John's Blog

     The second part of the micro lecture first discussed the stage adaptation of Grenville's novel. It also looked at a source that examines the controversy of both the adaptation and her novel. The source raises the question as to whether Grenville left the aboriginals without a voice. In the novel, there are very few times the aboriginal people even have dialogue, and in the play, there were even fewer.       Michelle also suggests that the stage adaptation emphasized this lack of perspective taken on by the aboriginals because they would stand on stage and never have any lines. It is also important to remember the time period this was written. 2005 was a lot different than 2013 when the adaptation was first performed. 2022 is far different from 2013. As our society evolves, Grenville's story seems more out of place. It seems like her perspective was not enough to cover both her family and the aboriginal's lives during this time.     ...

     I learned about Lorenzo Veracini, a "leading theorist" of settler colonialism. His view was that 'colonialism' and 'settler colonialism' are not just different from one another, they actually contrast each other. One way I learned they are different from one another is the time period they refer to. Veracini theorizes that "colonialism apparently refers to the late 19th-century European scrambles for Africa and Asia". Grenville's novel takes place almost a century prior, and to Veracini, the 'colonialism' Will and his family were a part of is different from the 'colonialism' of the late 19th century. It is also important to note that Veracini differentiates the setting as well. 'Colonialism' only refers to Africa and Asia, while 'settler colonialism' to the Americas, Australia, South Africa, etc. I also learned 'settler colonialism' can be seen as a 'variant of colonialism'. The key takeaway is...

    At the end of Part Two, we see Will introduce his dream of owning land to Sal. This is the catalyst for the greatest change in their relationship. It was the first time that they disagreed on that actually "mattered" (114). Sal was so against the idea that "she could not imagine it" and "did not want to" (114). Will obviously has a hard time accepting this. He saw the land in all of its beauty. To be a landowner would be a massive step up from his previous title as a felon. To have this land is everything to Will. Yet, Sal seems closer to reality as " her dreams had stayed small and cautious" (115). She recognizes where she and Will have come from. They should be grateful for what they have, and not take unnecessary risks. Will has a different perspective, believing her conservative approach "was because she had not felt the rope around her neck" like he had (115). Perhaps he dreams bigger because he wants to separate himself as far...

     There There and The Secret River both look at Settler Colonialism. The first difference that I notice between the two is how Settler Colonialism is being showcased. In There There , we hear from many characters about the difficulties of not being Indian enough or being too Indian. Many of them struggled with their identities. Their version of a home was not easily defined. Many were residents of the Bay Area, yet they did not feel very connected to their environment. Or, they felt connected to a version of the environment that no longer existed. In any case, their identity was challenged unfairly by their surroundings. Now, in The Secret River , our perspective is flipped.       We are no longer looking through the unjustly colonized, we are looking through the unjust colonizers. It is funny to use the term 'colonizers' in the case of Will and his family because they did not have much of a choice. I always thought of colonization as a very inten...

 Passage: "He stood up in the prisoner's dock, a high pedestal where he was on display as if naked to the whole court. His hands were tied hard behind his back, forcing him to bow his head. He kept trying to straighten up, to look his fate in the eye, but the pain in his neck forced him again to hunch. Up so high, he could feel the rising vapours of those below him in the court: all those bodies encased in their clothes, all those chests breathing in and out, and all those words, passing around through the air" (Grenville 65). This image follows the introduction of the Old Bailey Court. It was right before the trial began. What struck me about this passage was how high up he was above the rest of the court. In some ways, he seemed more like a spectacle than a prisoner. It is a dramatic placement. Even while now carrying the luggage of thievery, Will is in a position that can evoke feelings of awe relative to the position of the rest of the "bodies" in the courtr...

My overall impression of this setting and time period was never really defined before I began reading The Secret River . So, going into the novel's first part and recognizing how poor the living conditions were for Will surprised me. The initial passage that struck me described the cold as being so intense that "there was a desperation to it, a fury to be warm. In the winter his feet were stones on the end of his legs. At night he and the others lay shivering on the mouldy straw" (Grenville 12). When I think of London, I find it difficult to envision this scene. I imagine it being similar to Seattle (where I grew up): cold at times, but never outright frigid. Yet, the freezing, unbearable cold played a key role in the descriptions of Will's childhood. It also seems like we never hear about summer. From 1777-1806, there is not one mention of warmth other than fireplaces: "He had never been near such a roaring in a fireplace, had never what it was to be too much he...