THE TRADE
By Fred Stenson
The Trade is a book that could have gone wrong very easily. Nowhere have
the forces of political correctness had a worse influence on our literature than
with regard to the historical novel. The fault lies not so much with the impulse
toward revision as the need to preach. Much of our recent historical fiction has
been reductively moralistic, apologizing for past guilt while exposing obvious
historical wrongs. While it may be well intentioned, it remains far less
interesting and revealing than its authors seem to imagine.
Fred Stenson’s excellent new novel, despite being concerned with a brutally
exploitive chapter in Canadian history, manages to avoid this. In his Acknowledgments
he does mention having the "courage to write a novel that . . . argues with
some of history’s assessments" and re-interpreting some of the
"revered figures in the formal history," but today such remarks are almost
perfunctory. (Who would bother to write a historical
novel that doesn’t argue with some of history’s assessments? But this is only by
the way.)
Morality isn’t such a clear issue in The Trade, mainly because the
importance of human action shrinks against Stenson’s vision of the West. The
characters seem almost marginal to a story whose real hero is the land itself.
Time and again the country is described as being like a giant body – the land
its skin, the prairies a grassy pelt, the stones its bones and the rivers its
blood. The language used to evoke this landscape is consistently impressive,
creating a West that is both spectacular and domestic in its colouring:
Two camps at this pace brought them to another change, a place where the sun
burned hot and intense, and the grass thinned until the earth’s ribs stood
out. The valley here was an ashen cage with smaller hills inside it, smooth
hills the colour and shape of wasp nests inverted. Still farther, the beehive
hills were striped sideways, purple between the grey, and some bled orange as if
packed with rusting iron.
Stenson’s emphasis on the environment has several important consequences.
In the first place, character is of less significance. No single figure
dominates the narrative. The
trader Edward Harriot seems to be the novel’s center, but he often appears as
a passive, even pathetic man. The powerful One Pound One is made small by
bureaucracy and age, and finally swept away by historical currents. Even the
Governor, though a wonderful villain, represents an enigmatic and lazy evil, relegated
to punishing what he can’t control. Meanwhile, something about the environment
– its size, power – remains indifferent to these brief lives of the
bold and the bad. One thinks of the novels of Willa Cather (another great
Western author), with their episodic structures loosely arranged around the
lives of a handful of related characters shaped by the soil and weathered by
time.
Naturalism, and this is its great strength, is very hard to get
sentimental about or politicize. Stenson’s West is a Darwinist arena beyond
good and evil where
politics are subordinate to the theology of power.
Humanity is diminished if not degraded in this kind of world. Human beings
are just another form of animal life on the prairies, a point made clear by the
use of words like "mating" and "coupling" to describe sex
(the children, in turn, are "whelped"). In the struggle for survival
weakness is the only wrong, and power the only good. The Indians are not the
only victims, nor are they always on the losing side.
In a strategy that has been familiar to the historical novel since Waverley,
Stenson casts Harriot as the idealistic, romantic youth who has to be educated
in the ways of this real historical world. As I mentioned earlier, it is not a
political education so much as a theological one. "The trade is the god
that made us," Harriot writes in a letter. It is a point the novel returns
to with increasing frequency in the final chapters. One Pound One explains to a
missionary that the Company is his god, sending him about its business just as
God employs missionaries. In Harriot’s questioning of the missionary we see
the same concerns being expressed:
"Do you think the service of God and the service of the Company can ever
be one?" Harriot asked.
"You have proven that yourself, sir. By allowing me to use the
opportunities created by the trade to do God’s work."
"No," Harriot said. "I do the Company’s work and then you do
God’s. What I’m wondering is if there’s ever a moment when the two are the
same."
Rundle sighed out his impatience.
"Riddles. I have never been able to set my mind to them. Your two things
sound like one to me."
That seems to me to be an odd thing for a missionary to say, but it is entirely fitting for this
novel. Yet the missionary's conclusion is one that Harriot himself dearly wants to
avoid. As an old man, he wants new employees of the Company to understand
"that the company was only their employer, not their god or fate. That with
decent luck they would be free men someday."
We may be free . . . with decent luck . . . someday. It seems a sad lesson of
history.
Notes:
Review first published online April 11, 2001.
BACK