I recall Erika coming back from a particularly challenging class where some of our classmates expressed confusion about something or other. I want to say it was the question about why it was necessary to use a google document when one can achieve the same ends by just writing on the blog itself. That probably wasn't it since there's no connection between that question and the lecture that Erika delivered the next class. Anyway, Erika deviated from her original course outline in order to clarify her expectations of us. She said something to the effect of, if you gain nothing else from this class, you will learn to be a better listener.

I think she delivered on her promise. I've become better at picking up allusions more readily than when I began this course and I'm more willing to consider the social context in which an author is writing especially when it may inform me about how s/he feels about (being in) Canada. While I see the value in extending texts to become even more informed about issues than one would be from just reading the book, I think there is also the possibility to misrepresent the author’s original purpose. Through the course of our time together in this class—especially lately during the group presentations—I have witnessed a few of my classmates trying to masquerade tangents as extensions and generally building bridges to nowhere.

Green Grass, Running Water was eye-opening because King’s allusions were precise. The extensions that he made were all relevant to his agenda of informing readers about another side of the Canadian story. Through the incorporation of elements which satirized the dominant white culture, King’s message was unequivocal: throughout history, Indians get screwed.  His extensions informed our class discussions because they were compelling and they were compelling because they were grounded in fact.

Lately our discussions have dealt more directly with race issues and how that affects Canadian identity. While I appreciate the earnestness with which some of my classmates comment on such matters, I’m concerned by how unfocused and uninformed the thought process is. It’s as though we are trying to reinvent the wheel instead of building off of the meta-narrative of race studies that already exists today.

For starters, some of us don’t seem to define racism clearly. It’s not just a blanket term to cover anything to do with race. In a scholarly context most academics find it worthwhile to define racism as behaviour that perpetuate a system of advantage based on race.

Race is a sensitive issue because it matters. We shouldn’t dive into it headlong just off the weight of our own experiences. I find that it cheapens the real struggles of those that have gone before and are going through it now when we speak on it unaware of our ignorance. We can’t use terms like “assimilation” and “integration” interchangeably; they mean very different things. We can't claim that “black” is offensive when in reality it's the term that's been reclaimed--there was a whole movement dedicated to it--and commonly used by scholars and plebeians to talk about race issues. I know that the hearts of my classmates are in the right place but that kind of sloppiness and ignorance has to be addressed especially at a place of higher learning like The University of British Columbia. We shouldn’t ignore the work that’s already been done. Canada has already adopted a policy that enshrines integration beautifully in its Charter of Rights and Freedoms along with the Multiculturalism Act; we should build upon that, instead of misrepresenting facts and making a big deal of nonissues.

“You make a mistake with carpet, and you got to live with it for a long time.”
“Everyone makes mistakes, auntie.”
“Best not to make one with carpet.”

Far be it for me to tell people what to think or say especially when this class is all about bringing other perspectives to the fore. But while Erika encourages us to offer “‘another’ perspective and together our perspectives grow … and this is a good thing”, I think the emphasis in that quote is on the word “grow”. In a postmodern world where people feel entitled to spout whatever they want and have many available media through which to do it, we have to be very precise in order not to polarize and make sure our different perspectives stimulate growth. They should inform, not trivialize.

Even native pedagogy, which focuses more on experiential methods, serves practical purposes. At the root of interrelatedness and seeing the world around us as family instead of resources to be exploited is the goal of having something worthwhile to pass down to future generations. To tie it back to this class, I think we have touched on many complex issues and there’s a temptation to dismiss it all as abstract and subjective. They’re not. Even though some of us may be unaware of the meta-narrative taking place around us, this class has provided us with enough to start laying the groundwork to affect future generations.

At first I really didn't know what to make of Patrick. I was lost as to why he was  a point-of-view character when everyone else was much more dynamic. For awhile, I was unconvinced that he would even turn out to be the protagonist but by the end of the novel it was obvious that he had earned the mantle. The Patrick we meet when he is a young man and still new to Toronto is vastly different from the felon we admire who goes to bomb the water filtration plant.It seems that with each added interaction with the other characters in Ondaatje's novel, Patrick grows and synthesizes into a fully fleshed out person. He was aimless, working as a "searcher" until Clara entered his life. Up until that point, Patrick didn't even appear to be that concerned with finding anything. Though he knew that Clara would could lead him to Ambrose Small, Patrick was instead caught up in a torrid love affair.

After Clara left him, Patrick grew listless once again. He still maintained even composure to hold down a job at a lumber yard but he was closed off and didn't have any friends. "He had reduced himself to almost nothing" (113) by the time he began to acquaint himself with his neighbours. Even though he had been living among them for two years, his neighbours knew little about Patrick and he knew even less about them. It wasn't until the community of immigrants reached out to him and invited him to a proto-labour union gathering and he becomes reacquainted with Alice Gull that he becomes a part of the fabric of society again.

It is really only through Alice that we as readers begin to see glimpses of Patrick as more than a flat character through their discussions on justice for the working man, forgiveness, and compassion (123). Through Alice's daughter, Hana, Patrick learns about her father Cato, who was a political activist in Eastern Europe before immigrating to Canada. Once he arrived, he took on the mantle of activist once more after seeing the terrible working conditions in place and was murdered for it. Juxtaposing himself with Cato, Patrick realises that "He is the one born in this country who knows nothing of the place...He was a watcher, a correcter...a searcher gazing into the darkness of his own country, a blind man dressing the heroine" (157).

Despite all these influences which get Patrick to start thinking about his place in the country and what his life is about, it isn't until Alice's gruesome death that he truly emerges as an character with agency. Patrick's development in the novel reminds me of our adventures in this course. I didn't come in knowing about literature in Canada but through my interactions with King and Ondaatje as well as Coupland, Atwood, etc. peripherally, I've gained perspective. It's kind of murky and ephemeral but my knowledge of Canadian literature/literature in Canada and being in it has taken form. It may also be that literature in Canada in like Patrick: taking on the influences of those who enter it and constantly evolving into something more interesting as time goes on.

How do the allusions you are exploring in you novel ‘fit into’ our discussions on Canadian Literature, Literature in Canada, or being in Literature?

I think there may be some appropriation going on with Patrick Lewis taking on the plight of the immigrants and the poor working conditions they are subject to. It interesting that Ondaatje makes a point of marking Patrick Lewis's whiteness with a sense of purposelessness and yet he evolves into the hero who fights on behalf of the immigrant workers. Does the fact that Patrick is white have to mean it's appropriation? I think it's a little more complicated than that. The link I included proved to be insightful if you watch from around 51:38 for a few minutes.

Light is definitely a theme in the novel. Many of the scenes take place at night, with crimes, gatherings, and illegal activity taking place at night but Ondaatje always seems to point out specific instances of light. For example, Patrick Lewis's childhood passion was collecting fireflies, the last word he utters in the novel is "lights". I don't think it is a coincidence that the master thief in the novel is named Caravaggio. Besides alluding to the fact that they are both great at their crafts, Ondaatje may also have been preoccupied with the real life artist's trend-setting use of light in his paintings. And since Patrick is described as a "searcher" fascinated by the light of creatures around him--both fireflies and other human characters--it's fitting that Caravaggio plays a big part in Patrick's development and guiding his final adventure. Ondaatje made a point of showing how Patrick realises he relies on those around him for an identity, i.e. "he himself was nothing but a prism that refracted their lives" (157).