How Does Kate Grenville’s Novel, the Secret River, Complicate Simplistic Views of the Colonial Situation?
How does Kate Grenville’s novel, The Secret River, complicate simplistic views of the colonial situation?
To some extent the past generations have been reared on a patriotic view of past Australian history, interpreting its history as largely a success. Since history is determined by the perspective of from which it is written, this version of Australian history, the Three Cheers view, was written from the perspective of white working-class males, who consider Australian pioneers to be the simple, honest and humble people. Until recently, a rival interpretation, the Black Armband view, has assailed the generally optimistic view of Australian history by construing the history of Australia as a disgrace. This second simplistic view implies that Australian history has involved continual discrimination against Aborigines and deems that Australians need to seek redress for past wrongs committed against the Aborigines. Black Armband interpretations of Australia’s past might well represent the “swing of a pendulum from positions that had been too favourable, too self-congratulatory, to an opposite extreme that is even more unreal and decidedly jaundiced.”1 In order to avoid simplistic views of Australian history, one must take into account the truth that history involves individuals making their own personalised decisions; and that anyone, black or white, is capable of evil. The Secret River, a fiercely intelligent, disturbing and evocative novel written by renowned author Kate Grenville, is one work of fiction which challenges the simplistic politically motivated representations of the 18th century colonial situation. In particular, the novel challenges traditional interpretations of the Colonial period as a time of ‘settlement’ as well as revisionist interpretations of the Colonial period as time of ‘invasion’. Grenville disputes these dualistic views in a number of ways, most prominently by challenging the accepted stereotype that all white males played a positive
To some extent the past generations have been reared on a patriotic view of past Australian history, interpreting its history as largely a success. Since history is determined by the perspective of from which it is written, this version of Australian history, the Three Cheers view, was written from the perspective of white working-class males, who consider Australian pioneers to be the simple, honest and humble people. Until recently, a rival interpretation, the Black Armband view, has assailed the generally optimistic view of Australian history by construing the history of Australia as a disgrace. This second simplistic view implies that Australian history has involved continual discrimination against Aborigines and deems that Australians need to seek redress for past wrongs committed against the Aborigines. Black Armband interpretations of Australia’s past might well represent the “swing of a pendulum from positions that had been too favourable, too self-congratulatory, to an opposite extreme that is even more unreal and decidedly jaundiced.”1 In order to avoid simplistic views of Australian history, one must take into account the truth that history involves individuals making their own personalised decisions; and that anyone, black or white, is capable of evil. The Secret River, a fiercely intelligent, disturbing and evocative novel written by renowned author Kate Grenville, is one work of fiction which challenges the simplistic politically motivated representations of the 18th century colonial situation. In particular, the novel challenges traditional interpretations of the Colonial period as a time of ‘settlement’ as well as revisionist interpretations of the Colonial period as time of ‘invasion’. Grenville disputes these dualistic views in a number of ways, most prominently by challenging the accepted stereotype that all white males played a positive