Indian Horse: Hockey Heroes

I’d heard of *Indian Horse* from CBC’s “Canada Reads” competition and from a few fellow readers who told me it was about residential schools and the crimes committed there. So I picked up the novel prepared to encounter a narrative of abuse and its reverberations across generations. 

I suppose that feeling of preparation is indicative of my arrogance – my sense that ‘oh yes, i’ve heard about residential schools, I have leftist politics, I’ve been educated’ – as if a textbook could do justice (ha! what a telling phrase) to the complex narratives and somehow prepare (which is to say, neutralize or assume enough knowledge that I won’t be surprised or learn anything) for the reading.

The novel demanded a different kind of reading. From the opening pages of Saul in a rehab facility, this reader can predict the trajectory of the plot. And, to some degree, the plot follows a line from early childhood spent with his family in the bush, to residential school and the abuse perpetrated there, to the beginning of a life after the school, to an examination of the permanent effects of such abuse, to the investigation of what it might mean to heal. Where the narrative offers deviation from this prepared plot is in its exploration of the pervasiveness of abuse and the exploding of an idea of abuse as a crime committed by one person against one other.

 It would be a mistake, I think, to read this novel as “simply” an exploration of the abuse of residential schools. Instead it is a painful and unrelenting journey through the layers of abuse that make up the nation. Saul’s life and his telling of it explores how single individuals can commit crimes – in the case of the priests and nuns at the school or the white children at hockey games who hurl racist slurs – but also the abuse and crimes of the nation.

As hockey comes to stand for Canada – the game is claimed by other white people and is imagined by Saul as “their game” – Saul’s attempt to make a place for himself – a glorious, gifted player, truly exceptional – and his subsequent rejection and expulsion from the game presents a powerful and depressing metaphor for the nation as a space or idea that cannot allow compromise or inclusion, that rather derives its existence from exclusivity and rigorous defense of its borders even while it needs the demonized other for success. That Saul is the gifted hero and cannot make his way in this bigoted white world – in the metaphorical Canada – compounds and amplifies the injustice because if the white population can see no worth in the hero than what expectations should the ordinary carry? 

The passages of hockey games – and of Saul’s talent – are breathtaking.  The casual descriptions of sexual, physical and emotional abuse are devastating. Saul’s voice – his open admission that the story is his attempt to give voice to his history – demands to be heard; in his demand for an audience that listens to his story he makes each reader consider his/her complicity, but also to what extent the story will be finished when the book closes.

*spoiler alert*

And I suppose this is my only complaint – that the narrative ends with redemption. With Saul’s spiritual healing, with his reconciliation with the game of hockey (and so with Canada) and his decision to continue to engage with those who have, and would like to, continue to dismiss him on the basis of his origins. It’s an odd complaint, but I felt the ending let this reader off to easily. As if to say I need not consider my role in this history any further because Saul – and those like him – have the sole responsibility themselves to heal. And I think that’s its own kind of injustice.

2 Comments

Filed under Canadian Literature, Fiction, Prize Winner

Gone Girl: So. Terrible.

I’m training for another marathon (have I mentioned that already?) and so am back into listening to books while training (nothing like a good “read” to get you through the kilometres). My latest listen was to Gillian Flynn’s *Gone Girl* and I’m sorry to report that it was Just Terrible.

Sentences like “he was so angry his head literally exploded” —> needless to say the rest of the paragraph did not focus on a headless protagonist as the “literally” might have you believe <— occur with a frustrating regularity. The contrived oppositional accounts of events do, at first, provide some interesting questions about narrative reliability, but the device gets dull as the intent for the back-and-forth becomes a clear echo of the “he said” “she said” question the book asks about reliability and persuasion. In short the form reflects the content far too closely to be anything other than obnoxious.

And then there’s the sexism. The reduction of women to whores, bitches or saints with nothing else to complicate them – no stand alone reasons for their actions or feelings – all is naught but evidence of their eternal and inherent archetypes. It was gross. And frustrating. And so terrible.

Forget the hype. Ignore the book. There’s nothing thrilling about wishing – so hard – that characters would just kill one another already and finding that they just won’t. 

1 Comment

Filed under Fiction, Worst Books

Half of a Yellow Sun: Historical Fiction Makes me Happy

I really do love historical fiction. I’ve imagined and theorized why I love it in other places, so let me just say here that I love it a whole lot as a genre. And so when a great book in my favourite genre comes along, there’s naught to do but enjoy the experience of encountering a historical story turned fiction as history. 

*Half of a Yellow Sun* follows a (loosely constituted) family of five as Nigeria separates into Biafra and the attendant starvation, war crimes and crisis of identities that attended the separation and then reunification. It’s embarrassing (but also revealing) to realize how little I knew of the history of the region and the conflict, and a testament to the strength of the novel and the genre that I left the book feeling as though I know more, but also that I really must know much more – need to find out much more.

I should note a dissatisfaction in the narrative voice. The narrative moves through third person limited narration in the different chapters as the reader is invited to experience the conflict through different gendered, class and national points of view. The purpose of this shift and its effect are well executed, but the voices themselves miss the unique quality that make them distinct “voices,” rather they read as a single authorial voice attempting to thread the particular character. So I praise the intent and the effect of the different perspectives, but suggest that the different perspectives themselves could have been (much) better developed.

1 Comment

Filed under Fiction, Historical Fiction, Prize Winner

We Need to Talk About Kevin: It’s really about maternity

I’ve started marathon training again, and with the increase in kilometres comes an increase in books I listen to instead of reading. M. suggested I might like “We Need to Talk About Kevin” (well, maybe not “like” so much as be-interested-in) and she was right. It’s hard to separate out liking the book from liking the audio recording – a lot of background and supplemental sounds to keep this running reader engaged – but whatever the cause I did enjoy this story.

I’m not sure the book is about Kevin so much as it is about the narrator and wife Eva, and not so much about what makes for a sociopath as it is about what makes a mother (the plot, in brief, is that Kevin massacres 12 people at his high school, goes to prison, Eva and Franklin’s marriage falls apart). My friend C. recently asked what it might mean to be a woman and not be a mother in terms of the values we hold. She asked because she’d been thinking about Idle No More and the explanation many of the women gave for their participation as a result of their concern for their children and grandchildren. What shapes our values – or justifies them – if we don’t have children through whom to explain our actions? This narrative asks a slightly different – but related question – in that it wonders how women become complicit or implicated in the successes of failures of their children. It wonders whether mothers are nothing more than extensions of their children, or hold ultimate responsibility for their actions – as if they are always-already accountable for what the child does or doesn’t do (and in a manner different from that of the father). And what of those mothers who do not “do” maternity well? Those who dislike their children, who experience post-partum depression, who make egregious and conscious errors in parenting? These sorts of obvious “failures” of maternity are contrasted with the unspoken but assumed failures that attach to childless mothers, barren women, women who abort or miscarry, women who do not “take” to mothering with the seamless ease supposedly innate and natural. And in all of these questions the reader is left to ask what happens to Eva as a person – someone who wanted particular things from and for her life in and beyond maternity – if all she is becomes subsumed by her actions and failings as a mother. And this is, I think, where C.’s question comes back into it – if we allow femininity or womanhood to be unilaterally attached or drawn to our propensity or success as a mother, what do we leave women for themselves? If our values are tied to preservation and protection of our children, our identities wedded to our success as mothers, our purpose and meaning derived from our children… well it seems an awfully oppressive kind of maternity. A sexist one that says that women must identify themselves first and always as mothers (while men might have identities far beyond or in addition to paternity) and that any inclination toward a separate life is selfish or unnatural. And one that casts doubt or suspicion on those women for whom maternity is not possible, desirable or suitable. 

The book is supposedly about what makes for a sociopathic killer, but it is, I think, far more interesting in the ways it grapples with what makes for a woman, a wife and a mother. 

Leave a comment

Filed under Fiction, Prize Winner