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?
A Struggle to Enjoy Robinson
By Nolan Janssens
Harry Robinson’s influence on Thomas King is apparent when comparing Robinson’s “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and the
The storyline in Thomas King’s Green Grass Running Water that makes use of an unnamed, first-person narrator who interacts with both Christian and Native American traditional figures, showcases the influence Harry Robinson had on King. For the purposes of this blog post, I will be focusing on Robinson’s writing style in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King Of England” and comparing it with “Green Grass Running Water.” To be honest, I struggle with Robinson’s writing style. I find the subversive use of grammar frustrating, the lack of sensory detail lazy, the poetic-like stanzas uninteresting, and the character’s dialogue unrealistic both in the oral and written sense. A lot of this frustration stems from the fact that I really want to appreciate Robinson’s writing, and haven’t fostered the ability to do so. As for King’s novel, the Christian and Native American traditional figure storyline are less frustrating due to it’s more modern language and humour. Before elucidating on the negative affect Robinson’s writing style has on me, I will refer to Jane Flick “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water” and Blanca Chester, “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Their analysis has done little to increase my appreciation, but they have taught me why and how to respect Robinson’s writing style. To understand the importance of Robinson’s and King’s subversive writing, one must first understand what roles Coyote and God/dog can play in these texts.
Coyote and God/dog can take on various shapes and meanings in Green Grass Running Water and “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England.” Flick references Bright’s work when defining Coyote in First Nation/Native American tales. Coyote is a familiar trickster figure that lived before humans existed, had tremendous powers, created the world as we know it, can be both brave and cowardly, conservative or innovative, wise or stupid. (Flick 143). GOD/dog is “…a play on words and names. A dog (Canis familiaris) is, of course, a “lesser” form of coyote (Canislatranis)—and a god is a backward kind of dog. Or as Robin Ridington suggests, God is contrary from a dog’s point of view. GOD turns out to be the loud-voiced God of the Old Testament. (143). In “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” God seems to represent the God of the Old Testament because God seems more omniscient in Robinson’s text. For example, “So in another way, God knows that./They want to change./They don’t want to have a king—a man…” (74). In Green Grass Running Water, on the other hand, God uses more modern and comedic language. For example, “Wait a minute, says that GOD. That’s my garden. That’s my stuff. “Don’t talk to me,” I says. “You better talk to First Woman.” You bet I will, says that GOD.” (41). The language is not only more modern, but it’s less jarring. The flow of the conversations between God and Coyote are more realistic and causal whereas “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” reads as though Robinson uses whatever language he feels like, whether or not it is coherent.
The frustration that I feel while reading Robinson might not only be due to the incoherence and switching of tenses. The fact that I can enjoy King’s novel, but not Robinson’s stories could be because King still makes use of some Western narrative techniques. “The “oral” influence of Robinson on King’s writing, however, paradoxically comes through written texts. This irony is perhaps reflected in King’s own multi-faceted translations and recreations of various stories and characters from different Native cultural traditions. King connects Robinson’s Okanagan Coyote with stories from the Blackfoot of Alberta, and the traditions of Thought Woman (Pueblo), First Woman (Navajo), Old Woman (Blackfoot, Dunne-za), and Changing Woman (Navajo).” (Chester 46). There is something more recognizable and comforting about King’s writing even though it still reflects Native orality. The dialogue in “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England” is broken up with poetically-styled verses and doesn’t come across as natural. I find it challenging to discover a realistic and oral flow that Robinson attempts through indentation.
So finally, another time, after that,
After they was chased around by white people,
Long time after that,
God sent the Angel to Coyote.
Sent the Angel. (66).
The writing is so fractured and random that I can’t even begin to “fill in the blanks” that Chester refers to in her paper. In Green Grass Running Water I feel more of a need to fill in the blanks because the storylines with Lionel, Alberta, and especially Eli and Karen, resonate with me emotionally. I feel that I am involved in the story because by King “juxtaposing these different narratives, fragmented texts contextualize each other, creating meaning in gaps that cannot be read linearly. (47). With King, I’m both emotionally and intellectually invested in his stories, but with Robinson, I can only understand his intent on an intellectual level—and that’s due to reading other scholar’s opinions.
Works Cited
Chester, Blanca. “Green Grass, Running Water: Theorizing the World of the Novel.” Canadian Literature 161-162. (1999).Web. 04 April 2013.
Flick Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (1999). Web. 18 March 2016.
PBS, Public Broadcasting Service, 10 July 2015, www.pbs.org/video/chicago-tonight-october-8-2015-subversive-copy-editor-takes-grammar/.
“Top 10 Best Nonlinear Films.” The Script Lab, 22 Mar. 2011, thescriptlab.com/features/the-lists/971-top-10-best-nonlinear-films/.
*I by no means agree with the 10 Best Nonlinear Films. I just added it because they’re Western movies with fractured narratives.