After reading the short story "Fleur," by Louise Erdrich my assumptions of Native American culture were reconfirmed. I always believed that Native Americans believed in rather crazy or insane stories of people that were part human, part creature, possessed supernatural powers or even that certain things in nature displayed a certain message. In the story Erdrich showcases the young woman Fleur as possibly having supernatural powers, which is why she is able to escape the inevitable death from drowning not only once, but twice in her life. Not only does Fleur display the ability to escape the lake twice, but she has a remarkable ability to play cards against men and win consistently every night. The story also refers to a time when villagers followed her footprints at night in the snow and watched where they saw the prints turn from human to those with claws referring to either a bear or a wolf. It is my personal belief that Fleur doesn't actually possess any supernatural powers or hold the ability to transform into an animal. I feel that the statements are more of a metaphor or connection to try and explain Fleur's behavior.
I believe that the story is actually displaying more of a rebellious young woman than a monster. Fleur is avoiding Native American traditional culture and trying to break the rules. Personally I think that the others on the reservation are more in touch with traditional beliefs and are making Fleur out to be more of a wild monster because of her actions and behavior. They refer to her as being a creature or an animal yet I think that is just a way of explaining her "wild" behavior, such as, playing poker with the men and going back to the lake for a second time after almost dying the first time. Another reference is when the people on the reservation talk about her killing the men around her, I think this could be related to the fact that Fleur may be killing the men more with her beauty, actions, and rebellious attitude from traditions. Although this is a very different story from the first two that we have read I feel that there are similarities or connections between them, one being the main character is sort of an outsider from traditional norms. (Shawn Parkhurst, 1)
You make many interesting observations in this post. I am unsure, however, why Native folklore involving stories of human transforming into animals would be viewed as "insane." Could it be that these stories are not to be taken on a literal level but for their metaphorical implications? Are they more difficult to believe than any other type of storytelling?
ReplyDelete