Pages 11-21 in Thomas King’s novel Green Grass, Running Water.
The pages that I chose are at the beginning of the novel since multiple characters are first introduced, and the symbolism and allusions are brought about immediately.
Once Upon a Time…
Starting on page 11, only a few pages from the beginning of Green Grass, Running Water, four characters are introduced with familiar names. As Jane Flick mentions in her article, the first character, Hawkeye, refers to a once-famous fictional character of “a white woodsman and guide with knowledge of ‘Indian ways'” (141-42). The second character is the Lone Ranger, a white hero of western books, but my immediate connection was with the 2013 American film The Lone Ranger. In the movie, he’s made out to be sort of a useless hero who lacks the qualities and bravery defined by typical hero tropes. What’s interesting in the first few pages I chose is that the Lone Ranger attempts to tell the story of creation, but being that he’s a white American, his version reflects the story of creation found in Genesis. The rest of the characters argue against him, saying that he has to tell the story that came first. His behaviour seems to be mocking or making fun of oral storytelling, which reflects the Western perspective of creation stories that are not from the Bible. The following characters are Ishmael, one of the main protagonists in Moby Dick, and Robinson Crusoe from the novel Robinson Crusoe. His role is attributed to survival, even if that means he has to be ingenuine to stay alive, and “is aided by his Man Friday, the “savage” he rescues from cannibals, and then Christianizes” (Flick 142). We don’t see very much characterization of these characters in the pages I chose, but it’s interesting to understand the allusions behind the names that King is playing on. He’s taking popular figures from fiction novels that were written by white Americans about Native Indian’s, other than Ishmael, and their culture, which is misrepresented in these novels.
In an interview, King explains his rationale for choosing to write humorously, and he describes that “comedy simply happens to be my strategy. It’s a way, I suppose, of getting away from being didactic”(1:23-1:30). The use of these fictional characters is a part of his strategy to not impose or directly point a figure at any one person. But connecting these figures to the Native American oral storytelling tradition alludes to the inaccuracy of Western culture’s representation of their culture.
Dr. Joe Hovaugh and the Indians
Dr. Joesph Hovaugh is a play on words of the name Jehovah, as Flick describes, which is the Hebrew name for God. Interestingly, our first introduction to Dr. Hovaugh is through the fascination of his wooden desk. Wood has obvious symbolism for the Catholic religion in terms of Jesus dying on a wooden cross, but that may be overstepping my analysis of King’s allusions. The correlation between his character and God can be seen by his role as an authoritative figure in the hospital in charge of the patients as God is, for the Christian religion, the most powerful being; basically the highest authoritative figure there is. As well, the notion that the Indians are a cause for concern or in need of being contained reflects the Christian religion as imposing their views and religious practices on others.
Alberta Frank and Fort Marion
The last chapter of my analysis shows Alberta Frank teaching a class about Fort Marion which was a place in Flordia that held “72 Cheyenne, Kiowa, Comanche, Arapaho, and Caddo Indian prisoners” (The Fort Marion Prisoners), transported from a previous war site known as The Red River War in Oklahoma and Texas in 1875. At Fort Marion, “the Indians were simply imprisoned without a trial. In order to facilitate these prisoners, the army reconditioned Fort Marion, Florida as a prison and placed Lieutenant Richard Pratt in command” (The Fort Marion Prisoners). Alberta Frank’s name not only indicates the province of Alberta, but Frank is also the name of a town that experienced a significant disaster known as the Frank slide of 1903. While she is teaching the class, the students, aside from one, show little to no attentiveness in the topic she is discussing. Their lack of interest reflects a majority of people then and even now who don’t pay enough attention to the livelihood of Native Americans and don’t respect their cultural history.
Works Cited
King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: Harper Collins, 1993. Print.
King, Thomas. “Green Grass, Running Water.” CBC, Interview, 1993, https://www.cbc.ca/books/green-grass-running-water-1.3992352.
Flick, Jane. “Reading Notes for Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature, 1999, https://blogs.ubc.ca/engl372-99c-2019wc/files/2013/11/GGRW-reading-notes1.pdf.
“The Fort Marion Prisoners.” Native American Netroots, February 24th, 2012, http://nativeamericannetroots.net/diary/1269.
Hi Samantha,
Great blog post. I was not aware of the origins of Robinson Crusoe or Hawkeye. It is interesting to me how King reincorporates these Western characters into Indigenous creation stories. I like what you say about King reclaiming stories that misrepresented Native Americans by portraying western characters.
I’m curious about which parts of the novel you find funny and what you think the impact of this is. For example, I find it humorous when King reimagines GOD as a greedy figure who wants to own and take everything because this is something that is critical of Christianity in a way that is still lighthearted.
I look forward to reading more from you!
Jade
Hi Jade,
Thanks for your comment! That’s a good question, and I agree that King’s representation of God as greedy was quite humourous and unique especially since I was raised a Catholic. I think it’s important to challenge your own perspective and take yourself out of your own limitations and view things from other’s points of view.
I found the banter between the four characters in the opening of the novel to be entertaining, as well as his portrayal of Noah later on in the novel. He is shown as a ridiculous figure and only cares about sex, as seen when he’s chasing after I believe was changing woman.
Hi Samantha! Thank you very much for your engaging blog post! I really enjoyed how you chose pages that introduced characters and you were able to explain who they are and how the stories were told. I find interesting how the story of genesis vs the oral storytelling is depicted in the pages and story itself.
I also noticed you talked about how King used comedy in the novel. Did you enjoy his use of comedy, and did you find it fitting? I personally didn’t analyze these pages but from how you tell it, it seems like King liked the use of his comedy; would you agree?
Thanks! Maya Sumel
Hi Maya,
Thanks for sharing! I was surprised at first by King’s use of comedy throughout the novel, but I quickly took a liking to this narrative element. I think his use of comedy was an intelligent way of indirectly pointing a finger at those who have mistreated and misrepresented Indigenous peoples and their culture. I do think that King liked the use of his comedy, which is emphasized in his interview. This element lessens the weight of the situation at hand and allows the reader to more easily understand King’s underlying message.
Hi Samantha,
Interesting points on Dr. Hovaugh and God. I think regardless of what Dr Joseph Hovaugh’s desk meant, his desk for sure had some type of symbolism as it was mentioned multiple times in a very peculiar manner, especially since this man is supposed to represent God. I’d like to share some of my ideas on the desk: It was “a rare example of colonial woodcraft.” and it reminded Dr. Hovaugh of “a tree cut down to the stump”, which potentially represented superiority in the stripping away of something natural or grand. This can also relate to colonialism. There’s definitely an element of control here, just as with his garden. Also, he liked to look at things behind this desk, from a distance, almost as if the desk was protecting him, and he liked it because it was so big. Or maybe the desk represented a barrier between him and everything outside he was controlling, allowing him to look at things in a more detached way. He leaned on the desk, which could represent a sort of reliance. It seemed to grow bigger when he was in an uncomfortable situation, but in a good or bad way it wasn’t clear. Interestingly, he pushed his hands onto the desk and expected it to move, but it didn’t since it was too large. Then the desk was described as too rooted and permanent which were aspects he didn’t like. It almost seemed like the strength and rootedness of the desk became a threat to him. Whatever King intended, what an interesting metaphor haha
-Gaby
Hi Gaby,
I appreciate your insight! That’s a really interesting interpretation of the symbolism of Dr. Hovaugh’s desk, and I would definitely agree with you that it is an accurate assumption! I think the desk acts as a barrier for him to “protect” himself or limit himself from crossing over into the real world. He is always shown in his office or behind his desk, and It seems like a metaphorical element that is keeping him from advancing or being able to see past his westernized perspective. The fact that the desk is referred to as “a rare example of colonial woodcraft,” emphasizes the notion that the desk is a tangible reflection of his skewed perspective due to colonialism. Dr. Hovaugh is set in his ways, like the desk, and is unable to be moved or altered.