Week 3 Lecture- My Thoughts

 The lecture we watched was about the author and stage adaptations for The Secret River. I think this sparked a lot of interesting conversations in class, and I definitely think there is a lot more to be talked about. One thing that struck me most was the stage adaptation. The big wonder for me around this is: why did they feel the need to adapt The Secret River for the stage? Who was behind this? Similar to the questions we had around Grenville, what were the intentions of the creators who put it on stage? Were they aware that the Aborigines had no lines and using it as a statement, or was it something they had not considered until production? I think this could be an interesting topic to research, potentially for a research excursion although I'm not sure if there would be a lot of academic articles available on the topic. 

We also got to see Grenville discuss her book. We dove into this a lot in class, so I'm not going to repeat those points but there were a few lingering questions I still had. A big one being, how would Grenville comment on her book today? I know James and Andrew talked about how it was 2005 and how things have progressed a lot since then. Griffin mentioned how she seemed so proud of herself, almost like a "savior," and a big thing I wonder is if she would hold this same pride today, or if she is able to recognize more of the flaws of her novel now. This could also be interesting to look into if there is any author commentary recently. 

Comments

  1. Monique Cov.January 27, 2023 at 5:02 PM

    Hi Cassi! You bring up some very important questions that I have not thought about before regarding the stage adaptation. I wonder what prompted them to work on a stage adaptation, out of everything that they could have done, especially with all the controversy surrounding the book. I am wondering something similar on what would be Grenville's current thoughts of her story. As many hard subjects writing about them leads to some form of controversy or another and makes us wonder what is a statements is she trying to make in the novel and what is just left as an overlooked flaw she could have worded better.
    Thank you for your insights!

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hilary LeJanuary 28, 2023 at 1:41 PM

    Hey Cassi! I also thought the stage adaptation was quite interesting. I wasn't in class when we were discussing Grenville's comments and discussion about her book, so all the points you brought up are new to me! It's crazy how different today's society is to 2005. In 2005, many more things would slide but not today. I guess you could say there's a lot more accountability now. Maybe now, Grenville recognizes the shortcomings of her novel. I wonder if she is still proud of it like in 2005.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Jalen PaigeJanuary 28, 2023 at 6:46 PM

    Hey, Cassi. I think I am ultimately going to reserve judgement on the whole 'white savior' thing until the book is done. The lack of Aboriginal voices seems to me more like a conscientious attempt by Grenville to avoid speaking on the behalf of people that she knows she doesn't represent. I am sure that nowadays, it may seem like an issue to not have the Aboriginals represented, but it is a different time. The book is almost 20 years old, and maybe the concept of discussing settler colonialism was less accepted back then- hence the more subtle approach to it's criticism. She did seem a bit smug in the video, but I am sure that is just because it is promotional.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Eloise DanielloJanuary 29, 2023 at 3:31 PM

    Hi Cassi! I thought our discussion in class about Grenville's interview was really interesting too. I hadn't really thought about her perspective all too much. Although it is obvious when reading the novel that her main focus was on the settlers, portraying the Aboriginals in a somewhat bad light. However, I can also see why she felt as if she couldn't write from the Aboriginals perspective, considering she has no relation to them or their history. In order for her to write in their perspective, I believe she would've had to do extensive research or even co-write alongside an author with ancestry to the Aboriginals. This would've made the perspective authentic and taken some of the bias away from the settlers viewpoint.

    ReplyDelete
  5. HeatherLJanuary 29, 2023 at 7:17 PM

    Hey Cassi! I agree that the representation of native voices in The Secret River sort of falls into this grey area, sparking debate about who gets to tell Aboriginal history and in what ways. Speaking of adaptations of The Secret River though, did you know that the novel was also adapted into a 2015 TV mini series? I just found that out, and now I'm curious to see if the lack of Aboriginal voices persist in it, or if they have been added in response to the novel's controversy.

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Noa's Decision to be "Japanese"

For the open blog post this week, I just wanted to write out some thoughts I was having regarding Noa's plotline.  I think his storyline has given us a really interesting alternative perspective in this section, and there is a lot to dissect! Firstly, it reminds me of the conversation we had in class on Tuesday. We talked about how there are different reactions and ways of performing cultural assimilation, and now we see Noa on a very far end of the spectrum, where he denies his Korean heritage altogether.  His decision to do this speaks to the discrimination present at the time. While I was reading, I was wondering how the plotline would be different if he remained attached to his Korean identity. Would he still be able to get the position he currently works? If not, would there be an opportunity for something comparable or would all positions be closed off to him as a "foreigner"? Would his wife still be with him? Would her family allow it?  I also can't help but wo...
Read more

Religion vs Upbringing in Japan/Korea

 Religion really stood out to me in this section, especially in Isak's storyline, but also in Noa's. A quote that I especially wanted to talk about was on page 176 when Lee writes, "The big secret that [Noa] kept from his mother, aunt, and even his beloved uncle was that Noa did not believe in God anymore" (Lee 176).  I think there is a lot to consider here, but with specific reference to the blog post, I wonder if being raised in Japan has anything to do with Noa's difference in faith. In Korea, Sunja was not raised to believe in God, but did not seem to be against it, and had little difficulty "converting" or at least convincing everyone that she wanted to be a part of the church. Being raised in a very religious family on his dad's side, with Isak and Yoseb both being active members of the Christian faith, it would be assumed that Noa would also be Christian. However, there are many factors in his life outside of being raised in his Korean househo...
Read more

My Thoughts on Hansu and Isak

 I think it will probably be a popular opinion, but I definitely think Isak is a lot more likable than Hansu. Looking back at our class discussion last week, Sunja's relationship with Hansu started off in a rather manipulative way, and only continued to get worse. Isak, on the other hand, started off treating her with respect and kindness. He follows the more "traditional" path of marriage during that time, where they did not interact much before their marriage. Although today we may find this odd, I wonder if at the time, this adds more to his respectful and kindhearted character. I think Lee's decision to have Isak and Hansu look quite similar on first glance, with both wearing "Western" style suits, being from Osaka, and having relationships with Sunja, helps emphasize the differences in their characters even more. Even when Sunja compares their touches, she describes Isak's as more "gentle" and explains that Hansu never approached it this w...
Read more