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?
To answer this question, I will begin by asserting that what makes Robinson’s style distinct is the way that his prose comes across as highly conversational. Simply by reading, we get a strong sense of what it would sound like to have Robinson tell us the story himself. Of course, this makes sense when we contextualize Living by Stories as a transcription of Robinson’s conversation with Wickwire; it sounds conversational because it is a conversation (I’ve linked an interview with Wickwire where she speaks a little bit about what it was like to work with Robinson, which I found particularly valuable for her general insights on oral history). The influence of Robinson’s stylistic idiosyncrasies can be felt throughout Thomas King’s Green Grass, Running Water, but it is most evident in moments where King’s narrative tells the story of Coyote, GOD, and the First Woman. At these junctures in the plot, King’s writing, which is strictly prose (that is to say, not a transcription), echoes Robinson’s conversational tone. Out of all of these moments, I will call attention to one particular instance where this echoing is visible:
Okay. There are two worlds, you know. One world is a Sky World. One is a Water World.
‘Where do the Coyotes live?’ says Coyote.
‘Forget the Coyotes,’ I says. (King 38)
This section, aside from containing an actual conversation, also feels conversational. We can compare it to something from Robinson:
Because that’s God’s thought, you know.
And the king no more to say. (Robinson 71)
These selections feel stylistically similar because both use the interjection ‘you know’ – this makes it feel like we as readers are being addressed directly, even though in both cases we are not (Robinson is talking directly to Wickwire, while King’s ‘I’ figure addresses Coyote). In addition to making the text feel more intimate, these interjections are also evidence of how direct Robinson’s impact was on King’s prose: knowing that King was inspired by Robinson, this ‘you know’ does not feel like a coincidence, but rather like a direct reference.
There are other strategies that both authors have in common, such as using a question-and-answer format and informal grammar to make the prose feel more intimate. We can find an example of these strategies in the selections I’ve already given, despite their being so short – a testament to the magnitude of Robinson’s influence on King. In the quote I’ve provided from King, the phrase ‘I says,’ despite being a technical error, imbues the story with a distinct and casual voice that reflects a sense of orality. This is especially noteworthy when we compare it to Robinson’s similar grammatical flaw, ‘the king no more to say,’ because we understand that Robinson was actually speaking these words. Thus, by King deliberately imitating these faults in his own written work, his prose harnesses the “power of the oral voice in the written piece” the same way that Robinson’s story inherently does by being primarily oral (Gzowski and King 72).
I’ll turn now to how both iterations of God and Coyote are portrayed in their respective works. King’s Coyote feels less wise, for lack of a better word. The fact that a good chunk of Coyote’s dialogue in King consists of questions, relying on the ‘I’ figure for answers, demeans his credibility. This is especially true when compared to Robinson’s Coyote, who is surprisingly forceful in his speech. His direct commands to the King of England, things like “[a]nd you going to make a book right in the same town,” give Robinson’s Coyote, at least in my opinion, a more powerful voice than King’s Coyote (Robinson 75).
As for the God characters, King’s GOD comes across in voice as capricious. This is especially evident in the moments that reference the Garden of Eden, where GOD says “[y]ou can’t leave my garden… you can’t leave because I’m kicking you out” (King 69). This comment in particular feels reminiscent of a toddler throwing a tantrum, and indeed this image of GOD as a misbehaving child was consistent for me throughout Green Grass, Running Water precisely because of the way His voice is portrayed by King. I would suggest that this might be the result of the power dynamic between GOD and Coyote; in King, GOD is explicitly a product of Coyote’s dreams who (incorrectly) believes the world belongs to Him. Meanwhile, in Robinson’s telling, God is someone who bestows authority on Coyote, as Coyote’s power is something that “God give him” (Robinson 72). Even though in Robinson, God does not really have a voice since we never hear Him speak directly, His conspicuous removal from the immediate narrative shrouds Robinson’s God in a mysterious but powerful authority, something that King’s GOD sorely lacks with all of His delusional grandeur. As a result, God’s voice in Robinson’s story does not feel like a mockery, but rather feels very serious and reverent.
I found it really interesting to compare how narrative voice works in these two stories, and the way that this effects the characters and reading experience. I look forward to seeing what you all think, as I think both King and Robinson are presenting us with extremely rich and nuanced works that generate a lot of food for thought!
Works Cited
Gzowski, Peter, and Thomas King. “Peter Gzowski Interviews Thomas King on Green Grass, Running Water.” Canadian Literature 161/162 (199): 65-76. Print.
King, Thomas. Green Grass, Running Water. Toronto: HarperPerennial Canada, 2007. Print.
OpenLearningTRU. “Dr. Wendy Wickwire Question 2 – Oral History.” YouTube. YouTube, 18 Nov. 2015. Web. 12 Mar. 2021.
Robinson, Harry, and Wendy C. Wickwire. “Coyote Makes a Deal with the King of England.” Living by Stories: A Journey of Landscape and Memory. Vancouver: Talon, 2005. 64-85. Print.
Great analysis here. Thanks for the Wickwire link! I like your examination of the power dynamics between God/GOD and Coyote, and you come to essentially the same conclusion that I did in my own blog post answering this same question, though you put it in different terms and expand on it – I tacked on a bit about the elusivity of Robinson’s God, and as you write, it is his “conspicuous removal” from the poem – his sending of the Angel, the references to his “thought” – make for an interesting sublimity of the divine in Robinson that is missing from King in the latter’s satirical take on religion and Christianity. And you point towards something I hadn’t thought of explicitly, that the GOD of King only becomes GOD after (foolishly, delusionally) demands it from Coyote, who reluctantly bestows divinity on him – but in Robinson, God begins the tale as some distant, primordiality whose “thought” is final. In King, Coyote gives GOD “power” – although what sort of power can be examined even further – and in Robinson, God gives Coyote power.
It’s interesting that you call the voice of Robinson’s God as feeling very “serious and reverent.” I agree, and I wonder how much if this reverence is a self-aware critique/criticism of Christian authority and value. I think both King and Robinson confront Christianity in their respective works, but from different angles – the former through biting satire and even a mockery of the God of the Old Testament, the latter through this reverential treatment of God. Did you find either of these two treatments to be more potent in examining the wider issue of Christian hegemony and settler-colonialist religious values?
Also – it’s time to find conference partners, I’ve loved reading your blogs and I think we’d work well together! Your examinations on orality and literacy, photography, and race have been great. As for work habits: I do like to organize and definitely not procrastinate. Would Facebook work to connect further? My name on there is the same as here.
Hi Leo,
Thanks for the comment! I agree with you that both King and Robinson are confronting Christianity in their works; it feels to me like both are trying to reconcile Christianity with Indigenous worldviews. King does it in a way that subordinates Christianity to Indigenous story; this is evident not only the treatment of GOD, but also in the way that various personages in the Bible (like Noah) are portrayed, and of course the fact that GOD is originally a “DOG” that gets confused, but who is supposed to be inferior to Coyote. Robinson, on the other hand, gives precedence to the Christian creation myths, as God is the one who made Coyote and who assigns him various tasks. I think that both of these intersections between Christianity and Indigenous story are valuable in their own way. If we are looking at Christianity less as a faith and more as an institution that exerts influence on the world (and I do not deny that this exertion has often been detrimental), then I would say that King is more successful in undermining the credibility of Christianity’s authority as a site of hegemonic power. But, Christianity is also a set of beliefs that I personally think people are mostly entitled to have (when it doesn’t tread on other people’s beliefs), and Robinson seems more sensitive to this fact. When we are talking about Christianity in a settler-colonial context, though, I think that it is more relevant to think of the Christian church as a centre of power, and King is successfully critiquing this notion with his ‘biting satire,’ as you rightly call it, by switching the power dynamic and placing the Indigenous creation myth as the “correct” creation myth. But, I wonder why we must insist on ordering them hierarchically at all?
And yes, I would very much like to work on the conference paper with you! I also am big on organizing and schedules so I think we will get along swimmingly! I’ll reach out on Facebook shortly.
Hi Victoria,
Loved reading this analysis of Robinson and King. I answered the same question and it’s always so interesting to see another’s thoughts on the same topic. We had mostly similar observations regarding God/GOD and Coyote, but you’ve expanded in your post and in this comment thread with Leo into some territory that I hadn’t really considered regarding how the authors chose to portray Christianity. Interesting to consider how each viewed Christianity and how aware or intentional each was of their views within their writing.
Authority and hierarchy was brought up in this comment thread already, and I’ll continue that train of thought. In King’s story I am somewhat surprised that neither Coyote, nor GOD seems to be the authority. Or even the leader or the powerful figure. Who is the leader then? Or is there not one and that’s the point? What do you think?
Hi Laura,
That is a really interesting question, and to be honest, I’m not sure. Most of the narrative power in King seems to be vested in this ‘I’ figure, and I still haven’t figured out who, if anyone, this is supposed to represent. As of right now, I’d be inclined to agree with your idea that the person with the most ‘authority’ is ambiguous on purpose – that is, that there isn’t one authority and that’s the point – though I’m not sure what point he was trying to make yet. Perhaps he is advocating for some kind of deconstructive power that allows multiple people to hold authority at once (or at different times); maybe King is conveying a desire to debinarize ideas of power. Honestly, I think what King was doing with this story is extremely complex, and I think it will take a lot of time for me to unpack fully! But, this discussion of power is certainly a really good place to start, so I thank you for your question, even though I couldn’t really provide an adequate answer!
Hi Victoria!
Thank you for the lovely written blog! I appreciated your close analysis of both Robinson’s work and how it has impacted King’s writing. I have read a decent amount of both authors but this is the first class with which I worked so closely with.
With that being said, I very much enjoyed your comparison between the king in Robinson’s piece and GOD in King’s (confusing !). I agree that sometimes that the characters in Robinson’s piece are a lot more serious than the ones in King’s piece. I wonder why that is and what the purpose of the colloquial-ness that King presents? Maybe it is to further expand on Robinson’s point of having stories written as conversation, therefore making it more intimate?
Either way, Id like to thank you again for the thoughtful piece. It was very helpful in understanding the connection between the two writers !
Lenaya
Hi Lenaya,
Thanks so much for your comment! Writing the blog was kind of confusing, trying to keep all the characters straight. I do agree with you that at least part of King’s reason for keeping things so informal and ‘colloquial,’ as you say, is to try to retain and expand on the conversational aspect of Robinson. I think it’s important to keep in mind that because Robinson was actually speaking, his embellishments that make the written piece feel so intimately linked with oral story-telling are natural. In King’s case, he had to artificially reproduce this effect, since he was writing prose from the beginning. So, maybe King had to try a little harder to preserve this sense of orality because his work, while heavily influenced by oral story-telling, was not actually oral. Thus, keeping the language informal could have been a tool for this. Also, I think that Robinson and King’s differing motivations might have influenced this decision as well – I think King is more consciously trying to satirize ‘Christian rules,’ and so he uses the humour of colloquially presenting these usually serious Biblical personages to that effect.
Thanks for the comment!!
Victoria