When we first began to read this book, it was mentioned in class that it was an easy read if you let it be an easy read, but it should NOT be an easy read. This became even more evident last night as we dissected the book. I personally did not like the book as much as, say, "In Search of April Raintree", simply because "Green Grass" hopped around a lot and I did not feel that it flowed as smoothly. It did not lack in the humor department, however (especially in the scenes with coyote), and was an enjoyable read.
It was interesting analyzing the book with a large group versus reading a book such as this one for pleasure reading, without anyone to discuss the book with. Little details such as George being described as General Custurt used to be described, identifying the cars towards the end of the novel as "a Nissan, a Pinto, and a Karmann-Ghia", and the now having the background on what Duplessis really is, I have a better understanding of the underlying messages that the book is attempting to show.
This novel seemed to have brought out a new view on many different stories. The story of Noah's Arc, as told in "Green Grass", would probably offend some people, but if all of those animals really were on the ship, wouldn't that make for a lot of poop to deal with? King brings to light many interesting and humorous twists to stories, many relating to the bible, that most people would never even think of.
Many may argue that there were not any "authentic" Natives in the story, as Sifton argued with Eli, but what is an authentic native? Times change, and natives all over the continent were forced to adapt over the past couple of centuries. So does this assimilation take away from their authenticity? When George shows up at the Sun Dance and tries to put all Natives and their practices down, he finds that he is in an uncomfortable and unwanted position. Just because people may learn a new language or change the way they dress or live does not mean that their past or their beliefs change, and I feel that this is one of the important points that King is trying to get across towards the end of the novel.

While Green Grass, Running Water certainly portrays the overt discrimination against native culture in mainstream society as those of In Search of April Raintree and Kiss of the Fur Queen, it does so in a different way...
I felt like King uses laughter more than seriousness as a tool to get the reader to react and in turn understand just how ridiculous this kind of discrimination can be. For example, just in the conversations between Sifton and Eli, one sees both the absurdity but also the hilarity of the way these dialogues are essentially about the same thing but in another way almost have nothing to do with each other.
I agree with Matt, above, in his suggestion that people should be careful when trying to place in their mind what an "authentic" native should look like, or how one should act...assimilation has not eliminated entirely the wisdom of native culture...and that is a wisdom that we, as a culture and a society, should not only have more respect for but also learn from. I think King makes this point in a very colorful and creative text that I enjoyed reading very much.

In Green Grass Running Water by Thomas King, the love-triangle between Alberta, Lionel, and Charlie struck me as being anti-traditional, in both the Native and American sense. Alberta’s non-conventional approach to her relationships with both men was refreshing, as we certainly saw extremely patriarchal and traditional relationships in the books we have previously read. Specifically, Kiss of the Fur Queen and In Search of April Raintree.

Whereas April in In Search of April Raintree desperately yearns to be married, even if that means compromising basic human rights, Alberta portrays the exact opposite. She plays the more aggressive, dominant role, while Charlie and Lionel are practically subservient to her. In the patriarchal norm we would typically assume that the man would be running from commitment and marriage, but Alberta plays that indecisive role by running as far as possible away from any emotional attachment. She is completely comfortable, fully embracing her independence from the traditional gender roles. While the other characters and situations are epitomizing the Native and gender stereotypes, her situation with the two men is enlightening as she goes out to the bars looking to find her sperm donator, so to speak (70). Even though she does not even up finding a man to do so, she is content and confident in her actions to simply have children. Basically, she does not need a man in her life to be happy, and that is ok. She knows what she wants, when she wants it; the extreme opposite of April.

Although I enjoyed Alberta’s approach to men, I overall did not enjoy the book. I agree with Matt that it was all over the place, and very hard to follow. Despite this, King’s sense of humor made reading this book less tedious. It seems to me that while King addresses deep, problematic issues, he tops them off with humor which often pokes fun at the problem itself. I feel that this works to emphasize the problems he brings up, while also keeping the reader engaged and not totally down in the dumps. I also can not get enough of Coyote, he is just a nut. Green Grass Running Water Green Grass Running Water passes on humor, but I would not put it in my top four so far (that means it is last).

"Green Grass Running Water" is so much more than the other novels we have read in class. "Ravensong", "Kiss of the Fur Queen" and "In Search of April Raintree" all told stories which in one way or another depicted Native North American culture. This book has multiple stories, funny stories, significant historical stories and uses them to submerge the reader in Native North American culture. The use of humor and the convoluted creation stories show those of us in the White Christian culture how our stories must have appeared to the Natives. The book is confusing, but discussion has showed us that it is full of references that many, many readings will still not reveal fully. I found it difficult to read on first reading, and better each time we went over it.
The book shows a variety of authentic natives. Norma accused both Eli and Lionel of becoming "white" and yet they both find their authenticity in their native culture. The Dead Dog Cafe is advertised as authentically Indian, yet it depicts the culture as the tourists would like to believe rather than the way it is. King uses his humor to demonstrate the ridiculousness of it all.
I enjoyed reading the boos, especially after the discussion, however, I feel that without the "inside scoop" relating to all the historical references, I am always going to be missing something from this book.

I am a bit startled with these initial reactions to how folks in the class have favored the novel. I personally fell hard for Mr. King in the first novel we read, and found great pleasure in returning to his “I am going to write this story as if I were going to tell it aloud” style. King doesn’t hand us this book on a silver plate with a slice of lemon and some parsley. He makes us earn the reading. I agree that in the beginning of the novel, following the story line was a bit difficult, and keeping the numerous characters, and various sub plots in order was a bit off work. But when he begins bringing everything together towards the end of the novel, it picks up with speed and intensity, making the reading so worthwhile. And throughout the novel, he aptly applies his impressive gift of humor, to hold our attention (something I think we all can agree upon). Liz commented in her post “It seems to me that while King addresses deep, problematic issues, he tops them off with humor which often pokes fun at the problem itself. I feel that this works to emphasize the problems he brings up, while also keeping the reader engaged and not totally down in the dumps.” I would ask you to take a look at young America’s obsession with “news” programs like “The Daily Show,” “The Colbert Report,” cartoons of “Family Guy” and “The Simpsons,” and parody newspapers such as “The Onion,” all of which address problematic issues in our culture through satire. But maybe King goes over the line? I guess this issues point us in the direction and the advice of Mark Twain: “One can deliver a satire with telling force through the insidious medium of a travesty, if he is careful not to overwhelm the satire with the extraneous interest of the travesty.”

I agree with John on "The Daily Show" and other references. However, I really don't think King goes over the line. I'm sure there are some who would be upset with his creationist stories the four Indians tell in the novel, but overall, what someone believes or does not believe isn't really the point of the book, at least in my opinion. It is a device to show the jumbling of native history and culture in a place with "Christian rules"--which is more geared towards Western mentalities than it is an attack on Christianity. I think King's style is a good way to convey his point. Humor can generally losen peoples views towards the topic, and sometimes, they actually might learn more about the society in which they live. Take a look at the Borat movie, especially the rodeo scene where the guy tells him he should shave his moustache so he doesn't look like a terrorist, and then proceeds to tell him that people who give other men a kiss while shaking their hand which is part of Borat's "culture" (I don't really know if they do that in Khazkstan or not)are homosexuals in America. Its a ridiculous situation, since the viewer knows it is for comedic purposes, but it shows the social wrongs in western society, and can provoke serious discussion on the topic.

The first thing I noticed about GGRW was the way the dialogue jumps around. And not only do I mean that King jumps from one plot line to another, but the characters themselves, within each plot line seem to communicate in strange ways. For instance in the early stages of the book when Babo is questioned. She never seems to answer anything directly, its as if there are two conversations going on at once, or that she knows the answers, but wishes not to reply. I don't know if this has any real meaning, but i found it interesting how the characters interact in ways that say they aren't listening to each other at all, but are more interested in their own agendas.
I found the repitition in the book, whether it be starting a chapter with a similar phrase as the last one ended, or the constant stories about Old Woman, Thought Woman, or any of the rest of them, or even the parallels between the cars seemingly "sinking" in the puddles, and dissapearing only to be found floating on the lake. I haven't found what the meaning behind the stolen cars, or even the "misrented" Pinto Charlie came across, but the recurring theme regarding car trouble seemed to suggest something in the way of a regression to the times before cars, to a more traditional Indian lifestyle.
Overall I thought GGRW was an interesting book to say the least. It caught me off guard at first with all the jumping around, but kept me on my toes once I learned the characters and the style.

I liked the criticism of "Christian rules" in that in each story where they came up, the person wielding them was portrayed as a thick-headed white man who wouldn't take no for an answer. What could be more true? The book preaches open mindedness in this sense. Many times things must be done beyond the normal rules of society, and solutions beyond the norm are easily found once minds are opened. I think an open mindedness theme is one of the more prominent ones in this book.

One of the most significant similarities GGRW had with the previous books we've read, specifically April Raintree, is the instance of a Native character officially identifying with his heritage, and putting that in front of white assimilation.
In April Raintree April has this defining moment when she first publicly recognizes Cheryl as her sister, and later when she chooses to raise Cheryl's native son Henry. In GGRW Lionel has a similar moment when he stands up to George and overtly chooses his Native heritage over white society.
This is an important parallel because both this books (as well as the others we read) delve into the issue of Native people trying to live in a white world, and the struggle which results.

In response to Liz's comment on Alberta's relationship as being non-traditional, I agree that it does seem different than typical relationship standards in todays society. But traditionally many Indigenous societies were matriarchal and King may have been trying to reference this piece of Native history.

One of my favorite aspects of the books is the way that simultaneously two characters speak about two totally different topics. A good example of this situation is the conversation between Babo and Sergent Cereno. King is not only pointing out the lack of communication between white society and First Nations, but it could be seen as a major problem in all society today. People simply do not take the time to listen to other people, and instead focus on what they want to say or what they want to ask next. It happens in class everyday.

Also I agree with John and Matt, and think that the popularity of the Daily Show or Family Guy prove that people can learn and be informed by sources which are humorous. King's use of satire is an effective way of addressing serious societal/cultural issues, and is not over the top. If anything I would say that a type of 'satire' like Borat is thought provoking, but may be considered over the top. King's style of writing, and addressing Native problems, is actually quite progressive.

My favorite historical reference: "a Nissan, a Pinto, and a Karmann-Ghia"
King is just too clever

Little late on "In Search of April Raintree" but better than never. Out of all of the novels we have studied this semester, April Raintree was my favorite (Three Day Road might take this place, we'll see). The novel had a very strong presence and its ability to captivate me emotionally was profound. It has been some time where I verbally reacted to reading something but during the course of reading April, there were numerous times where I was so entrenched in the struggle of April that I actually got angry at the situation at hand. There was something indescribable about how this novel read for me. Monsieur did a great job bringing the reader into April’s world. The story ended so darkly and negatively but I believe that was the point of writing this novel, and it succeeded in my mind.

In comparison to the other novels, i feel this one definatly had the most humor in it, while also still being able to get across it's main points. Pertaining to the similarities, the charactor of coyote that we have seen in many, if not most of the novels, shows up again prominently in Green Grass, Running water. To me, he represents the aspect of human nature that continually fails yet out of that failure, typically comes something new and sometimes beneficiary to everyone. One major difference between this novel and all of the others, is the overal humorous tone. I feel that many, if not all, of the books certainly have a humours aspect in some parts, but in this one, the whole novel is set in this way. I think King did this because he is trying to put forth this idea that if everything has some type of humor in it, it is much easier to deal with and thus easier to reflect upon. I also feel this is one of the main points he is trying to get across with this book.Another main point that i see is the lack of any "real" indians, and by this i mean by blood. But, i think his point is that this doesn;t matter, that blood doesn't make who a person is but rather that who they are makes them. For instance, the Dead Dog cafe makes its money off of tourists who pretend (in most cases anyway) to believe that Natives in that area of Canada actually ate dogs. So, in this misconception that is being used, the Natives actually profit from a fake notion about themselves, in a sense making a living off of lies as many whites did by taking their land and exploiting it and them. So, being "authentic", doesn't mean having pure blood, but instead, living as true to the old ways as possible while still seeing that in order to survive, they must also look to the future. This is best exlemplified with the final scene, where in the dam washes away Eli and his cabin while also ruining all of the progress that the corparations made. It doesn't matter at this point of another dam gets built, because like the creation stories, things get swept away so that something else can be put there, which i feel is another theme, the never ending cycle of destruction and rebirth.

I think the main difference between GGRW and the other novels we've read thus far is the use of humor and satire as a means of expressing something sad and grave thtat happened. Unlike, April Raintree or Kiss of the Fur Queen, which explicitly stated how everything happening was horrible and depressing and exploiting of Natives, etc.. it chooses to do so in a much more hidden way. Some such authentic plays on history include the interactions with "God" and woman, and how she defies what he says and decides to do things her own way as opposed to the "Christian" way. Also, the story of the man walking on water, rather than saying Jesus.

While reading this, I wasn't too crazy about all of the jumping around between story to story- it was a little hard to follow. But when I look back, I appreciate all of the stories more as I find what I highlighted. I really enjoyed the storyline of Alberta, Lional & Eli- and especially the struggle of Lionel in finding who he is, and constantly "wandering" as King described it somehwere in the middle. It reminded me a lot of people I know so his character in general affected me greatly and helped me see that so many of us are lost in life-not knowing who we truly are or what do to with our lives.

I thought it was interesting what John brought up about American "news" that young people are so attracted to, like "The Onion," "Daily Show," "Family Guy" etc, becaues of the satire and sarcastic humor brought out. It's interesting that what we find most humorous these days is the mockery of our own culture, but at the same time I understand it and I think it makes us feel better about ourselves in a way. Or, it helps us to validate what WE do. I found it harder to relate to GGRW because, of course, it was a satire on the Native American culture and the treatment of whites to Native American's. While I found parts of it humorous, I couldn't find the humor in all of the scenes that we brought up as humorous until after the fact.

So, I think the issue of authenticity in this novel is somehow parallel to King's other novel "Truth About Stories" in that appreciate of ones identity/culture comes through witnessing all of the stereotypes brought against it, all the problems associated with it, and then growing as a result. I also agree with what Carolyn said about it, and that this authenticity is brought out when the Natives are in their own atmosphere (ex the Dead Dog Cafe) and they take it for all it is, no matter how ridiculous and humorous. The tourists, as she said, will see it one way and they will see it the other, and know. I think authenticity mainly deals with seeing the humour in any situation and not letting others bring you down; sticking to your guns-who you are, what you do, even if others don't understand or don't take it seriously.

I tend to think that Green Grass, Running Water was actually one of the tougher reads of this course. Although I enjoyed the work, I found its disjointed nature confusing at points, and it took a fair amount longer then I expected to complete. I did enjoy how it was more comic in nature then the other texts, and how King’s use of oral story telling was different then the other types of prose which we have encountered. Also, the circular storytelling and reiteration were interesting tools that I think he used effectively.
The largest parallel of the novel to the others we have read is obviously the disconnect between the white and native worlds. This is seen most clearly in the character of Eli, who abandons the reserve to teach at university, but comes back and becomes a hero to his people when he forces the injunction against the dam. The use of circular storytelling allows the character of Lionel to follow in Eli’s footsteps and results in a reexamination of his own life. The most significant difference between GGRR and the other works, is the innovative way of storytelling, weaving multiple story lines and perspectives, yet bringing them all together to a form a fitting conclusion. The other aspect I enjoyed the most about GGRR was the humorous nature of the novel, which was much more upbeat in comparison to our other works.
In writing this novel, I believe that King was attempting to do several things. Chief among them would be introducing native culture (and storytelling) to non native society, while also pointing out the problems that first nation’s peoples must deal with while adjusting to white society. I must applaud King for accomplishing these goals, while also writing an engaging, creative, and often hilarious work.

“Green Grass” differed significantly from the other books not just in style but also in plot structure. One big difference was that while all the books dealt with fantasy like material and stories, Green Grass wove these elements directly into the plot. Rather than having the dreamlike fantasy’s stand as background material we are expected to weave into the plot due to juxtaposition, such as with Ravensong and Kiss of the Fur queen, in Green Grass the mystical aspects and stories directly interact within the story. Rather than having specifically delineated parts of the plot which stylistically defined themselves as dream states, the mystical characters and stories directly acted within the major plot. In Ravensong, we had two worlds which we had to assume interacted–raven and the cedar, and the world of the village. We saw it from two perspectives, from raven claiming responsibility, and from the perspective of the villagers, who just experienced the consequences. In Green Grass, the mystical background was brought to the forefront.

I think that this really demonstrates much of kings purpose. I think that the way the old Indians acted directly in day to day affairs of other characters was a blunt way of him showing how stories affect our lives. And the way that he uses such extensive inter-textual references, while having the story within the book do so as well, showed how stories can be twisted and contorted and melded to create hugely different results. Further than just saying stories have a strong effect, I think he also wanted to show that many of the values and results of white stories are largely negative–violent, rule-bound, racist, etc.

Regarding “authenticity”, I think that King played with the idea showing that the names and identities given to people do not really matter. For example with the old Indians, although they had the names of white characters, not once in the story did I believe them to be white. Further, by having Joseph Havaugh seemingly portrayed as the Christian God, but constantly accompanied by a black woman name Babo, and the reference to Melville’s story, further makes us wonder who is really in control. And the way in which the characters, most especially Lionel, change throughout the book further makes one wonder what makes someone who they are.

I really enjoyed Green Grass Running Water, though the ending kind of disappointed me. I guess I was hoping for a very exciting ending and for me it felt like it was missing something. I did not really understand how the cars being "stolen" and then floating on the dam as the Nina, Pinta, and Santa Maria made sense. Who stole them? The Indians? I think this book is similar to the other books we've read this semester in that it deals with issues of Native life. The descriptions of the Sun Dance showed the tension between natives and non-natives, in the way that other books we've read have shown this tension. It is different from the others that we've read in that it has a very modern feel to it. It also, while tackling some difficult issues surrounding native life, does not do so in a depressing way as April Raintree and others have done. I noticed a lot of similarities between this book and The Truth about Stories, in that I feel that King had very clear objectives in writing it. He is clearly concerned with environmental issues as well as public policy issues that affect native people. I also saw the similarities in his interest in christian and native creation myths. He tries to convince his readers that no one story is more true than another. I really enjoyed this aspect of the book. King also deals with issues of authenticity and what makes a 'real' indian. Through the character of Charlie's father who was a star in Hollywood playing Indian characters, King shows how Native identity is either forced upon people or taken away from them. Charlie's father is an indian, yet he is forced to wear a fake nose because he does not fit into other's ideas of what an indian looks like. I really enjoyed this book and hope to read more by Thomas King.

I think everyone has made very valuable comments. I agree that the similarity between Green Grass and our previous readings is the combination of worlds between the traditional and the modern-day. The difference being the amazingly complex intertextual structure within itself and to other texts (the four Indians and the Bible stories) and the humor expressed through these references and characters. King has a very talented imagination to bring these characters to life and provide them with such depth (the reader feels close to Lionel's mid-life crisis, Alberta's struggle with wanting a child but not the father, Charlie's loss of father, Lionel's family's hope for Lionel to participate in their culture...). Erin makes many clear points about King's intentions and the challenge of being a Native and of matching the perceptions of what others think makes one an "authentic" Native.
Did anyone else want Alberta and Lionel to get together in the end? I wanted Alberta to have Lionel's baby.

I don't really know what to make of Green Grass Running Water. From the get go, I was confused with Coyote, Hawkeye, Robin Cruesoe, Ishmael, and Lone Ranger's role in the story, but I sort of figured it out by the last hundred pages or so. I was disappointed that the ending placed more emphasis on the old Indians rather then other characters. As a result of the my confusion of the Indians interactions with the real world, I was reading more for the real stories and read the short parable like stories quickly just to get through them and back to the main story at hand. Some of the situations which the characters faced got concluded such as Eli's resistance over the dam and Dr. Hovaugh's search for the Indians, but I didn't like being left with definite answer over Alberta's dilemma over Charlie or Lionel(Yes, I also wanted Lionel to end up with Alberta). Lionel's little burst of motivation seems left hanging as well. Did he eventually get his act together and go back to school, or at least get in shape and find a better job? It would be consistent with the character if these were broken promises to himself, but we don't really know.

Anyway, this book is similar to Kiss of the Fur Queen and In Search of April Raintree as the characters are forced to negotiate their Indian blood while living in a world that is dictated by the outside world. The have to follow their rules which is complicated by their tainted perception of the stereotypical Hollywood Indian. I would say that it differs from the novels mentioned above as Tomson Highway copes with this misunderstanding by poking fun back at non-natives, for example the use of the dead dog cafe. Another difference that sets Green Grass, Running Water apart is the small victories the old Indians have over contemporary society. I think the whole concept of the old Indians fixing the world says a lot about Tomson's motives for writing this book. Although he can't change the ending of old western movies, he can alter our understanding of what it means to be Indian.

I liked how King's focus in Green Grass, Running Water displayed the ideas about living up to "the ideal Indian" that many of the other books we have read have done. I also really liked the humourous aspect the novel has when dealing with the stereotypes and playing on the cluelessness of white society towards Native culture. Also, the collision of cultures is portrayed through the mixture of the different stories within the novel. Like many others that have commented, I had a little trouble following the plot at first, but it helped a lot in class when we broke it down into the 4 sections. I also found it interesting that King's use of coyote as the framing narrator set the context for the story, while at the same time made it circulatory, having it end where it began. I have to agree with a lot of the others who said that King's use of humor further points to the ridiculousness of the discrimination placed on Natives.
The idea of "authenticity" that many have about what a Native should look like, how they should act, etc comes from white-based ideals, which is why so many aspects are overlooked. The white characters in the novel aren't listening to what is being told, take George for example. His ignorance about taking pictures at the Sundance leads him into confrontation with Lionel and his uncle. King's attention to this allows us to view Native traditions/stories in a different light.

This book was awesome. The way it ends is my favorite. I’m glad Charlie did not get the woman in the end; he just seems to represent everything that is wrong with a culture trying to survive. Eli dying in the end was a shock, but also you could tell that dam was going to burst by the end of the novel. The four Indians are very insightful, even though their dialogue is quite simple. I like that George gets his in the end, and I wish they actually beat him up, although it was very peaceful the way they went around getting his film. The women in this novel show strength, but also indecision. They don’t realize the words they say affect other characters greatly(aunt Nora) and that their actions are playing games with the lives of two men (Alberta). All in all King is a great author and the similarities in this book with the others are numerous but they have one unique feature, they are softer, less harsh, they don’t leave you without hope or angry.

I found "Green Grass Running Water" to be different than some of the other books we read. But it tied a lot into "The Truth about Stories" which is King's other book. I found the repetition the the same storyline very interesting with the four Indians being brought back to Florida at the end of every section of the book. King lets his sense of humor flow out throughout the book in so many ways. With the influx of the coyote and old coyote and the four story tellers and also the names of certain characters like Dr. Joe Hovaugh certainly brings a lighter tone to the writing throughout the story. But I feel that this tone of writing lead the reader to see the issues at hand in a different way. Instead of being very didactic about the injustice that natives feel from white society he is more subtle and effective with his writing. Just as Peter S. wrote above about King's books being "softer, less harsh" rings true with this book as well as the nature and tone of the writing is not offensive to the reader but instead very complimentary to the reader and has the reader join along in the story.

Another aspect of the book that is so crucial is the image of water. And it ties many of the storylines together but I also feel that water is important because of the symbolism that it holds and the fact that these storylines all flow together at the end of the book. The idea of authenticity is very important in the book and what makes something "authentic" is at question throughout King's writing. Latisha and George are a couple that show how one person just doesn't "get it" in terms of native heritage and how to go about things. Also the title which is at the end of many treaties shows how unauthentic many of the promises that whites made to natives are and how the whites cannot live up to their word whereas natives do.

I am very much in agreement with Elizabeth here. I think that what appealed to me most about this book was the unusual and at times confusing style the author employs strengthens and enhances the book's main purpose--to address the balance and imbalance of one's Native heritage and their modern lives. I think that the humor and the frantic feel of the book are ways to look at these matters effectively and creatively, without being obvious or preachy. This book reminded me a lot of Kiss of the Fur Queen in its unusual style, but also of The Truth About Stories, in that it was able to convey morals and lessons, and seemed to keep with some of the aspects of the oral tradition.

I enjoyed GGRW the best out of all the books we've read this semester. I too really fell for King's style of writing at the beginning of the semester.
I found the book to be complex and honest, while portraying more humor than the other books we've read.
It dealt with real issues, but also held me as a reader in captivity.
The other books we've read did not do this for me. While I found them interesting the level at which I was invested in them was lower.
King seems to have a way of "telling" a story, maybe I'm more into "reading out loud" than I thought... but I really liked that I could hear these characters, that I could see them, that I wanted to be "in" this story.
I'm still thinking about this book now, while the others have sadly faded in with the "books I've read"... that to me says the most about a book.

This book was indeed the most humorous of them all, which was a great relief from the violence, abuse, and discrimination against the First Nations people that appeared in most of the other novels. What I found most fascinating was the structure of the novel. In many of the other books, notably "Kiss of the Fur Queen" the main story line was broken up by dream-like sequences and scenes which made the novel very fragmented. King used a lot of fragmentation in his novel too, but it was only with other stories not with dreams or fantastical occurrences. However, the chopped stories reminded me very much of previous books just because it was hard to keep track. I almost felt like I was being constantly interrupted with dreams like in "Kiss of the Fur Queen". The clash for identity was also prevalent. There were characters like Norma who were still very much in touch with their culture and others like Lionel who had strayed away, but in the end new where he belonged. In every book we've read there has been that struggle to find one's self. I most enjoy how King took some of the major conflicts facing the First Nations people through a more humorous twist.

The major difference between this book and the others is of course the narrative style. It is meant to be humorous and more personal, by that I mean it mimics an oral story. King is a great storyteller who can even move his spoken words into written text without much change to the style. "Green Grass, Running Water" also has many more story lines and characters than the ones we have read before. However, the different plots come together at the end to form a cohesive message. It is like the other stories in that the subject matter is similar, the oppression of the Indian culture by the white and how certain characters are estranged from their roots but find it by the end of the text. In this way it is very similar to "Kiss of the Fur Queen" and "In Search of April Raintree". King's objective for writing this novel is to portray the problems and identities of the Native culture in a way that is not easily accessible, one must attempt to understand it because the points he makes do not come easily. The theme of the "authentic" Indian is also important to the story, so many points in the book are dealing with what a "real" Indian is supposed to be like. This character is fictitious and only exists in books, the noble savage one can refer to him as. In this respect it is very similar to "Three Day Road" where Elijah attempts to be the stereotypical "hunter Indian" while Xavier is forced to be the "useless, Bush Indian."

I agree with Matthew Hannon in that this novel should not be an easy read. I think more importantly it should be a thought provoking read. If this book is glossed over purely for plot many of its wonderful attributes will be lost. As was mentioned in class this book's content seems random, but nothing is accidental. For example, it brings up the issue of nicknaming and how the act of nicknaming assumes ownership over the character being renamed. A name is a large part of someone's identity, if that is stripped of them so too is much of their identity. This notion never occurred to me before reading this novel.

I feel that one of the most valuable characteristics this novel puts forth is the idea that history is simply a story. The Bible, although divine to many, is a story. The Pima creation story is just as valid. However, it's the overexposure and for that matter underexposure to certain creation stories in our lives, like the very publicized Christian creation story, that disables us to feel this way. This book serves as a reminder that whether human, animal, Christian or Cree your life is valid and telling your story only furthers that notion.

My absolute favorite thing about King’s writing is his incorporation of humor. It is something that really stands out to me. Both The Truth about Stories and Green Grass, Running Water have a comical wisdom that makes the books more enjoyable to read. Green Grass, Running Water was like one of those movies you watch where all the characters magically come together at the end (e.g. Crash, Love Actually). Although confusing for me at times, it really made the end of the novel exciting. As Matt said above, it was simple but complex. I found myself randomly flipping the pages quickly but then hunkering down and really dissecting other parts. The themes of the novel were very similar to those of the other books we have read in this course. The ideas of culture clashes, language and naming are all significant in Green Grass, Running Water as well as in most of the other books. I think that King’s objectives were to tell an interesting and fun story that had a solid and intellectual underlying message. In class, we thoroughly picked apart every detail of the book. Those details that made me think - “Wow, how creative” – is an example of what I think King’s objective was. He tells a phenomenal story but also provides the readers with questions – one of the skills authors have, to keep the reader thinking.

Amanda Enright,
Your idea that “history is simply a story” was really interesting to me. I completely agree that history is a story and I find that most people would never agree with that statement. Throughout this course, we have constantly been trying to recognize the importance of stories, something that King helps us do. As you say, the Bible, the Pima, and the Cree ideas of evolution are all stories; different of course, but all stories none the less. I imagine most people would have trouble admitting that life is basically a story, but as King says, “The truth about stories is that that’s all we are.”

Dan Cleary,
The way you question “authenticity” in your response was something I would have never thought of without your help. I agree that with the naming of the characters, it really does become hard to decipher who is who and what type of person they are (and portrayed as). When I think of authenticity, I don’t think of naming but rather of who someone is. For example, the authentic Indian to most people would be the stereotypical image on the front of the Cleveland Indians baseball team hats. The head dresses, the long braids, etc. those are all considered “authentic” by people who have absolutely no education about native people. I have to admit, prior to this class, I was one of those people who didn’t really know what “authentic” was. But luckily now, I find myself biting my tongue before I make any judgments.

This book, although it has an air of comedy and abstraction to it, seems more realistic in the story lines of the main characters (besides the four indians and all the cars dissapearing). I think its because the book contains a web of characters who all interact in a really believable and intimate way. In comparison to the other books we'v read, it is definitely more upbeat and has a different style in the way that it jumps around from story to interconnecting story. Some of the most obvious differnces from the other books would definitely be it's tone and it's style. The most notable parallel would definitely be the ultimate endearment of the characters' native heritage and culture. This is an interesting issue, however, when talking about native culture in terms of authenticity in this novel. There are some natives in this novel who use their heritage to take advantage of situations, others who only find their strenght in connection to their heritage towards the end, and others who have a strong connection throughout the novel. There is a whole spectrum of different levels and strengths of connection to heritage throughout the list of characters in this book.

A lot of people seem not to have liked the jumpy plot and dialogue of GGRW, but I loved it. As John Craig says, he does make us earn the reading. You need to piece together what's going on, it isn't as straight-forward and simple as, say, in search of april raintree. are the lone ranger, ishmael, robinson crusoe, hawkeye and coyote really in the world of the story? what the hell is going on here? what's up with the fuckin cars? you need to work all this stuff out, and in the end you understand. the magical realism in king's writing is awesome, i think that sort of sets it apart from some of the things we've read. kiss of the fur queen had some, but not to the extent of GGRR.

and i also agree with everyone who mentioned the use of humor to convey big issues, a la borat, daily show, etc.

also, Laura- "'a Nissan, a Pinto, and a Karmann-Ghia'
King is just too clever." - I just got it. Man.

Also, I really like the way King uses the word "that." that one he does this, and that one puts on that jacket. I keep telling myself to make an effort to include the word "that" in that sense when i talk. as of yet i haven't been able to do it. it's like when i was a kid, people would react to a sudden bad thing, like the dropping of a glass, with a quick "shit!" i thought it sounded so cool, i trained myself to start saying it. i'm proud to say, i instinctively respond with a quick "shit!" to this day.

King's novel did differ from the others we have read since it jumped back and forth from the modern day lives of Natives to historical figures telling stories. This novel had more of a fantasy element, in comparison to the other stories we have read. However, some of the themes and struggles of the Native characters were similar to those experienced in the other texts we have read. The importance of stories and story telling was a major theme in this novel, just like it was in some of the others we have read. Authenticity also came up in this novel. Eli's aunthencity as an Indian was questioned by Sifton, since he drives a car and is a university professor, it made Sifton question his authencity. Then you have Charlie's father dressing up in "authentic" Indian garb and working at a strip joint. At various times throughout the text. The collision between cultures, and conflicting views of Natives and non-Natives was also a common theme. In incidences like the building of the damn and taking pictures at the Sundance these different outlooks came up.

“It was a common enough theme in novels and movies. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, goes to the city, and is destroyed. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, is exposed to white culture, and becomes trapped between two worlds…Indians. Indians. Indians” (317). Stated by Eli after Karen insinuates that he is “the Indian who couldn’t go home,” I felt that this statement portrays the way in which Green Grass Running Water presents important issues in a satirical sense while emphasizing that importance by making the issues commonplace and therefore, obviously troubling. I also felt that this quote/idea is what made GGRW a nice departure from the string of painful novels we read earlier. I find King to be quite brilliant in the way that he manages to incorporate really important ideas into a context that is not depressing. Also, I found it easier to relate to the characters in this context, because they were normal, everyday people whose lives, while permeated by their heritage and associated troubles, were composed of normal, everyday issues (money, car problems, relationships, etc.) In response to the disjointedness of the novel, I thought it was effective, in the same way that Blood Sports was, in portraying realistic (and sometimes mundane, for example, the carpet swatches) incidents and showing the chaos of life.

“It was a common enough theme in novels and movies. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, goes to the city, and is destroyed. Indian leaves the traditional world of the reserve, is exposed to white culture, and becomes trapped between two worlds…Indians. Indians. Indians” (317). Stated by Eli after Karen insinuates that he is “the Indian who couldn’t go home,” I felt that this statement portrays the way in which Green Grass Running Water presents important issues in a satirical sense while emphasizing that importance by making the issues commonplace and therefore, obviously troubling. I also felt that this quote/idea is what made GGRW a nice departure from the string of painful novels we read earlier. I find King to be quite brilliant in the way that he manages to incorporate really important ideas into a context that is not depressing. Also, I found it easier to relate to the characters in this context, because they were normal, everyday people whose lives, while permeated by their heritage and associated troubles, were composed of normal, everyday issues (money, car problems, relationships, etc.) In response to the disjointedness of the novel, I thought it was effective, in the same way that Blood Sports was, in portraying realistic (and sometimes mundane, for example, the carpet swatches) incidents and showing the chaos of life.

Green Grass Running Water is similar to Ravensong and The Truth About Stories in its use of odd narration and characters. King dictates who does what and what happens in a hazy, abstract, almost poetic manner. The heavy reliance on dialogue is comparable to Contact Sports in that it's both easy and difficult to read at the same time. You get to know the characters via showing rather than telling. The theme of conflict (versus comfort) with assimilation parallels many of the other books we've read, including April Raintree and Kiss Of The Fur Queen.

In response to Jill's posting, I also agree that the realistic portrayal King uses with his characters is what makes it so powerful. They face issues that are common and gives us something to relate to. It is cool how King can use humour and the everyday life occurances to bring about the bigger themes that he is trying to get us to think about. Also, many others talked about the importance of the stories we tell ourselves and how it shapes how we perceive the world. This was by far my favorite thing we talked about this semester. Before this class, I never even thought about something like that. After reading The Truth About Stories though, I cannot agree more with King. His books are an intriguing insight into the decisions we make about ourselves, our lives, and what sorts of stories we decide to believe in regards to the world around us.

Green Grass Running Water is definitely one of my favorite books of the semester; like many of the others, this novel focused on a search for identity and reconciliation with the past. The emotional search is seen in the characters’ physical search for the meaning behind the four Indians, the missing cars, and the trip(s) to the Sun Dance, but it works so well because of the fact that the book is written in those dissected chunks that a lot of people have talked about thus far. It was refreshing to have so much humor in a novel, since after April Raintree I was getting a bit depressed with some of the situations the characters were placed in. But despite the humor, GGRW still had the amount of seriousness required to express things like the importance of water; every time Coyote tried to goof around during discussions about water, the narrators were there to pull him back and ask him to really listen.

I think that this search for identity, like in our other novels of the semester, is one of the most important themes, and it’s without a doubt connected to King’s portrayal of “authentic” and “non-uathentic” Indians. Is Lionel any less of an Indian for working in a TV store? Or Charlie any less of one by working for lawyers trying to get the dam project completed? Readers see the struggles of Charlie’s father in Hollywood, or even the reasons behind the menu names in the Dead Dog Cafe, and are given opportunities to see what damage stereotypes can have on people and what it means to separate yourself from them.

Green Grass, Running Water is the best-written book we have read so far in class hands down. The structure was original, and the characters were believable. The dialogue was amazing, not only in its believability and direct purpose, but also (like we mentioned in class) in the way it allows the reader to view constant miscommunications between characters and how that fact speaks to a general miscommunication by white culture about native Americans. It differs first and foremost in tone from the other books that we have read. Its doesn’t tackle any emotionally difficult events (such as sexual abuse or epidemic and death), but it still speaks (I think just as well) about themes we’ve read about in other books (navigating between native and white culture, prejudice about natives, etc). An important parallel with Ravensong and Kiss of the Fur Queen is King’s incorporation of native mythology into his novel, but his development of this mythology is refreshing because it seems more modern (because of the dialogue) and more complete. Furthermore the mythological characters actually become part of the plotline, which makes it more pertinent.
Authenticity obviously is a huge issue in Green Grass, Running Water and once again I find myself either personally disagreeing with how I perceive what King says about it, or, I find (possibly constructed) what King says as conflicting. There are two places in particular that I feel conflict. The first I want to mention takes place between Clifford Sifton and Eli. Sifton says something like Eli isn’t a real Indian because he went to University and drives a car, etc. Mostly, I sympathize with Sifton’s view of an authentic Indian, insofar as much as Sifton means that authenticity is based on consistent action that corresponds to a set of values. I feel that many Indians, namely those that live on reserves for their whole lives, would want to differentiate themselves between other “Indians” who choose to move off and live in the dominant (mainly white) society. However, based on how King’s characters interact throughout the rest of the novel I don’t believe Sifton’s view is one King endorses, which is why another passage puzzled me, and it occurs in a conversation between Norma and Lionel. She talks about how Lionel “want[ed] to be a white man” by going to University which led me to believe she finds it plausible that how you live your life defines what person you are.

This book was different from the others we have read because it contained multiple stories inside of one where the others were just one story. This was very confusing to me and i didnt really start to understand it until we went over it in class. I wasnt familiar with the references to the characters in terms of what they represented, which made it hard for me to understand what exactly was going on.

I think because of the confusion in this book it took something away from it. Although i dont know if King was trying to make it like this for the readers he certaintly did for me.It was hard for me to get into this book not really knowing what was going on in the beginning.

At first, I did not know what to make of the book. I definitely enjoyed Green Grass, Running Water. It was very versatile - the interweaving storylines, which all came together towards the end... however, the one scene that stood out for me was when Coyote, Ishmael, The Lone Ranger, Robinson Crusoe, etc. and Bursum are watching the Western with John Wayne. I thought it was a cool way to turn the tide of the story in favor of the Indians, which in the history of westerns was unheard of. Honestly this scene above any other in any of the stories we have read made me laugh out loud. I'm not really a fan of westerns. They're pretty boring mostly - and to be quite honest I'm not the biggest John Wayne fan, but nonetheless he is a cultural icon whose recieved legendary status in our society. So to see him be the loser - him be the one that gets shot, was a riot. That might sound awful, but tacticly it worked in the story very well.

Hmmm....I wonder what happened to my first attempt at posting on this forum......must have been that coyote....good thing I save these things.

This book was definitely different from all of the other books we have read, and I LOVED it. It was long, but reading 100 pages or so felt like nothing. Some people have complained that the narration was choppy, but I didn't have a problem with it at all. The choppiness kept me interested, and although at times it was hard to keep track of the many characters, each one played a valuable role in the novel, and in King's overall didactic message.

As far as didactic literature goes, I'm sure some of you are familiar with the expression, "If you want to send a message, send a telegram." Normally, I experience a certain aversion towards stories with didactic aims, but, as almost every novel we have read in this class will stand to prove, to change this experience, I only had to change my perspective. A story can still just be a story and the reader can still take a message from it without it sounding like a fable. And, as King tells us in his collection of essays, The Truth about Stories, the TRUTH about stories is that's all we are, and if we are to learn from one another we must learn from each other's stories.

In this sense, Green Grass was both similar to and different some of the other stories we have read. It manages to both tell a story that could be appreciated on its own for its artistic qualities and pure power to move, as well as for its meaning and message. Books like Ravensong and In Search of April Raintree were very clear in their message. The authors more or less spelled out exactly what they wanted you to take from the stories. Green Grass challenged the reader to sift through the numerous allusions and retellings of classic tales, to piece these bits together with the actual story to craft a message.

I appreciated King's dealings with the idea of "authenticity." His illustrations of classic non-native ignorance were funny and effective. I'm sure everybody has encountered or even participated in some of these stereotypes. One of my favorite parts of the book was when the old indians change the ending of the old John Wayne movie, and Minnie sort of wonders aloud, "Who'd want to kill John Wayne?" Her comment encapsulates that very sort of ignorance that the old Indians are trying to reverse: the inability of non-native people to ever understand why on earth somebody would want the Indians to win in the end for a change.

I thought I had already commented on this, but I guess I was mistaken. Good thing I checked...

As far as Green Grass, Running Water goes, it was certainly my favorite book of the semester if only for its complexity - it certainly rewards close reading. I agree with the other comments that have already been made point out the effectiveness of King's brand of humor in dealing with these often painful issues, as well as making it thoroughly enjoyable to read. It was also interesting to read in the context of The Truth About Stories and see how King formed these ideas earlier but also dramatized the importance of stories through a story.

At the beginning of the last section, the first person narrator tells Coyote that "Coyotes don't get a turn" to help tell the story because in a democracy, "only people who can afford it get a turn" (365). When I first read this, it immediately struck me as what the other novels in the course were all dealing with: the school doesn't get opened in Ravensong; the Okimasis brothers are continually abused and marginalized in Kiss of the Fur Queen; and April's parents never had a chance to keep their children in In Search of April Raintree (and beyond that, there's the plight of Niska and Xavier in Three Day Road). If Coyote here is represntative of Native people and their exclusion from the cultural and political system in North America (and I think he is), it's not only the most important similarity between this and the other novels but also a guiding theme for the book. I know this designation is tricky, because Coyote is a "trickster" figure here and the teamwork of the four "narrators" mimicks more traditional storytelling practice, but I think King's deliberate reference to the political system makes the comparison work for that moment. Moreover, the complexities of these symbols seems to me a realistic portayal of the reality of the problem for Native people: there is no easy answer about how to improve conditions or gain a stronger voice.

I found this book to stand out from others that we have read. I also think i can appreciate "Green Grass Running Water" much better because i have already read "The Truth about Stories." I was imporessed with how many storylines King was able to keep track of and bring together toward the end of the novel. Clearly the style was different from other books we have read. Like many people have mentioned, King uses humor to his advantage, enabling him to speak of topics that may otherwise be considered taboo in a playful manner. I think however that this novel shared many themes with other books such as mythology, stereotypes, culture clash and language. For me, i found that "Green Grass, Running Water" really emphisizes what King talked about in "The Truth about Stories". That we can take whatever we choose from stories but it is important to be carful at the same time, because it is simply too easy to accept something as truth. By this i mean that while one story may be true to someone, that does not mean that that is the ONLY truth.

As far as authenticity goes, i beleive King is sugessting that authenticity is simply being true to yourself. Western society is often ignorant who Native Americans really are. It is impossible to group the entire Native population into one stereo type, they are all authentic in thier own way.

I would argue that the main theme of this novel would be the culture clashes that occur along every storyline. Whether it is in the stories about the origins of the four Indians or between Eli and Sifton, the theme permeates every aspect of the novel. One passage that interested me about culture clash comes from the legend which the title of the novel comes from. I can't remember the exact page number, but the phrase comes from the myth of the coventant between the ancient shaman and the caribou or moose god. The ogd would allow the tribe of the shaman to eat a moose when they needed as long as they lived in a way that respected the sacrifice of the moose. The Natives would keep their end of the bargain for "as long as the grass is green and the water runs." Juxtaposing this myth with the underlying story of the dam on the Native Reservation adds a new dimension to the culture clash going on in the novel. It is as if white culture is damming up the running water, trying to metaphorically break the natives out of their ways. With odds like this, control for the Native's destiny and of they will keep to their ancient covenant is out of their hands. Perhaps this is why Eli is so committed to staying at the cabin until the water runs once again.