approach to the creation of the world. I believe in science and the scientific story of creation. However, for this blog post I will entertain my childhood story of creation and compare it to that narrated in Thomas King’s The Truth about Stories.

Similarities

There are defiantly Un-realistic/mystical elements to both creation narratives. With talking animals in Kings variation, charms pregnancy (immaculate conception), talking babies who create the world, and this character of God (a single entity powerful enough to create an entire world). What I find interesting with both creation stories is that there is no necessity of reality or credibility. It is simply assumed that these seemingly mystical elements were realistic, and that because they occurred so long ago, the evidence has disappeared.  Also, similar to the Christian creation story where God creates and separates day and night to be two individual entities, so does Charm through the birth of her opposite twins, described as dark and light (day and night)

Both stories have the same theme of creating a sustainable earth to live upon: God creating “animals to fill the earth” (Fairchild) as well as the first humans, Adam and Eve. The twins also create humans and the animals wonder if they will “get along”. The fact that animals are present on the earth before humans and that they hold concern over getting along with humans ultimately reflects the respect that First Nations people had/ have towards animals.  The rest/reflection on their work after creation in both stories is also similar. God leaves an entire day to reflect on his amazing creations and rest after all the work. The twins, charm, and the animals merely comment on what a beautiful world they have created and then the story ends, just as Genesis does after the seventh day (rest day).

Differences

In Genesis 1 God created the earth himself. In Kings Creation story, the water creatures were the ones to labour and build charm a piece of land, which eventually was transformed by her twin children. Charms babies are responsible for forming the earth and they are two opposite beings (day and night/ dark and light) who go about creation in entirely different manners. For example, one twin first makes the lad flat, then the other stomps about in the dirt and creates hills and valleys. The creator character in both stories being completely dissimilar is a huge difference.

The earth itself is also very different in both stories. Before creation, God begins working on an empty, dark and lifeless world, basically a blank slate. In Kings story, there is already an established “air world” which hosts Charm in the beginning, and “water world” which eventually changes itself to accommodate Charm. It is also important to note the presence of Charm herself, described by King as nosy and relentlessly curious. It is because of her and her pregnancy that there is a need for land to be formed and arguably without her character or her particular traits, “earth” may never have been created.

After this assignment I became curious to read more creation stories, I eventually stumbled across this creation story by Ojibwa named “The creation of Turtle Island”. The story has very similar elements to the story told by King and the image below reminded me of Charm sitting on the back of the turtle when she first falls from the sky.

 

Works Cited

King, Thomas. The Truth about Stories. New York : House of Anansi Press, 2011. Print.

Fairchild, Mary. “The Creation Story-Bible Story Summay” AboutReligion.com, No Date. Web. March 3, 2015. http://christianity.about.com/od/biblestorysummaries/p/creationstory.htm

“The Creation of Turtle Island” Native Art in Canada. 2006. Web March 3, 2015. http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/turtleisland.html