Identifying and discuss two of King’s “acts of narrative decolonization
The first act of decolonizing that I’d like to talk about is the general decolonization of stories themselves. In King’s story, the form of the story is decolonized, as it strays from the traditional elements of storytelling that we see in the English language. The storytelling element, we see the initial start to the story being about the beginning, the start of existence. Which is interesting but what stands out are the starts of the story that happen after the first start. We are then treated to another beginning, with Lionel, and then another with the four First Nation fixers and then another, and so on. The four First Nation storytellers also have a conflict on how to start the story and which story they are telling.
The style of writing, the formatting of the story is disorienting and confusing. We have the four First Nation storytellers, who we find out are all variations of the first women. There is a shifting of gender, where she becomes four different males. Names are also disorienting, such as the storytellers are named Hawkeye, Lone Ranger, Ishmael and Robinson Crusoe. These interesting names are King smashing different stories and characters together. Ishmael is a religious figure in the Bible, Abraham’s first son. Robinson Crusoe is the name of a novel and protagonist, who is an explorer/voyager, the book is what some would consider the first English novel. Plus they are all also the First Women in disguise. These characters come together in the story, but also as a single person. 
They are not separated from the Native American story, they produce a blend of our stories coming together, but after the First Women, not before. Especially with Robinson Crusoe and the Lone Ranger, who owe the existence of their stories to First Nations, as they interact with them heavily in their narratives. But it’s not the colonizer writing about the colonized, but the reverse and this forms an interesting decolonizing narrative, with King reclaiming the story with his iteration.
Then there are the connections of the stories coming together but also being separated from one another, taking place at different times and places. The way that King tells his story diverges from the norm of storytelling that many of us experience and engages in decolonizing, as it deconstructs how we think of forms of stories. How they’re supposed to be written, what should happen, how characters are introduced, their names, etc. The story itself is disorienting and often leaves you confused.
Then the characters themselves are also odd. In general, stories do not have First Nations characters, they are often marginalized and stereotyped into certain roles if we ever do see them, mainly to serve as carriers of more thematic elements. This can be fine on its own, as the struggles of certain groups of people should be made known, but it forces us to see these characters as part of a larger narrative. Having multiple First Nation characters that have different problems and are just going about their daily lives is the perfect way to normalize them. King does not portray them as the exception to normality but as part of the everyday.
I believe this is a great push, as First Nations should not be made the exotic, only appearing in stories when their struggle and punishment serve to further the story. But can simply exist with their private and public problems without having to be made mysterious and otherworldly. This is important in text because it shows how people are tied together. The stories of Canadians are not separate from First Nations, they might be diverse and different, but their stories and ours are connected.
The second form of decolonizing I found interesting in King’s novel was the decolonization of the origin story of creation and God. At the very beginning, King tells us there were nothing and Coyote. The God in this story becomes subservient to Coyote, he is a creation born from Coyote’s dream, who then becomes the original creator. King rearranges the colonial narrative of the creation story with his own, so rather than the First Nations story being subservient to the colonizers’ we see a reverse. The dream that becomes GOD is created he wants to be Coyote, again showing his hierarchy subversion, where the First Nation’s story becomes the dominating force of power.
There is an interesting element of water seen in the story. Water comes before God and before god turned into GOD. In King’s story, GOD is disturbed by the presence of water, and this demonstrates the real powerlessness of his ego. We see that many creation stories of humans, including the First Native one, start with water. Making sense, as water is key to survival and ancient civilizations are born by the shores. Interestingly enough many civilizations worshiped gods in relation to water, such as the Egyptians and the Mesopotamians. Before civilization and religion, water has to come first. It’s the first thing he mentions and worries over. Since he didn’t create it, it existed before him, like Coyote. It’s very interesting as it reminds me that the Judo-Christian God of the bible only came into our reality after other gods. He wasn’t the first of his kind, a pantheon of different gods existed before him and King’s story reminded me of that fact. It subverts expectations of GOD being the most powerful and creator of all, as things existed before him, a reminder that needs to be said.
Reference:
‘11 Egyptian Gods and Goddesses’, Encyclopedia Britannica<https://www.britannica.com/list/11-egyptian-gods-and-goddesses> [accessed 9 March 2020]
‘Ishmael | Meaning, Facts, & Significance’, Encyclopedia Britannica<https://www.britannica.com/biography/Ishmael-son-of-Abraham> [accessed 9 March 2020]
King, Thomas. Green Grass Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.
‘Robinson Crusoe | Overview of Novel by Daniel Defoe’,Encyclopedia Britannica<https://www.britannica.com/topic/Robinson-Crusoe-novel> [accessed 9 March 2020]
‘The Lone Ranger (1949-1957)’, IMDb<https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0041038/mediaviewer/rm3744535552> [accessed 9 March 2020]
Hi Nargiza!
I really appreciate the points you made in your post, especially the point you made about the characters being odd. I really enjoyed that King’s novel had many Indigenous characters who’s lives and plots did not revolve around their being Indigenous. I think you’re right, the inclusion of Indigenous characters with normal plot lines helps to decolonize our conception of Canadian literature and its characters and plots. When you said that Indigenous characters are normally stereotyped into certain roles it made me wonder; do you think that is why Thomas King named the Indigenous Women after traditionally non indigenous figures? At one point in the novel, Lionel says when he “was six, he knew wha he wanted to be. John Wayne.” (241). John Wayne was also the exact kind of movie role that Charlie’s dad could not get because he was Indigenous. I think that King may have chosen those names on purpose to break down both stereotypes of Indigenous people but also stereotypes of what kind of person could not be Indigenous.
I would love to hear your thoughts!
Thanks,
Emily
Hi Emily!
Thanks for your comment! In regard to your question about King’s naming habits for his characters, I think that yes, he did purposely pick names that were not stereotypically First Nation names to serve the purpose of humanizing and legitimizing the characters. And at the same time reclaiming identities that have been lost, such as mother, student, etc. These characters are not separated from the history and culture that make up the rest of the world and these names help identify that. I think to ignore the co-habitation of both settler and colonized would be similar to believing that a Chinese boy wouldn’t be named Jason. It would be false and disconnected to say that.
In another point names are a form of claiming, when we have our First Nation characters aspiring to be John Wayne, that’s an indication of ideas, he doesn’t separate himself from culture outside his own, as it is part of his own. John Wayne wouldn’t be created without his people nor his culture so in a way the naming conventions are reclaiming the everyday that we generally take for granted.
Hi Nargiza,
You provided very interesting overview of the decolonizing concepts incorporated in GGRW. I’d like to add to the ambiguous portrayal of the four First Nation elders, which you outlined in your post, and Emily addressed in her comment. With the help of Flick’s notes, I’ve realized that there is an important common thread behind the colonial names of each of the elders. They all allude to the iconic characters from Western tales, which, in turn, have Aboriginal companions in their stories. All of the four Western characters established strong connections with Aboriginal people and received their faithfulness. Hawkeye built a bond with Chingachgook, Lone Ranger became friends with Tonto, Ishmael with Queequeg, Robinson Crusoe with Friday. Thus, the names of each of the Indigenous storytellers allude to both, Western heroes and their Indigenous counterparts, which result in the telling the creation stories, which intervene the elements from both cultures. I agree that fluidity and non-binary representation of the four elders GGRW contribute into the decolonizing narrative, as well as they emphasize the importance of inclusivity and diverse worldview.
Thank you,
Joanne
Hi Joanne!
It’s great to hear your thoughts and I really did enjoy your comments about the partnership between the characters that the elders are named after in the stories. Going off your comment I also think that the duality that the stories present are interesting, as these stories are about the ‘traditional’ native and the traditional white settler. Their cooperation and existence in relation to the other as dualities is very interesting, because we generally only remember the westerners name, as shown how these elders are named after them, as they are the main characters of the stories, which are often titles by their names. We rarely remember the name of the First Nation that accompanies them, but their existence is critical to the story. It’s a really interesting idea to consider, I do think that King is making a point on the co-habitation of both cultures and their influences on each other, though one side obviously has more influence over the other. But the naming of these Aboriginal characters as their White counterparts gives a very strange sense of blending and camouflage, as if this is how the characters were all along and we never noticed until we read King’s story.