3.5 – The Indian You Had in Mind
In order to tell us the story of a stereo salesman, Lionel Red Deer (whose past mistakes continue to live on in his present), a high school teacher, Alberta Frank (who wants to have a child free of the hassle of wedlock—or even, apparently, the hassle of heterosex!), and a retired professor, Eli Stands Alone (who wants to stop a dam from flooding his homeland), King must go back to the beginning of creation.
Why do you think this is so?
King creates a cyclical theme the same way the theme itself was created. It is a creation paradox that has no end and no beginning and that plays with the structure of time from the beginning of the book to the end.
“But when that Coyote Dream thinks about being a dog, it gets everything mixed up. It gets everything backward.”
Both the structure of time and thought are put into question through Coyote’s introduction and opening story. As Ishmael notes, the Lone Ranger’s creation story from the book of Genesis in the Bible is “the wrong story… That story comes later.” To reveal what most readers would know as the “first story” as something different brings its truth to the forefront. In reality, even though the story of Genesis is about the beginning it stands to reason that the story itself was written after the event of creation occurred.
The purpose of this is to loosen the ties that the Bible’s creation story has and to provide dialogues the space they need to insert their comedic but thoughtful commentary. The entitlement of GOD juxtaposed against Alberta’s carelessness demands the evocation of different ideals from different readers. A Christian reader, for example, may find the scene disrespectful since it is her creation story that is being exploited and questioned. However — and this is where perspective and understanding’s territory reign — since Alberta’s creation story is different, it has no beginning or end, her attitude towards GOD, who she does not think acts like a god, mirrors the disrespect GOD shows her.
The reason King goes back to the beginning of creation is to allow space in the stories of Alberta, Lionel and Eli. Space, I think, is the defining word in regards to the question of why King does this. An interesting intersection between this model of space and a scientific one is Steinhardt’s “Cyclic Theory of the Universe” which states:
The cyclic model proposes that the big bang is a collision between branes that occurs at regular intervals; that each bang creates hot matter and radiation and triggers an epoch of expansion, cooling and structure formation; that there is an interbrane force responsible for drawing the branes together whose potential energy acts like dark energy when the branes are far apart; and that each cycle ends with the contraction of the extra dimension and a collision between branes – a new big bang – that initiates the next cycle.
Reading this introduction is much like Coyote’s conversation with “I” at the end of Green Grass, Running Water. It is the paradox that in the beginning there was both nothing and water, both an epoch of expansion and collision. Rather than an agreement on one answer for Coyote’s question of “where did all the water come from?” I think King proposes that it’s the “interbrane force responsible for drawing the branes together” that matters. The cyclic idea of creation is not so much about creation itself as the periods in between and it is only once we realize that there truly is no beginning or end that we can begin to appreciate the everything in between.
I’m struck by the similarity of our answer to the same question! I think the way you talk about the dynamics of expansion and collision means the same thing as my idea of convergence and divergence. I also put a lot of emphasis on space, and while you point to it as a locus of “dialogue”, I maintain that it is the birthplace of new stories. We seem to use different vocabulary to describe the same processes; in a sense we have a nearly identical interpretation of King’s text. However, I would like to point out the one major difference, which is your introduction of a scientific narrative to this Native narrative. Why do you think it is relevant to King’s story? Is he not trying to promote a subjective interpretation of stories and putting us in a frame of mind in which all stories, regardless of their source, are equally likely to be true and equally likely to be false? Furthermore, does he not challenge us witht he fact that veracity of stories isn’t significant at all, because all of them are fraught with inconsistencies by nature?
I thought this might happen, Timothy. Still, it’s cool to see that we seem to be the only two who took this route. Go space!
In regards to your questions, I think the fact that we use different words to express the same meanings fits well into the explanation of my scientific approach. I think my article would have benefitted from the acknowledgement that although science tries to be definitive and absolute in its approach and definitions, the fluidity and change with which it evolves correlates well with the natural inconsistencies of story. Thanks for pointing that out!
I really enjoyed reading your post. I had a question regarding the cyclical nature of literature/storytelling. In a way I feel like each piece of literature is a cyclical experience as the reader/audience starts at the beginning and reads chronologically through till the end. Each reader’s perceptions are different but the literature itself remains unchanged and the process begins once again when a new reader takes on what lies between the book’s covers. Do you feel that story telling can also be considered a cyclical process? It is such a dynamic and diverse experience I feel like it is too chaotic to fit into a cycle.
Thanks
Gretta
Hi Gretta. Thanks for your question. I think that the cyclical universe scenario needs to be played out multiple times in order to correlate with the multiple readings of a book/story. Each time a universe is re-created — each time a book is re-read — the universe/book are likely to change as well. The change is of course due to interpretation and, since there is (likely) no one interpreting the cyclical change in multiple universes — whereas there is a reader interpreting a novel — there is a definite distinction between the proposed correlation. Thanks for pointing that out!