Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-27T08:50:07.840Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Language and Signs: An Interview with Ojibwe Novelist David Treuer

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 May 2009

PADRAIG KIRWAN
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The publication of David Treuer's (Ojibwe) Native American Fiction: A User's Manual (2006) initiated something of a controversy within Native American Literary Studies. Interpreted as an assault on the political and cultural meaning of tribal fiction, the collection has been critiqued by those who argue that indigenous specificity is reflected by a distinct, and specific, Native American literary aesthetic. In this interview Treuer clarifies his position, explains his dual concern for Ojibwe traditions and tribal fiction, and discusses the genesis of his novels Little (1995), The Hiawatha (1999), and The Translation of Dr Apelles (2007).

Type
Research Article
Information
Journal of American Studies , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , April 2009 , pp. 71 - 88
Copyright
Copyright © 2009 Cambridge University Press

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 David Treuer, Little (London: Granta, 1997), 59.

2 Lately, something of a radical territorialization has occurred within the field of Native American literary studies. The idea of American Indian literary separatism is often pitted against that of “mixed-blood” narratological and theoretical concerns. For instance, the work of Jace Weaver, Craig S. Womack and Robert Warrior (American Indian Literary Nationalism (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 2006)) is presented as being fundamentally counterpoised to the arguments of critics like Louis Owens. Quite often, this debate is distilled down to an argument in which tribal concerns about sovereignty, decolonization and indigenous politics are polemically framed against those concerning literary analysis and critical plurality. Instead of considering these two aspects of the literature divergently, Treuer's purpose is, I believe, to state simply his belief that Native American fiction can reflect tribal autonomy, wider imaginative principles and a whole host of other indigenous realities. It is this sense of a broad artistic and ethnic pluralism that acknowledges similarities above differences that the Ojibwe author emphasizes. Despite this, it remains the contention of some scholars that by underscoring the value of Native American fiction as literature, Treuer has devalued its effect as a political or cultural tool. My understanding of the author's point is that by adhering to a simple “either/or” categorization readers have overlooked the novel's fullest meaning.

3 David Treuer, Native American Fiction: A User's Manual (Minneapolis: Graywolf Press, 2006).

4 Louis Owens, Mixedblood Messages: Literature, Film, Family, Place (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1998).

5 Ibid., 12.

6 Robert Dale Parker, The Invention of Native American Literature (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 2003), 8; Thomas King, The Truth about Stories (Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 2005), 110.

7 Allen, Paula Gunn, “Special Problems in Teaching Leslie Marmon Silko's Ceremony,” American Indian Quarterly, 14, 4 (1990), 382CrossRefGoogle Scholar. Such disruption is evident in both Little and The Hiawatha (1999). Both novels feature very particularly drawn narrative spaces, and refigure notions concerning the Native's relationships with place, narrative and identity that have, by now, become somewhat jaded.

8 My personal view is that indigenous fiction can, and should, undoubtedly aid processes of decolonization, and that these texts occupy a literary space separate from that inhabited by other American or world literatures. Naturally, this does not deny the possibility (or reality) that there are countless ways to interpret every book. Instead, my point is that some aspects of these narratives require a distinct approach if the ways in which the differences inherent to tribal writing are to be fully understood. This is not, as some scholars have suggested, a reactive response to colonization that seeks to establish a reverse form of imperialism. Rather, it simply asks that the widest possible reading be aimed for, that if and when the novel appears to suggest particular territories – political, cultural, or otherwise – then this inference should be, at some point, reflected in some critical interpretations of that work.

9 Treuer, David, “Reading Culture,” Studies in American Indian Literatures, 14, 1 (Spring 2002) 51–64.Google Scholar

10 Simone Pellerin, “Outdoors Investigations, Native Know-How: Tony Hillerman's Navajo Detectives,” European Association of American Studies Conference, Université Paul Valéry, Graz, Austria, 15 April 2000.

11 Vine Deloria Jr., University of Minnesota, 5 Oct. 2000.

12 Quote from Devon Abbott Mihesuah and Angela Cavender Wilson, eds., Indigenizing the Academy: Transforming Scholarship and Empowering Communities (Nebraska: University of Nebraska Press, 2004).

13 David Treuer, The Hiawatha (New York: Picador, 1999).

14 Bertolt Brecht, “Alienation Effects in Chinese Acting,” in Brecht on Theatre: The Development of an Aesthetic, ed. and trans. John Willett (London: Methuen, 1964).

15 Smoke Signals, dir. Chris Eyre, Miramax Films, 1999.