Carthage Must Be Developed!
Okay. I went through the The Green North again, and I think I see the problem. I think I see why I couldn’t identify the thesis the first time through. It’s because Rohmer assumes that the point is self-evident: The arctic is empty. We have to put Canadians all over it.
(And drill the shit out of it. Although that’s another problem with The Green North; it’s program is sort of a loop; we have to put Canadians cities on the permafrost in order to drill the shit out of it, and once we start drilling, the delicious gold-lined asbestos/nickel-coated natural gas will support the cities full of Canadians.)
So don’t just stand there, near water and your friends, not freezing to death! Hop in this de Havilland Otter! Time’s a wastin’!
I didn’t even get the double meaning of the title until just now. The North isn’t green because it arguably supports vegetation; it’s green because money.
Now, if the taxpayers would just build roads, railways, ports, pipelines, green houses, schools, theatres, jails and nuclear power plants – and maybe order people to live there; that part is unclear – rugged free-enterprisers could make a fortune.
Stupid government. They’d better not ruin this plan with a lot of red tape.
Rohmer only seems to be working backwards from “let’s build six cities and make people move there; it won’t be half as horrible as they think.” He assumes that you see what he sees: A land without a people, and a perfect place for a Winnipeg.
Real estate does that to some people. Duddy Kravitz. Samuel de Champlain. I’m not shitting on it; I’ve just never felt it. And maybe that’s like reading The Great Gatsby if you’ve never loved someone who moved on. You had to be there.
Brian/Stan: What did you think about the hints in The Green North that America in 1970 had weeks if not days to live? And that the probable cause of death was going to be a race war? Did that feel sort of creepy? That Rohmer had the same general domestic concerns as Charlie Manson? Or was Rohmer just reacting to what he read in the paper?