In “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water,” Margery Fee and Jane Flick describe the writing style of Thomas King as being purposeful in its transitions between different historical, cultural, and literary perspectives. When continuing this consideration in “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel,” Blanca Chester suggests that this style creates the narrative perspective of Coyote in a way that mediates a dialogue between oral and written, Native and Christian creation stories, and between methods of literary and historical discourses.
“King… emphasizes the difference between Native and non-Native ways of knowing the world. He brings together Western theory and Native theory in a way that creates a dialogue between the two.” (Chester 45)
Fee and Flick also point out how King positions Coyote as relatively ignorant to boundaries, particularly the one between humans and animals. As the trickster, Coyote is able to transform and act as a border-crosser throughout the novel. As he integrates different storytelling traditions, Coyote brings the reader with him to surpass the cultural boundaries between Western literary production and First Nations ways of sharing. This coincides with expectations that many First Nations groups would have in stories such as this, as the character of Coyote is often considered a culture hero who creates, teaches, and helps humans understand things. Ultimately, this character enables King to “[subsume] European culture and history into an aboriginal framework” (Fee and Flick 136).
After reading these articles, I was able to recognize a greater meaning behind several of the ways in which King has adapted the character of Coyote to be the “I” of the novel. This includes how he directly addresses characters and the reader, creating a conversation between the narratives, in which the readers become actively involved. The connections that Coyote creates between narratives invites readers to participate in the written dialogue so that they can see (potentially for the first time) how “the world is always brought into being, or created, through story” (Chester 46) through the perspective of First Nations culture. Further, as Coyote crosses the borders between First Nations and Western forms of storytelling, he not only contrasts the two but also highlights the permeability of certain cultural boundaries. In other words, his layering of narratives and adapted tales allow him to introduce readers to alternative perspectives on events and characters that may not be derived from sole consideration of Western literature. By generating this active dialogue and presenting adapted views on stories and events that readers may have thought themselves to be familiar with, Coyote functions to disrupt conventional reading approaches and introduce Western readers of Green Grass, Running Water to other ways of knowing.
Works Cited
Chester Blanca. “Green Grass Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature, 161-161, 1999, pp. 44-61. Web.
Fee, Margery, and Flick, Jane. “Coyote Pedagogy: Knowing Where the Borders Are in Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature, 161-162, 1999, pp. 131-139. Web.
King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.
“Native American Coyote Mythology.” Native Languages of the Americas. Web. http://www.native-languages.org/legends-coyote.htm. 9 March. 2020.
aran chang
March 11, 2020 — 9:44 pm
Hi Lilly!
It’s fascinating how King is able to transform our perspective on such a fundamental level just via the narrator that drives us through the story. As such, we are able to dive past the boundaries that we’ve set up through our time growing up. During my readings, I found that King tried to show the reader the differences of Western and First Nations culture with regard to mapping. Physically, there were obvious differences such as the strict borders found in Western culture and the fluid borders found in First Nations culture. What truly caught my interest was the parallel and metaphor that mapping had on Western and First Nations literature. As Westerners, we often see stories are structured acts, leading to an end, but in First Nations literature, it is more often a fluid motion of steps that leads to a finish without an end. It focuses more on the mind, body, soul and heart, rather than finding a finish. I’m wondering if you had also come to the same conclusion. If so, I’m wondering if the coyote Pedagogy had any part to play in your understanding and how.
Thank you for the lovely read!
Cheers,
Aran
LillyMclellan
April 1, 2020 — 12:08 pm
Hi Aran!
Sorry for the late response, hope you are staying safe and healthy!
I have actually found the same pattern within both this novel and many other pieces of Indigenous literature that I have read over the years. I find the endings of these works can be quite refreshing as you can imagine their continuation, in contrast to traditional Western stories, which typically come to a conclusive and definite end.
In terms of the coyote pedagogy, I would have to say the the character of Coyote had a subtle but significant role in my understanding of how the story in GGRW is brought to a finish. As the novel progresses, King articulates the importance of Coyote in the contemporary and mythic world interactions that mediate the development of the characters. Coyote plays a central role in allowing this interaction, as he acts as the metaphoric bridge that connects the two. He essentially brings these two narratives together throughout the novel and allows some of the characters to better understand the connections between their mind, body, and soul, so that the novel’s finish is not an “end” but rather a new beginning for many of the characters.
Thank you for the insightful question!
Lilly