<p>I don’t think Mooshum was sound asleep when he told the stories. Although he claimed not to know what Joe was talking about afterward (didn’t he?), I think he was actually awake. He was a sly old fox, and not always truthful.</p>
<p>Maybe. The stories did have a lot of detail for telling them while asleep. But, why would he choose to tell Joe the stories that way? How was he even sure that Joe was awake? </p>
<p>I don’t think we’re supposed to take the “Mooshum talking in his sleep” business too literally. I think this was a quasi-magical part of the book. I believe Mooshum was in a half-awake sort of trance state in which he was aware of Joe’s presence and aware (somehow) that this was a story that Joe needed to hear. </p>
<p>I lean towards NJTheatreMOM’s view. I felt like Mooshum’s stories emphasized doing what was right vs. whatever the law (Indian or Western) said was right. Joe had to save his mother by breaking the law.</p>
<p>
True and a more accurate one.</p>
<p>
:"> Hmm. Darn good thing I’m in a discussion group.</p>
<p>
I looked at it in the broader sense that the woman who could not be killed represents the tribe. State and federal lands/laws (and the non-Native American, here in the person of Lark) represent the wiindigoo. Lark attacks Geraldine and Mayla in the round house (a sacred location) - in effect, violating not just the women but the tribe. Family and friends gather around the boys (and the orphaned baby): in other words, the tribe becomes Nanapush protecting their own against the wiindigoo (Lark and law). Do they hamper justice with lies or do they keep a sacred promise? </p>
<p>Finally finished this complex book. Reading through the discussion. Really liked this book. Will be back tomorrow .</p>
<p>I’m with SJCM–just finished and read through the discussion. Not much to add yet, except thanks to Mary 13 for the Gov. Bill Janklow information and this:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I totally missed that!</p>
<p>Lack of quotation marks–I didn’t notice (same with The Orchardist).</p>
<p>I agree with Caraid that I would be interested in a book that continued Joe’s story; I like that Erdrich moved us into the future with him. But I’m not sure I think what lies ahead for any of the characters can be all that happy. I found the book very bleak.</p>
<p>Mary wrote:
</p>
<p>I agree, and I think that’s true for Linda Wishkob, too. She gave Lark another chance at life, and wanted to be better to her birth family than they were to her, and look at all the horror that followed.</p>
<p>
Ha! That’s not the only thing I’ve forgotten! Ghost? What ghost? 
</p>
<p>I’m enjoying following along with the discussion, though. My RL Book Club doesn’t really get into books to the same extent as this one.</p>
<p>ignatius, I like your broader interpretation of the Nanapush story. There are so many different ways the story can be interpreted! I saw the woman who could not be killed as Geraldine because of her indomitable spirit and her ability to survive the experience of being tied up and tormented by men. And in her suffering, being tended to by her son, she reminded me of Geraldine in the upstairs bedroom:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Mooshum’s story also foreshadows Joe’s murder of Lark, particularly in the way that Cappy’s participation is an instrumental part:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>**Buenavista ** I was afraid I would find this book bleak, but didn’t.
^^^^ " You couldn’t do it alone, There was a certain way of killing of a wiindigoo must be done." </p>
<p>I don’t view Joe as a " murderer" in the usual sense. Yes, he pulled the trigger ( messy as it was) but it was an act of collusion by the community, and it’s the SPIRiT of the collective that I will remember. </p>
<p>Cappy, of course, Uncle Whitey, Mooshum ( perhaps planting the seed), Joe’s parents in their silence, Vince ( policeman) leaving the water bottle, and finally Linda Lark- whose gentle , wise soul redeemed by Joe’s actions.</p>
<p>**Sins Crying Out to Heaven for Justice **… And this Indian community attained Justice in this particular case.
( the fact this is based in reality makes Erdrich’s outcome even more satisfying- good info Mary)</p>
<p>For these reasons, I don’t think Joe’s mother suffered because of her son’s actions.
. ** Mary ** I would feel very differently about the story, if I felt Geraldine suffered more because of this killing. It was a horrific crime, and Linden an evil, sick and dangerous man.</p>
<p>^ignatius. Mary wrote - ignatius, I like your broader interpretation of the Nanapush story. </p>
<p>I do, too. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Amen. I didn’t find the book bleak at all. I found it filled with love.</p>
<p>^^^ Perfect</p>
<p>Archaic tribal justice becomes the law of the day. Think of the codes of justice butting heads here: tribal customs (think Mooshum), U.S laws (think Bazil), and moral laws (think Father Travis). U.S. legalities hinder rather than help; I should stand with Father Travis; but I’m not unhappy that tribal law prevails.</p>
<p>Geraldine plans to go after Lark. He has become a wiindigoo in her eyes and she won’t let him destroy her family. Joe assumes - as do I - that she plans to kill him. I’m with Joe - just lie and claim the rape happened on reservation land? Easy enough to claim memory of the location. Geraldine doesn’t see it that way because she retains the culture of her upbringing - after all Mooshum is her father. But still … murder as a first resort? </p>
<p>I stumbled across this somewhat negative review of the book and decided to post it, since it sums up better than I can what bothered me about how the book ends. The doomed road trip pulled me away from the aftershocks of the murder. (Yes, I know I’ve said this but the reviewer seems to hit my point better than I can.)</p>
<p>
</a></p>
<p>^Hm, interesting that that reviewer didn’t like the Linda Wishkob story. I loved everything about Linda. </p>
<p>And the reviewer didn’t seem to understand the relevance of the Nanapush tales…</p>
<p>One thing I especially noticed on re-reading The Round House was its humor. This time around, I found the humor maybe a tad overly broad in places, such as in the scene where Sonja did her burlesque act in front of Mooshum and Joe, and the bits where the old grandma let loose with her outrageous potty mouth.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes, well put.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I agree. Geraldine says to Joe (on p. 248), “Lark’s trying to eat us, Joe. I won’t let him, she said. I will be the one to stop him." What is interesting is that her conscience won’t allow her to lie (venial), but will allow her to kill (mortal). As I think about it, maybe Joe doing the deed was a blessing to Geraldine in another way: Maybe if she had pulled the trigger herself—no matter how justified—she would have completely lost her “sense of who I am.”</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes.</p>
<p>I agree the book is filled with love, especially in Joe’s family. So maybe “bleak” is too strong an assessment. I think I am imagining a sadder and more difficult emotional life for everyone after the book ends. </p>
<p>
I see what you mean, and I agree that justice was served, but it was still vigilante justice, and the collective let two 13-year olds mete it out by default, and then colluded only by default afterward. </p>
<p>They all know what happened, and Joe knows they know, but nobody talks about it openly, and the one confidant who knew the whole story is dead. That’s a heavy load for a 13-year old to bear. Joe had nightmares BEFORE Cappy died; I don’t imagine things are better with that trauma added, giving him no one to talk to.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>On one level, I agree: I really didn’t want to hear one more fart joke or another description of Sonja’s breasts. On the other hand, how many of us have mentioned that Joe seemed older than 13? What if Erdrich had removed all the sophomoric stuff? We would have no sense then of his youth. So my verdict on those passages is: tedious, but necessary.</p>
<p>As for the doomed road trip, it does seem tacked on. I find ignatius’ viewpoint particularly interesting in light of these comments from Erdrich in the interview posted earlier: “When I can’t end a story, I usually find that I’ve actually written past the ending. The trick of course is to go back and decide where the last line hits.”</p>
<p>Did Erdrich “write past the ending” in The Round House? Would the novel have lost something (or gained something) if she had ended the story 10 pages earlier? At that point, it’s clear that Joe’s parents know he is responsible for Lark’s murder and have come to terms with it. And it’s also clear that Joe, despite the merits of what he did, will continue to be haunted by his actions:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Of course, one problem with ending the story there would be that it leaves the identity of the backyard ghost/Randall’s vision unresolved. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Agree on both counts. I think the fact that the reviewer already knew the story of Linda Wishkob from a previous work affected his perspective. I knew nothing about Linda before The Round House and I thought her story fit perfectly – I didn’t see it at all as an awkward insert with a “different rhythm and raison d’etre.”</p>
<p>
Yes … yes … yes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>No problem. Erdrich could either tweak or delete the ghost/vision. Perhaps Erdrich went back and added the vision after writing the last few pages, needing to anchor them somehow to the rest of the story. </p>