In reading Thomas King’s novel Green Grass, Running Water we inevitably come across many references to biblical names and stories. Intertextuality is a major technique in the novel and especially the mythical stories are explicitly interwoven with hints to the Bible. The author deals with canonical texts as well as with Indian myths and, as we’re going to see later, also with historical events etc. He takes up names and parts of the pre-text and re-writes them. “It is essential to note, however, that these pre-texts are not opposed to each other as part of a binary structure. Rather they interact with one another and form something new each time they are told”1.
Besides the many direct and indirect references, there are also several correspondences between the structure of Green Grass, Running Water and the Bible, e.g. the four stories told by the four old Indians can be seen as a parallel to the four gospels in the New Testament2. In the following I am going to focus on explicit references in the four mythical stories that develop in the conversation of the trickster Coyote and a first person narrator.
The main part of this analysis is the comparison between the biblical pre-texts and King’s re-writing. As the actual parallels are very few there has to be some other idea behind these intertextual devices. It is probably more about history and hierarchy than about the pure pre-text.
Table of Contents
1. Introduction
1.1 About the Topic
1.2 Intertextuality
2. Analysis of the Mythical Stories
2.1 The Structure of the four Tales
2.2 Comparison Pre- and Intertext
2.2.1 Ahdamn and the Garden
2.2.2 King’s Noah and the Big Canoe full of Animals
2.2.3 A. A. Gabriel and the Virgin Verification Form
2.2.4 Young Man Walking On Water and the Fishing Boat
3. Conclusion
3.1 Relations vs. Rules
3.2 The Underlying Issues
Research Objectives and Key Topics
This paper examines how Thomas King employs intertextuality in his novel Green Grass, Running Water to critically re-write biblical narratives and challenge dominant Eurocentric, patriarchal worldviews. By analyzing the structural parallels and subversive inversions within the novel's mythical stories, the research explores how the author juxtaposes Indigenous oral traditions with canonical Christian texts to defend Native identity against colonial legacies.
- Analysis of intertextual techniques as a form of cultural resistance.
- Deconstruction of biblical archetypes within the novel's creation stories.
- Exploration of the juxtaposition between Indigenous "relations" and Christian "rules."
- Investigation into how the narrative critiques colonial history, sexism, and racism.
- Examination of the cyclical, fluid nature of oral storytelling in contrast to rigid canonical dogma.
Excerpt from the Book
2.2.1 Ahdamn and the Garden (38-42, 72-74)
The first attempt to tell the creation story seems to be a parody of the first chapters of the Bible, i.e. Genesis 2:4 – 3:24. First Woman, not God, creates a garden and Ahdamn lives with her. Ahdamn – quite obviously the name Adam rearranged into a four-letter word – appears by coincidence after First Woman falls out of the sky world, whereas in the biblical story Adam is the first human being. With his inversion of the pre-text, King calls a patriarchal worldview into question.
While First Woman is out for a walk, Ahdamn starts to name everything in the garden, which is actually what Adam does with all livestock. But Ahdamn gets all the names wrong. He only knows the names of goods of the western consumer society, but they don’t fit to the animals – maybe an indirect allusion to the generic misnomer ‘Indians’. Here is where we get the first hint that King parodies the colonizing process in the New World. Ahdamn, here as a prototype of the invaders of America, has a very limited view of reality. He only sees what he wants to see – and he names and treats the unknown according to his narrow-minded expectations. This is something that all of the biblical and canonical figures in these mythical stories have in common.
Summary of Chapters
1. Introduction: This chapter defines the theoretical framework of intertextuality and outlines the paper's focus on King’s critical re-writing of biblical narratives within the novel.
2. Analysis of the Mythical Stories: This section investigates the four creation tales in the novel, contrasting them with their biblical counterparts to expose cultural biases and colonial structures.
3. Conclusion: This chapter synthesizes the findings, contrasting the Indigenous concept of "relations" with the rigid "rules" of colonial Christianity and addressing the underlying critique of Western power structures.
Keywords
Thomas King, Green Grass, Running Water, Intertextuality, Native Literature, Biblical References, Postcolonialism, Creation Stories, Indigenous Identity, Subversion, Patriarchy, Colonialism, Trickster Tales, Oral Tradition
Frequently Asked Questions
What is the fundamental focus of this academic paper?
The paper explores Thomas King’s use of intertextual references to the Bible in his novel Green Grass, Running Water, focusing on how he subverts canonical narratives to critique colonial and patriarchal perspectives.
Which key thematic areas does the author address?
The core themes include the intersection of Indigenous oral traditions and Western literature, the critique of colonial history, the rejection of rigid religious rules, and the preservation of Native identity.
What is the primary research objective?
The main objective is to analyze how King uses parody and defamiliarization to decentre authoritative Western perspectives and highlight the cultural gap between Indigenous and settler worldviews.
Which scientific methodology is employed in this study?
The author utilizes a comparative textual analysis, contrasting specific biblical "pre-texts" (such as Genesis and the Gospels) with King's "re-writings" within the novel, supported by postcolonial literary theory.
What topics are discussed in the main body of the work?
The main body examines four distinct mythical tales in the novel: the garden narrative (Ahdamn), the flood narrative (Noah), the Annunciation/Virgin narrative (A. A. Gabriel), and the walking-on-water narrative (Jesus).
Which keywords best characterize this work?
The research is defined by terms such as intertextuality, postcolonial criticism, Indigenous literature, parody, biblical subversion, and cultural identity.
How does King challenge the traditional biblical narrative of Adam?
King re-names the figure "Ahdamn" and portrays him as a narrow-minded character who incorrectly names animals based on Western consumer goods, effectively parodying the colonial mindset and the patriarchal structures found in Genesis.
What is the significance of the "Virgin Verification Form" mentioned in the analysis?
The "virgin verification form" serves as a satirical element where the archangel Gabriel, acting as a bureaucratic agent, attempts to impose governmental control over the mythical figure Thought Woman, symbolizing the intrusive policies of the US and Canadian governments toward Indigenous peoples.
- Citar trabajo
- Martin D. C. Bruch (Autor), 2004, Biblical References in Thomas King’s "Green Grass, Running Water", Múnich, GRIN Verlag, https://www.grin.com/document/163282
