Politics and Religion in Rudy Wiebe’s The Scorched-Wood People

Abstract

P O L I T I C S A N D R E L I G I O N I N R U D Y W I E B E ’ S T H E S C O R C H E D - W O O D P E O P L E K E N N E T H H O EPPN ER University of Calgary Commentators on Rudy Wiebe’s The Scorched-Wood. People generally agree with Wiebe that his purpose in recreating the history of the Metis from the Metis point-of-view is to question the “white mythology one grows up with and never really questions.” 1 W. J. Keith notes that “ the white historian has given the white perspective often enough, but a resurrected Pierre Falcon can place Riel within the context of his own people, can force us to see the whole uprising through the eyes of those who were impelled to take up arms.” 2 Allan Dueck and Sam Solecki make similar observations. These commentators also link Wiebe’s “radical reinterpretation of Cana­ dian prairie history from the perspective of the defeated outcasts” 3 with his radical Christianity. Solecki explains the significance of the connection: If, furthermore, regional fiction is by definition antithetical or oppositional in that its world view stands opposed to the dominant ideology of some real or imagined centre, then a Christian regional fiction is doubly so. In Wiebe’s case this means that his fiction is “contestational” (Sartre’s term) on two fronts: when he writes about western life and history from a western point of view his fiction stands in opposition to the homogeneous view of Canadian experience whose geographical centre is Ontario and whose ideological origins are in the Laurentian thesis and “national” history; as a Mennonite who happens to be a western writer his novels stand in opposition to a secular and capitalist world view whose centre is everywhere — Edmonton as well as Toronto. In both cases he writes polemically towards and against a hegemonic centre: to make a convenient if artificial distinction, in the first instance he writes as a western writer, in the second as a Christian who happens to incarnate his words — based on the never changing Word — in characters and events that happen to be located in the west.4 But this linking of political reinterpretation with radical Christianity also raises the question of the novel’s political implications. Wayne Tefs suggests that “while Wiebe nicely captures the anguish of key figures in the indige­ nous culture who resisted the imperialist advances, casting their plight in E n g l is h S t u d ie s in C a n a d a , x ii, 4, December 1986 spiritual terms blurs the origins of their dilemmas; reconciling their agony through mystery avoids the social realities behind their personal suffering. At issue here is not the sincerity of Wiebe’s conception; the issue is the adequacy of his visionary Christianity to adequately account for the lives and deaths of Big Bear, Riel and Dumont.” 5 W. J. Keith, while recognizing Wiebe’s artistic achievement, also notices the problem of reconciling religious vision with political pragmatism: . . . part of the painful urgency behind the last half of the novel stems, I suggest, from the fact that Wiebe wants to believe in Riel’s impossible “great vision” rather than Dumont’s practical guerrilla-tactics, yet knows at the same time that, pragmatically, the latter were necessary for success.0 In this paper I propose to attempt such a reconciliation by suggesting that Wiebe’s presentation of the historical events follows a line of reasoning most favourable to the Metis, thus giving them a past to be proud of, while also emphasizing the importance of Riel’s religious vision in giving them that past. Instead of seeing Riel’s religion as the obstacle to the Metis success, Wiebe sees it as the possibility for their renewal. The first part of the paper will examine Wiebe’s reinterpretation of the effect of Riel’s religious mission on the Metis nation, linking this reinterpretation to Wiebe’s Mennonite beliefs; the second part will examine the connection between the...