Holly Durocher
January 31 2008
Reader Response: Broken Ground by Jack Hodgins
Like many of you, this is the second time I have read Broken Ground. The second read was a quick one, and this time I mostly applied the novels context to regionalism, and how the community was a representative of the war.
The novel is centered in a small community of ex-soldiers and their families who end up in strange circumstances after the war.
-The soldiers are put in the position where they are to save, protect and care for their families at high stakes. This fact is reminiscent of the war, and the men are the captains trying to protect and keep their troops alive.
-The wives tried to “keep things together” with the home and family, managing the best they could in a difficult situation.
-Fathers were emotionally absent instead of physically absent.
- The community was composed of many different kinds of people from different geographical backgrounds. (Just like the troops who lived together in the barracks).
I could go on forever about all these factors that support my statement that the community represents the war... but now I want to talk about the changing point of view in the story. I believe some of you may not have liked this, but I think it is an effective way for Hodgins to create a “3-D” view of the people’s lives in Portuguese Creek. Readers get a more intimate look at the workings of the families and the way the society is run. Most of us have some sort of a history background and have a mild understanding of the way the troops lived and worked together, and the actions/thoughts/feelings of several different characters makes the story more well rounded, in my opinion.
Thursday, January 31, 2008
Meanings
Hey everyone.
I am thinking about the scenes in the story where the windigo's (did i spell that right?) were being killed.
Strangulation is the key. Why. It is up close and personal, and in the case of Xavier he looks right in the eyes of the man, or Windigo, that he is kiling. They had other ways of "hunting" and killing prey, so why strangulation.
Any thoughts?
I am thinking about the scenes in the story where the windigo's (did i spell that right?) were being killed.
Strangulation is the key. Why. It is up close and personal, and in the case of Xavier he looks right in the eyes of the man, or Windigo, that he is kiling. They had other ways of "hunting" and killing prey, so why strangulation.
Any thoughts?
Tuesday, January 29, 2008
Link to Quill & Quire
OK - one more link, for interest sake. It's an author profile of Joseph Boyden.
Anne's response to Three Day Road
Here a couple of maps: the first is of Hudson's Bay and the second shows that Moose Factory is the end of the "handle" of the bay.
This was such an interesting book – I really enjoyed it. The style that Boyden wrote with really caught me as a reader. I couldn’t put my finger on it until class today when we talked about the novel being similar to oral storytelling; the short sentences, not always ‘correct’ grammatically – it was as if I was living/hearing the story, not just reading it. I was there in the trenches, in the craters. I could feel the spirits as they came to Niska in her shaking tent. Joseph Boyden never allowed me to be bored – I was engaged from start to finish.
With that said, I was a bit disappointed in the end scene when Niska and Xavier come out of the sweat lodge. I guess I wanted to know with absolute certainty that Xavier recuperates and goes on to live a full life. I did not get that feeling. It was vague and open ended – anything could happen. Is it really Xavier that Niska sees guarding the two boys? She doesn’t even confirm it but simply says, “I know who he is, and who those boys are too” (381). Like I said, I like things to end my way, but then again, I’m not the author!
The war scenes were very brutal but I again have to say that reading about it did not affect me, as it would have if I had seen this as a movie. I was moved with compassion for many of the characters and situations but I wasn’t disturbed by it, even when Elijah starts scalping his ‘kills’. After thinking about this some more, I realized that my imagination, as vivid as it can be sometimes, sees in black and white, not colour. My mind’s eye sees blood and guts in black, white, and grey – this is not as powerful as seeing it in full colour (like on a movie screen).
There is so much to this book that I think it’s an impossibility to cover it all in just two weeks. I will leave you with a link to the Macleans article that I mentioned in class today - Windigo in the First World War:
http://www.macleans.ca/article.jsp?content=20050527_180400_6736
Discussion Questions
Here are some discussion questions for Three Day Road from the Penguin website. Some of these could lead to good essays. But don't worry, I'll post an "offical list" to keep you all happy!
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Why does Joseph Boyden use two narrators to tell the story of Three Day Road? What effects does he create by interweaving Niska's and Xavier's narratives?
Niska tells Xavier about the stories her father told her family. “Sometimes his stories were all that we had to keep us alive” (p. 33). What role do stories play within the novel?
Why does Niska spend so much time telling Xavier stories of the past? Why does she say that she “feeds” him stories? What effect do her stories have on him?
Early in the novel, Thompson asks Elijah if he likes combat and killing, to which Elijah responds: “It's in my blood.” But Thompson doesn't ask Xavier, who thinks: “Does he sense something? How am I different?” (p. 69). How is Xavier different from Elijah? How do they each feel about combat and killing? In what ways are they alike?
Elijah has a dream in which three of his dead fellow soldiers tell him: “Do what you can. There is nothing sacred any more in a place such as this. Don't fight it. Do what you can” (p. 261). How does Elijah interpret this? Are these spirits right in suggesting that in war nothing is sacred and that a soldier should do whatever he can—even if it involves killing innocent people—to survive and win?
In what ways is it significant that Xavier and Elijah are Cree Indians? How do the Canadian soldiers perceive them? What aspects of their traditional ways of life affect how they perform during the war?
How does Niska begin to cure Xavier of his despair and morphine dependence? What does this cure suggest about the difference between Native American and Western views of medicine and healing?
Niska has the gift of receiving visions. What do her visions reveal to her? How do they guide her?
What does the novel as a whole say about war and what it can do to those who must kill in war? How are Elijah and Xavier changed, physically and spiritually, by their experiences in war?
In what ways is Three Day Road relevant to our own time and circumstance?
About Penguin Group USA Copyright © 2005 Services: Academic Educational Library Site Map Help Contact
DISCUSSION QUESTIONS
Why does Joseph Boyden use two narrators to tell the story of Three Day Road? What effects does he create by interweaving Niska's and Xavier's narratives?
Niska tells Xavier about the stories her father told her family. “Sometimes his stories were all that we had to keep us alive” (p. 33). What role do stories play within the novel?
Why does Niska spend so much time telling Xavier stories of the past? Why does she say that she “feeds” him stories? What effect do her stories have on him?
Early in the novel, Thompson asks Elijah if he likes combat and killing, to which Elijah responds: “It's in my blood.” But Thompson doesn't ask Xavier, who thinks: “Does he sense something? How am I different?” (p. 69). How is Xavier different from Elijah? How do they each feel about combat and killing? In what ways are they alike?
Elijah has a dream in which three of his dead fellow soldiers tell him: “Do what you can. There is nothing sacred any more in a place such as this. Don't fight it. Do what you can” (p. 261). How does Elijah interpret this? Are these spirits right in suggesting that in war nothing is sacred and that a soldier should do whatever he can—even if it involves killing innocent people—to survive and win?
In what ways is it significant that Xavier and Elijah are Cree Indians? How do the Canadian soldiers perceive them? What aspects of their traditional ways of life affect how they perform during the war?
How does Niska begin to cure Xavier of his despair and morphine dependence? What does this cure suggest about the difference between Native American and Western views of medicine and healing?
Niska has the gift of receiving visions. What do her visions reveal to her? How do they guide her?
What does the novel as a whole say about war and what it can do to those who must kill in war? How are Elijah and Xavier changed, physically and spiritually, by their experiences in war?
In what ways is Three Day Road relevant to our own time and circumstance?
About Penguin Group USA Copyright © 2005 Services: Academic Educational Library Site Map Help Contact
Aldea's Response
Greetings Everyone!!!
The first time I had read Broken Ground I was fascinated by the reworkings of a new life for these people on Vancouver Island. I liked the roles that the women took and how their roles were not controlled by the social norms that would have been expected of them from the main land. I also enjoyed the raw nature of Vancouver Island and how it shaped them into a strong group that learned to work together and become a part of each other's lives, dependent of each other.
The second time reading this novel my thoughts were a little darker. The land they are fighting to reshape has metaphorically represented the land that some had fought for, a dark memory of conquoring their homes once again.
One of my favorite imageries was the image of the boys in the pond watching the forest burn down all around them. This imagery must conjure up dark memories of the battles fought, how buildings were burned down and everything that they had once relied upon soon crashed to the ground into a pile of rubble.
Broken Ground recreates a war and metaphorically symbolises the rise and fall of nations, the rebuilding of societies, the different effects of older and younger generations, and the alliances made through sheer desperation.
I wonder now, what my third impression of this novel will be.
Aldea
The first time I had read Broken Ground I was fascinated by the reworkings of a new life for these people on Vancouver Island. I liked the roles that the women took and how their roles were not controlled by the social norms that would have been expected of them from the main land. I also enjoyed the raw nature of Vancouver Island and how it shaped them into a strong group that learned to work together and become a part of each other's lives, dependent of each other.
The second time reading this novel my thoughts were a little darker. The land they are fighting to reshape has metaphorically represented the land that some had fought for, a dark memory of conquoring their homes once again.
One of my favorite imageries was the image of the boys in the pond watching the forest burn down all around them. This imagery must conjure up dark memories of the battles fought, how buildings were burned down and everything that they had once relied upon soon crashed to the ground into a pile of rubble.
Broken Ground recreates a war and metaphorically symbolises the rise and fall of nations, the rebuilding of societies, the different effects of older and younger generations, and the alliances made through sheer desperation.
I wonder now, what my third impression of this novel will be.
Aldea
Anne's reader response
Okay - if this works, I've found how to do a post without having to bug Blanca :-)
Here it is:
Reading this a second time around was an interesting experience. I didn’t have the “who the heck is speaking now?” confusion that I did the first time. I think that made it easier for me to focus on the story (stories) itself. I still had to re-read the parts about Elizabeth and the fire – is it truly possible that she was untouched by the flames or is it that Matt could only see her in the ‘perfect angel status’ to which she had been elevated? I believe the latter; to Matt, Elizabeth represented the only piece of goodness that he could find in the whole War (303). To loose that connection with Elizabeth would allow the horror of France to be foremost in his mind, and at that time, he was not ready to let that happen. Only in going to France and facing his demons was he able to come to a place of strange healing, oddly enough admitting that he remembered Elizabeth as untouched by flames (272), yet still holding on to the impossible prospect of her “lying in a secret room of the hospital where nuns and doctors looked in on her, poured nourishment down her throat, [speaking] to her in the hope that she might hear and awake. . . . He smiled, allowing himself to believe that it might be true” (272-3).
I suppose it could be said that Matt Pearson was delusional; I think that is too easy of an answer. No one in Broken Ground escaped the War with easy answers and I think Hodgins did an excellent job of showing us that with his kaleidoscope of characters.
Monday, January 28, 2008
Friday, January 25, 2008
History and Broken Ground
I thought I'd post a little more food for thought... I think it's hard to find historical truth in texts like Broken Ground because the book keeps insisting on pulling the rug out from underneath our feet whenever we think we have figured out what the novel is "all about." It suggests, instead, to me, what Hutcheon said, that historical knowledge is always provisional and indeterminate. This isn't, of course, the same as denying historical knowledge, but it does cause us to constantly question what we know and how we know it. And it addresses the problem of representation.
The story is a way of making sense of the past, but one can always tell what is ostensibly the same story in different ways. The way that Hodgins has structured this novel, with its multiple narrative voices and its disjointed timelines, suggests a refusal of any history that is totalizing. There is also a refusal of nostalgia, and of sentimentality.
The characters in the novel are reporting as particpants in the stories that are expressed. They are not outside the story as a neutral observer (or an omniscient narrator) might be. They are very aware that they are (re)constructing their own history, and the novel itself becomes a self-refelxive commentary on its own constructin as a literary text. As Hutcheon has noted and asked, "The past really did exist. The question is: how can we know that past today - and what can we know of it?" In some ways Hodgins' novel doesn't allow us to ask the question in terms of distinguishing between historical fact and fiction: it suggests, instead, that both history and fiction are discourse. They are signifying systems that gesture towards how we use language to construct meaning.
The story is a way of making sense of the past, but one can always tell what is ostensibly the same story in different ways. The way that Hodgins has structured this novel, with its multiple narrative voices and its disjointed timelines, suggests a refusal of any history that is totalizing. There is also a refusal of nostalgia, and of sentimentality.
The characters in the novel are reporting as particpants in the stories that are expressed. They are not outside the story as a neutral observer (or an omniscient narrator) might be. They are very aware that they are (re)constructing their own history, and the novel itself becomes a self-refelxive commentary on its own constructin as a literary text. As Hutcheon has noted and asked, "The past really did exist. The question is: how can we know that past today - and what can we know of it?" In some ways Hodgins' novel doesn't allow us to ask the question in terms of distinguishing between historical fact and fiction: it suggests, instead, that both history and fiction are discourse. They are signifying systems that gesture towards how we use language to construct meaning.
Wednesday, January 23, 2008
Rachelle's Response to Broken Ground
Broken Ground Rachelle Ekeli
The emotional scaring and aftermath of the First World War is played out in the community of Portuguese Creek, in “Broken Ground.” The men of the community have returned home from the war in Europe and are attempting to move on with their lives and forget about the horrors that they witnessed or they themselves committed. However, it soon becomes evident that all of their attempts to forget the war is less than successful and that the war is still very much alive in memory to them.
I really enjoyed all the different elements that this story brought forth. The love triangle was an interesting element intertwined between the daily activities of the community and the graphic memories of the war. The amount of dedication and description committed to the war in the novel was great. Author Jack Hodgins, was not only able to write about a war he himself had never seen, but he was able to recreate it in my mind as well.
Another part of this novel that was fascinating was the little bits and pieces of information that was gradually given to the reader throughout the novel about Elizabeth. At first I assumed she was Maude and Mathew Pearson’s child. Then you are almost lead to believe that she was adopted by Matthew while he was in Europe fighting in the war. However, later it becomes clear that Elizabeth is Matthew’s biological daughter and that Maude is not her mother and in fact had to not only open her heart to the little girl, but forgive her own husband.
The paternity of Elizabeth lead me to wonder how often that sort of thing would have happened during the war. How many children there may be in Europe with American, Australian or Canadian fathers they have never met.
Lastly, this novel lead me to a question which I have attempted to answer by searching for documents on the internet. How many men couldn’t live with or deal with the memories of war and resorted to suicide? In my search I found that it was actually a rather high rate. Below, I have provided some links to the web sites I found with information about Soldier suicide rates after serving in a war.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september172007/oregon_suicide_rates_091707.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/167
Rachelle
The emotional scaring and aftermath of the First World War is played out in the community of Portuguese Creek, in “Broken Ground.” The men of the community have returned home from the war in Europe and are attempting to move on with their lives and forget about the horrors that they witnessed or they themselves committed. However, it soon becomes evident that all of their attempts to forget the war is less than successful and that the war is still very much alive in memory to them.
I really enjoyed all the different elements that this story brought forth. The love triangle was an interesting element intertwined between the daily activities of the community and the graphic memories of the war. The amount of dedication and description committed to the war in the novel was great. Author Jack Hodgins, was not only able to write about a war he himself had never seen, but he was able to recreate it in my mind as well.
Another part of this novel that was fascinating was the little bits and pieces of information that was gradually given to the reader throughout the novel about Elizabeth. At first I assumed she was Maude and Mathew Pearson’s child. Then you are almost lead to believe that she was adopted by Matthew while he was in Europe fighting in the war. However, later it becomes clear that Elizabeth is Matthew’s biological daughter and that Maude is not her mother and in fact had to not only open her heart to the little girl, but forgive her own husband.
The paternity of Elizabeth lead me to wonder how often that sort of thing would have happened during the war. How many children there may be in Europe with American, Australian or Canadian fathers they have never met.
Lastly, this novel lead me to a question which I have attempted to answer by searching for documents on the internet. How many men couldn’t live with or deal with the memories of war and resorted to suicide? In my search I found that it was actually a rather high rate. Below, I have provided some links to the web sites I found with information about Soldier suicide rates after serving in a war.
http://www.salem-news.com/articles/september172007/oregon_suicide_rates_091707.php
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wpdyn/content/article/2007/08/16/AR2007081600266.html
http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2458/6/167
Rachelle
Tuesday, January 22, 2008
Broken Ground
Well, we're all here now, so let's get started. I'm not sure how big these posts can or should be, but I'll start by bringing up some general thoughts regarding the representation of war/trauma. I wanted to bring your attnetion to a book by Dagmar Novak who wrote Dubious Glory. She argues that the early works of World War I were often romance, where pure and virtuous heroes descend into the hell of war and then ultimately emerge, perhaps dead, perhaps wounded, but not tainted, psychologically or emotionally. She says that later, in the 1920s and 30s, this mode was followed by a kind of brutal realism, and then, when works about World War II started coming out, the mode shifted again to a kind of sharp irony. One reviewer of Novak's book, however, has noted that one thing she overlooks are some of the rhetorical problems inherent in representing the horrors of war.
Another scholar, Dominick LaCapra, has written a book called Writing History, Writing Trauma. Some of the questions that his book raises are: what does the writing of history have to do with writing trauma? Are certain forms of representation better suited to the transmission of trauma than others? How can a historical writing of trauma speak to the specificity of a past event while paying attention to its connections with the present?
I think that these are all important questions that we can ask ourselves in connection to Broken Ground as well as many of the other novels that we will be reading in this course. The problem of language is a big problem. Language is never neutral, never sufficient, never accurate in its representations of reality. The idea that we can get at the "neutral" facts of the war is something that, I think, Hodgins questions throughout his novel.
The relationship of history to memory is also important, as we discussed last week. Some critics have said that it is memory - our ability to remember - that makes us persevere, as well as our ability to forget. It is important, therefore, to choose our memories carefully. But, in some of the experiences that Matt and the other characters in Broken Ground describe, I wonder if it is possible to choose memories. None of the characters in the book really want to talk about their war experiences, but those experiences continually haunt them and are, in fact, played out in the present through their battle with the land. The war against nature that these characters are fighting on Vancouver Island is a replication of the WWI experience, right down to the importance of the explosives expert who blows up the stumps. History - an old history from the old world - intrudes on a place that is most often associated with no history, a clean slate.
Well, these are some first thoughts. As you comment, I will add more. If we seem to be moving onto a very different topic, I'll just create a new post.
Another scholar, Dominick LaCapra, has written a book called Writing History, Writing Trauma. Some of the questions that his book raises are: what does the writing of history have to do with writing trauma? Are certain forms of representation better suited to the transmission of trauma than others? How can a historical writing of trauma speak to the specificity of a past event while paying attention to its connections with the present?
I think that these are all important questions that we can ask ourselves in connection to Broken Ground as well as many of the other novels that we will be reading in this course. The problem of language is a big problem. Language is never neutral, never sufficient, never accurate in its representations of reality. The idea that we can get at the "neutral" facts of the war is something that, I think, Hodgins questions throughout his novel.
The relationship of history to memory is also important, as we discussed last week. Some critics have said that it is memory - our ability to remember - that makes us persevere, as well as our ability to forget. It is important, therefore, to choose our memories carefully. But, in some of the experiences that Matt and the other characters in Broken Ground describe, I wonder if it is possible to choose memories. None of the characters in the book really want to talk about their war experiences, but those experiences continually haunt them and are, in fact, played out in the present through their battle with the land. The war against nature that these characters are fighting on Vancouver Island is a replication of the WWI experience, right down to the importance of the explosives expert who blows up the stumps. History - an old history from the old world - intrudes on a place that is most often associated with no history, a clean slate.
Well, these are some first thoughts. As you comment, I will add more. If we seem to be moving onto a very different topic, I'll just create a new post.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Map of Portuguese Creek
Anne supplied us with a link to a map of Portuguese Creek. Check it out: http://www.jackhodgins.ca/portuguesecreek.htm
Thursday, January 17, 2008
Beginnings
Hi Everyone - I've sent an email to all of you to invite you to this blog. Can all of you respond just so that I know things have worked to this stage? Blanca
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)