Borders

A simile is a figure of speech that compares one thing with something of a different kind to make a description more vivid. King uses several similes to convey the story and its characters. At the beginning of the text, the mother notes that at least Laetitia has not “gone floating after some man like a balloon on a string” (131). This comparison reveals the mother’s perspective; she doesn’t want Laetitia to leave the reservation, but at least she is doing it for a good reason. Through the negative comparison in this simile, we begin to understand the mother’s worldview and what she deems acceptable. This simile also shows that the mother has pride in herself and her children, and she experiences their choices as a reflection of their family.

Another simile invokes historic imagery of the American West, as the narrator describes the border patrol officers approaching the car “like cowboys headed for a bar or gunfight” (135). The white settlers of the American West, often romanticized as “cowboys,” were the agents of colonial power and control. Cowboys no longer exist in that sense, but the modern border patrol agents represent another manifestation of power. The likening of the officers’ approach to the swagger of a cowboy helps the reader feel the power dynamics at play in every interaction the mother and son have with border patrol officers. This power dynamic is heightened by the officers’ body language, which suggests a confident attitude and readiness for conflict. The potential for violence at the hands of colonial authority is ever-present.

An allegory is a form of writing that expresses general truths about human life through symbolic fictional characters. The individual struggles of the characters in King’s text, and the story of one family trying to cross a border, represent larger social and political realities. The border patrol agents represent the power of the state—including Inspector Pratt, who seems to have some knowledge of the struggle between Indigenous and colonial people. Despite her understanding, Inspector Pratt is part of the system of state power. The officers in this story are tasked with enforcing norms defined by law and government. The border patrol officers in this story can be seen as both individual authorities at a single border crossing and parts of a larger system of control. The narrator points out that all the border patrol officers have guns, which serves as an allegory for the violence of colonial control. The gun is a symbol of their authority and their power to take human life. The violence of colonial power stemmed from the widespread use of guns, and their use by law enforcement officers still represents a mortal danger to Indigenous people like the narrator and his mother.

If the border patrol officers represent the institutional power of the state, the mother represents Indigenous pride and resistance. On an individual level, her decisions are rooted in a strong sense of identity. On a larger scale, her actions are like those taken by many other Indigenous people (and groups) as they struggle to maintain identity, sovereignty, language, culture, and land and water rights. Her commitment to not giving up her identity is noticed by Mel, who dubs her an inspirational figure.

Another literary device used in the story is subtext in conversations between characters. This device allows the characters and author to impart a second layer of meaning to the conversations. This additional layer of context helps us understand character motivations, specifically those of Laetitia and her mother. The first example of subtext is when Laetitia and her mother are discussing her departure on the way to the border. The mother complains that her coffee is bad, which Laetitia correctly identifies as an expression of her mother’s anger at her desire to see the world. The mother continues complaining about water quality “from here on down” (132), while Laetitia instead talks about catching a bus. The conversation is, on its surface, about water. However, the mother uses the water and water quality as a substitute for her frustration with her daughter and inability to understand why her daughter would take interest in anything beyond the reservation. The text is about water quality, but the subtext concerns the characters’ needs and anxieties.

Later, the mother says to Laetitia in Blackfoot that they can still see the mountain from here, and Laetitia answers in English that there are lots of mountains in Salt Lake City. The mother conveys a dual meaning. The explicit message is consistent with the mother’s character, that everything Laetitia seeks can already be found at home. However, the use of Blackfoot to relay the message communicates identity, community, and the value of staying on the Blackfoot reservation. Laetitia’s answer expresses her excitement about the possibilities of Salt Lake City, and her use of English shows her willingness to leave her Blackfoot roots to explore a new place.

A final example of subtext takes place between the mother and the border patrol officers. They ask the mother about her citizenship and expect the answer to be given in a certain way. Their refusal to accept her answer shows that they do not consider her perception of her own identity to be valid, and they communicate that to her through their actions. By only identifying herself as “Blackfoot,” she shows the officers that she will not bend to their will and compromise her sense of identity. The explicit conversation is a basic border crossing interaction, but the subtext of the conversation reveals conflicting views on identity and citizenship.

When describing the geographical context of the story, the narrator muses on how certain town names “sound.” He notes that the two border towns are Coutts (Canadian side) and Sweetgrass (American side), and that “neither one was big enough to amount to anything” (133). He says, “you would expect that Sweetgrass, which is a nice name and sounds like it is related to other places such as Medicine Hat and Moose Jaw and Kicking Horse Pass, would be on the Canadian side, and that Coutts, which is abrupt and rude, would be on the American side” (134). The narrator makes explicit his associations between phonology and personality traits. He assumes that harsh and rude-sounding names would belong on the American side of the border, perhaps based on his assumptions about American people or the country as a whole. The names on the Canadian side sound more appealing to the narrator. The names of these geographical places cause the narrator to have a certain feeling about what these towns might contain, what the people might be like, and so on.