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.
In the video of Grenville reading a passage, it seems she had overall good intentions in writing the novel. Inspired by the 2000 reconciliation walks, she wanted to tell a story of what actually happened. She wanted to unpack the phrase, 'move in', that her family used when discussing her great great grandfather's stealing of land. Still, I believe she might have given off the vibe of being a 'white savior', someone who feels exempt from her family's history because she is calling out their wrongdoings. However, I am not entirely sure if I should listen to this instinct. Grenville's intention could obviously be far different, but the vibe she gave off to me in the video was a little confusing. Still, I think her inspiration from the story came from the right place, and she offered a perspective that before 2005, was extremely uncommon.
Hi John! I thought it was very interesting when you brought up "white savior" in terms of Grenville in the video. Although she had seemingly good intentions, is it a possibility that she wanted to just do something to "solve a problem?" I wonder if she thought about how the execution of her novel would impact the problem to begin with because there is a lot of controversy revolving the novel to begin with.
ReplyDeleteHey, John! I've been thinking a lot about the 'white savior' discussion in regards to the novel. While I do think she could have done a better job highlighting minority voices and experiences in her novel- I think that comes with the risk of seeming as though she is speaking even more for those people, rather than for her own ancestry. By focusing on her ancestors and the settlers, maybe she is trying to show the faults of settler colonialism through a people she can speak through, rather than trying to write for a group of people she knows she doesn't represent. When I think of the alternative, a story with Aboriginal people that play a much larger role, I believe that the story would be even more guilty of having a 'white savior complex'.
ReplyDeleteHey John! I agree that, in many ways, it feels like Grenville feels absolved for her family's wrongdoings because she is attempting to call them out for their actions. I feel like Grenville, however, isn't doing that great of a job of calling out her family on the harm they caused. As Michelle said in class, we're able to dive into it because we dedicate a few hours a week to analyzing the book. In any other case, I think readers would be mostly brushing over some of the more nuanced themes and lessons in the story.
ReplyDeleteI think the minuteness and subtly that Grenville used to show 'how it really was' may be too unclear. Our experience with the book is more in-depth than most readers: we are spending weeks reading it, classes analysing it, blog posts discussing it, and lectures giving context for it. The average reader won't look nearly as carefully, and may miss Grenville's subtle message. I agree that she probably wrote it in good-faith, but it may unintentionally peddle a negative narrative.
ReplyDelete