A Comparative Literary Analysis Diplomarbeit

“To choose is to go wrong”: The Representation of Borderland Identities: A Comparative Literary Analysis

Diplomarbeit

Zum Erlangen des akademischen Grades eines Magisters der Philosophie

an der Karl-Franzens-Universität Graz

vorgelegt von David SCHNEEBACHER

am Institut für Amerikanistik Begutachterin: Assoz. Prof. Mag. Dr.phil. Ulla Kriebernegg

Graz, 2021

Ehrenwörtliche Erklärung Ich erkläre ehrenwörtlich, dass ich die vorliegende Arbeit selbstständig und ohne fremde Hilfe verfasst, andere als die angegebenen Quellen nicht benutzt und die den Quellen wörtlich oder inhaltlich entnommenen Stellen als solche kenntlich gemacht habe. Die Arbeit wurde bisher in gleicher oder ähnlicher Form keiner anderen inländischen oder ausländischen Prüfungsbehörde vorgelegt und auch noch nicht veröffentlicht. Die vorliegende Fassung entspricht der eingereichten elektronischen Version.

Datum: Unterschrift:

...... Acknowledgements

I would like to express my gratitude towards a number of people, who have helped me extensively through my time as a student at the University of Graz, and my diploma thesis. First of all, I want to thank my mentor Dr. Ulla Kriebernegg for being so supportive before and during my quest of writing this paper. Her remarkable expertise in the field, as well as her positivity, despite her busy schedule have taught me a lot, and I will forever be grateful for her support.

In addition, I want to thank my friends Red, Wolfi, Gernot, Bernd, Tauni, Matthias, and Thomas for their mental support through all these years, especially towards the end of my studies. Their infinitely positive attitude, as well as their unconditional friendship is unmatched, and will always stay with me.

The biggest thank you however, is reserved for my family, especially my parents. I do not know where I would be today, without their unconditional love and support. They always stood by me and tried to provide advice, whenever I needed it. I also want to mention my sister Carmen, Andreas, Jakob, and Jonas, who have always stood by me and helped me forget about university in times, in which I desperately needed to take time out.

Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...... 1 2. About Guillermo Verdecchia ...... 4 3. Fronteras Americanas by Guillermo Verdecchia ...... 5 3.1. The Communication Model for Drama and Narratorial Mediation in Fronteras Americanas ...... 6 3.2. Character Analysis ...... 14 3.2.1. Guillermo Verdecchia ...... 14 3.2.2. Wideload ...... 16 3.2.3. Facundo ...... 18 3.3. Postmodernist Features ...... 19 3.3.1. Act 1: “Latin Lovers” and “Dancing” ...... 21 3.3.2. Act 2: Drug War Deconstruction ...... 23 3.3.3. Act 1: Wideload’s Terms ...... 23 3.3.4. Act 2: “Latin Invasion”, “Consider” and “Going Forward” ...... 24 3.4. The Representation of Time and Space ...... 25 3.5. The Ambivalence in Verdecchia’s Humour ...... 26 4. The History of Native Americans and the U.S.-Canadian Border ...... 29 5. About Thomas King ...... 31 6. Borders by Thomas King ...... 33 6.1. The Form of the Short Story and the Positioning of Thomas King’s Borders as a Canadian Short Story ...... 34 6.2. Character Analysis ...... 37 6.2.1. The Young Boy, Son and Brother of Laetitia ...... 37 6.2.2. Laetitia ...... 39 6.2.3. The Mother ...... 40 6.3. Narration and the Narrative Situation ...... 42 6.4. The Communicative Situation ...... 43 6.5. The Representation of Time and Space ...... 44 6.5.1. Coutts ...... 46 6.5.2. The Geography of the Border...... 48 6.5.3. Crossing the Border ...... 49 6.6. Thomas King’s Utilisation of Humour ...... 50 7. Overview of the Mexican-American War and the Establishment of the Mexican- American Border ...... 54 8. About Gloria Anzaldúa ...... 55 9. To Live in the Borderlands Means You ...... 56 9.1 Structure and Postmodernist Features ...... 58 9.2. The Communication Model for Poetry and Postmodern Aspects in the Lyric Speech Situation ...... 59 9.3. Themes and Motifs ...... 60 9.4. The Representation of Time and Space ...... 68 10. Comparative Analysis ...... 70 10.1. Colonialism ...... 72 10.2. Postcolonial Literature and the Characters in the Works of Verdecchia, King, and Anzaldúa ...... 73 11. Conclusion ...... 75 17. Bibliography ...... 77 18. Table of Figures ...... 80

1. Introduction

The U.S.-Mexican border has been subject to conflicts over territorial claims, free trade, and migration for decades and centuries. The depiction of the disputes at the U.S.-Mexican border has been accompanied by extensive news coverage, and consequently, heated debates across the globe. Comparatively scarce attention has been paid to the northern border to Canada, which is often perceived as a testimony for the peaceful coexistence between two countries. I have always been intrigued by the concept of borders. When I was a child, I went to Italy for the first time, and I was fascinated by the notion that an invisible line marks the separation between two languages, two currencies (back then, Schilling and Lire), and two cultures. The fascination has remained. However, in the course of my studies I have learned that the term border exceeds the realm of physical location, and that borders are equally relevant in the fields of psychology and identity. The research question I am going to answer in my this thesis is: How is identity reflected in the three works I have chosen from Guillermo Verdecchia, Thomas King, and Gloria Anzaldúa by means of borders?

To answer my research question, I am going to conduct a literary analysis of three forms of literature, namely drama, narrative fiction and poetry, written by three different authors with a cultural background characterised by displacement and the quest for finding one’s identity in the Americas. The thesis consists of four sections. In the first three sections, I am going to provide background information on the lives of the authors, as well as a plot overview. The literary analysis of the three works is going to include a chapter with the relevant literary theory to provide the reader with the necessary background knowledge required to follow the analysis. In addition, the first three sections will provide information on the communicative situation, the representation of time and space, a character analysis and the techniques the authors use to convey the underlying themes and motifs of the texts.

The first work I have chosen for my thesis is Fronteras Americanas by Guillermo Verdecchia. Fronteras Americanas is a postmodernist drama, which explains the predicament of the author, who is caught between two identities and who is unable to choose sides. In addition to the literary analysis outlined in the previous paragraph, this section includes a juxtaposition between the play and two TV series. The reason for this is that the communicative situation in the play shifts frequently and provides instances, in which the communicative situation can be perceived differently, depending on the individual reader. The TV series I have chosen serve the purpose of demonstrating two possible interpretations of the communicative situation. In addition, a key element of Fronteras Americanas is Verdecchia’s utilisation of numerous postmodernist features, which are of central importance to the composition of the text. Therefore, this section features a chapter that provides information on postmodernism and its contributions to the drama. Moreover, this section is going to include a character analysis and an investigation of Verdecchia’s humour.

The second section is subject to the analysis of the short story Borders by Thomas King. The story takes place at the U.S.-Canadian border and displays the pride of the identity of a mother of two children, who are Blackfoot Indians living in a reservation in Canada. At the beginning of this section, I am going to provide historical information relevant for the analysis in my thesis, which sheds light on the traumatising history of Native Americans, spanning from their arrival at the American continent until the present. Borders is a significant example for the complexity of constructing one’s identity upon the cultural heritage of a Blackfoot Indian. Moreover, the short story portrays borders as symbols for displacement, separation, and psychological boundaries between individual people. The text sheds light on the concept of borders from numerous perspectives. These elements and perspectives constitute the basis for my literary analysis, which includes a character analysis, the representation of time and space, and the communicative situation. In addition, this section will also include an analysis of two humorous situations, which are exemplary for the text. The six felicity conditions coined by J.L. Austin (1962) are going to provide the tools that are necessary to conduct the analysis of Thomas King’s humour in Borders.

The third work I am going to analyse is To Live in the Borderlands Means You, by Gloria Anzaldúa, which is a free verse poem that presents numerous postmodern features. The poem at its core represents the struggles, and hostilities faced by the people who live in the borderlands. The poem is part of her autobiographical collection of works Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, which is among the most renowned works subject to analysis in the field of Border Studies. The analysis is going to include an investigation of the structure of the poem, and an additional section that deduces the themes and motifs. In addition, I am going to utilise a communication model for poetry to investigate the subtle notions of the lyric speech situation. Before the analysis, I will provide a historical overview of the Mexican-U.S. border, which is where the location of the poem is set.

In section four, I am going to conduct a comparative analysis of the three works. The comparative analysis confronts the three works with each other by means of a juxtaposition of their forms and genres, historical aspects, the lives of the authors, the representation of time and space, communication, the characters, and narratology. Furthermore, I am going to analyse the underlying themes and motifs and juxtapose the techniques that the authors utilise as vehicles to convey their message, for example humour, or absurdity. In order to answer my research question I will investigate the aspects of colonialism, post colonialism and the Third Space Theory, which will provide useful assistance in order to answer my research question.

2. About Guillermo Verdecchia

Guillermo Verdecchia was born in Buenos Aires, Argentina, on 7 December 1962. He migrated to Canada at the age of two and grew up in Kitchener, Ontario. He studied theatre at Ryerson Polytechnic in Toronto and became a writer, actor, director and translator. In addition, he has shared his knowledge all over the world at various universities as a professor (Nothof, “Guillermo Verdecchia”).

His dramatic works aim to subvert clichés and stereotypes about Latin American cultures in Canada. Verdecchia's dramas are socially and politically relevant and display the diversity of Latin American culture. One of his trademarks in his works is the utilisation of humour to approach the complex aspects of identity. In his first produced play i.d. in 1989 he was the co-writer among members of the Canadian Stage Hour Company and won the Chalmers New Play Award. One year later he won the Chalmers Award again for The Noam Chomsky Lectures, which Verdecchia wrote in cooperation with Daniel Brooks. In The Noam Chomsky Lectures Verdecchia and Brooks applied Noam Chomsky's models of the political economy of human rights and of the mass media to Canadian foreign policy. In 1993, Verdecchia published Fronteras Americanas, in which he played himself. Verdecchia once again won the Chalmers Award as well as the Governor General’s Award (Nothof, “Guillermo Verdecchia”). Fronteras Americanas is crucial for understanding Verdecchia’s catalogue in terms of the portrayal and creation of Latin American identity. Therefore, I have chosen this particular drama for further analysis in the subsequent chapters.

Alongside the aforementioned plays, his other works The Art of Building a Bunker, Adventures of Ali & Ali, A Line in the Sand, Bloom and Another Country have been translated into Spanish and Italian, produced in the United States and Europe and have been studied in North America, Latin America and Europe (“Guillermo Verdecchia”).

Verdecchia also starred in Crucero/Crossroads, which is a short film adaptation of Fronteras Americanas. Crucero/Crossroads received 9 international awards and was shown at film festivals around the world. Among other plays, Verdecchia has been engaged in writing for radio and movie productions (Nothof, “Guillermo Verdecchia”).

3. Fronteras Americanas by Guillermo Verdecchia

Fronteras Americanas consists of only two characters, which are played by only one actor. The protagonist is Guillermo Verdecchia, who acts and plays himself. The other character is Facundo Morales Segundo, who has adopted the name Wideload McKenna. Wideload claims to have changed his name because he receives more respect, carrying a Non-Latin-American name. At the beginning of the play, Verdecchia claims to feel lost and is unable to explain why. He is insecure about his identity and seeks to understand when he first started feeling lost, why he is feeling lost, and he hopes to find an answer to the question of how to overcome his feelings. During the introduction, he concludes that he probably lost his way when he crossed the border and left for Canada. Verdecchia invites the audience to join him on his quest to find his identity and leads the audience to the border, which functions as the starting point for the plot. In order to achieve that, he recounts numerous tales of his life in which he describes difficult situations from his childhood, his life as an adult in Canada, as well as incidences in his professional career. Wideload on the other hand claims to call the border his home, and presents himself as a guide and begins to explain his plans for the future and that he needs money in order to fulfil these plans. As far as his ethnicity is concerned, he states that he is also not entirely sure what to call himself. The content of the primary text, as well as the order of Verdecchia’s and Wideload’s appearances appear to be without a clear structure or relation towards each other after the introduction. However, they intersect again at the end of the play, revealing that both of their homes lie at the border and they refuse to choose between countries.

3.1. The Communication Model for Drama and Narratorial Mediation in Fronteras Americanas

Communication in drama differs substantially from other literary forms. A communication model provides a deeper insight into how information is transmitted and displays three major peculiarities for dramatic texts.

Extratextual level of communication

Addresser: Dramatic text Addressee:

Historical Intratextual level of communication Real

Author Reader or

Character as Character as Real

Addresser Addressee Audience

Fig. 1. A communication model for dramatic texts, Nünning 79

Firstly, most dramas usually contain several addressers and addressees, as there are numerous speakers. Secondly, the roles between addressers and addressees switch constantly throughout plays. There are infinite possibilities, since there are no limits regarding the character constellations. For example, speakers can address the audience as well as other characters, including complex structures like the utilisation of a play-within-a-play. Thirdly, information is mainly provided to the reader (or the audience) and to the individual speakers through dialogue. In comparison to other literary forms, drama is traditionally characterised by the absence of a narrator. (Nünning 79-80).

Naturally, numerous differences between reading a dramatic text and witnessing a theatrical performance occur. In the case of reading a dramatic text, the author functions as the addresser and the reader as the addressee on the extratextual level of communication. By contrast, in the case of a theatrical performance, the entire theatre apparatus assumes the function of the author as the addresser and the performance is consumed by an entire audience. Another important distinguishment to point out is the difference between primary and secondary text. The primary text 6

refers to the spoken text of the actors who serve as the main source of information. However, the reader of a drama is still provided with various information about how the text is to be performed through the secondary text. The secondary text, also referred to as didascalia, is usually indicated in italics and contains information that is not part of the primary text. This includes stage directions, which provide information on the gestures or facial expressions of the actors, who is currently is speaking, who enters or leaves the stage, indications of asides, monologues or soliloquies, beginnings and endings of acts and scenes or the dramatis personae (Nünning 82).

While dramas traditionally exclude the element of narrative transmission on the communication level, there are also instances of narrative transmission in plays from the 20th century, such as Peter Shaffer’s Amadeus from 1979. For example, Salieri’s role in Amadeus presents epic elements by a character “inside the action”. In this particular play, the stage manager as well as Salieri assume the role of the narrator. An example for epic elements presented by a character “outside the action” can be viewed in Wilder’s Our town, where the narrator’s role resembles the work of a director, who guides the audience through the play outside the communication level of the other characters by not engaging with them directly (Nünning 81-82).

In anticipation of the analysis of the communicative situation in Fronteras Americanas, the communication model for drama appears to be insufficient on the surface since the form of Verdecchia’s play differs substantially from traditional drama. However, this observation is precisely the reason for why the communication model is useful. The utilisation of the model as a blueprint provides a tool for an in-depth analysis and furthermore importantly, exposes the way Verdecchia expands the form of drama. One example of Verdecchia’s expansions is his use of narrative elements. Narration in drama tends to be neglected or even ignored since traditional literary theory suggests that narratorial mediation is generally absent in drama, but especially in Verdecchia’s drama, performed narration is omnipresent and thus has to be considered in a literary analysis. Fronteras Americanas shares several characteristics with memory plays. The characteristic of central importance in Verdecchia’s case is that his role functions as a homodiegetic narrator, since he is a participant of the plot. Verdecchia frequently alternates between participation and narration throughout the play. In addition, he and Wideload break the 4th wall, by commenting on previous acts

and scenes. These characteristics have substantial similarities with exemplary works in narrative fiction, like Charles Dickens’ first person narrations (Richardson 681-683). However, it is important to note that postmodern drama differs substantially from other subgenres, such as the previously mentioned memory plays, or theatre of the absurd. Even though postmodernist drama tends to be compared with agit-prop theatre and political theatre groups of the 1960s, it is a distinct genre and demands to be treated as such. By comparison, The Living Theatre or political theatre of the 1960s are closely related to group therapy and communitarianism, which is inherently rejected in postmodern drama (Schmidt 32).

Even though scholars have argued that clear distinctions between narrative and drama are impossible to draw, narratorial mediation has been widely neglected in the study of drama and has been regarded as a distinctive characteristic of narrative fiction. Narratorial research has so far developed models and categorizations for narration. Differentiations have mainly occurred between narratives and other text types (Nünning and Sommer 333). Various forms of narration in drama have received scarce attention, since it is argued that in narrative texts plot is always recounted (Nünning 103). While drama inherently lacks the recounting of events as means of narration, there are other characteristics that can be attributed to narrative texts, which are undisputedly featured in drama. In order for a text to be classified as narrative, an important presupposition is that a text is obliged to present a series of events that constitute an eventful story. This presupposition is without doubt met in drama. For the purpose of the analysis of Fronteras Americanas, further differentiation is required (Nünning and Sommer 332).

Firstly, a distinguishment between diegetic and mimetic narrativity is demanded. Mimesis refers to the imitation of speech and action, which is utilised in drama to convey information. Diegesis refers to the recounting of events and actions in retrospect, which is characteristic for narrative fiction. Plot-oriented narrative approaches often tend to overlook that drama does more than mere presentation of the plot; it also stages narration and is theatrical. Thus, it can be concluded that the characters within drama can also be viewed as intradiegetic narrators (Nünning and Sommer 337). In addition, the terminology and concepts used in literary analysis in drama and narrative fiction overlap in numerous instances. To name but a few, terms

such as character, protagonist, antagonist, point of view, subplot and exposition are key elements for the conduction of a literary analysis in drama and narrative fiction. These overlaps support the argument that drawing a distinct line between these two literary forms is impossible. Therefore, an awareness for diegetic and mimetic narrativity is required (Nünning and Sommer 338).

Diegetic narrativity refers to the verbal transmission of a narrative content, conducted by a speaker and presupposes a communicative situation and an addressee. By introducing a speaker, the act of narration is foregrounded, instead of the narrated story world. Mimetic narrativity refers to the representation of a sequence of events, which appears to prevail in drama (Nünning and Sommer 338-339). However, there are numerous exceptions to the rule, as can be seen in Fronteras Americanas. Distinguishing between diegetic and mimetic narrativity and utilising their characteristics provides useful tools for the analysis of Fronteras Americanas. A considerably complex situation in the play is the ending of the scene “History” and the scene “Roll Call” in act 1. In “Roll Call” Verdecchia conducts a play-within-a-play, in which he switches between speaking to the audience and the characters participating in the play-within-a-play. At the beginning of the scene, Verdecchia talks to the audience or the reader and explains that the following scene takes place in school when he was 7 years old, and the teacher was unable to pronounce his name correctly. Verdecchia imitates the role of the teacher who reads the names of the students from a list. After every name that has been read, Verdecchia comments on the looks of the individual children. These comments always address the audience or the reader. Considering the communicative situation and the storytelling, this scene is considerably intricate. Fortunately, the communication model for drama and diegetic and mimetic narrativity provide the tools for further analysis, since they provide the possibility to view the scene “Roll Call” from additional angles.

Considering traditional drama theory, which can be easily applied to plays written by Shakespeare, the scene “Roll Call” constitutes an example for a play-within-a-play that presents a sequence of events. While this is considered common practice in the literary form of drama, the scene consists of three layers. The first layer is located on the extradiegetic level of communication. Verdecchia functions as a speaker on the

extradiegetic level, since he ultimately introduces the situation in school at the end of the preceding scene “History”, after having recounted numerous historic events.

“1969: Ravi Shankar, Carlos Santana, and Jimi Hendrix play Woodstock; Richard Nixon (projection [image]: A photo of Nixon) becomes president of the U.S.; Samuel Beckett (projection [image]: A photo of Beckett) wins the Nobel Prize for Literature; the Montreal Canadiens (projection [image]: A photo of the Canadiens in 1969) win the Stanley Cup for hockey; and I attend my first day of classes at Anne Hathaway Public School” (Verdecchia 13).

As a result, the tone that this situation constitutes shows similarities with the tone that is traditionally set for an entire play by means of a dramatic introduction and an exposition. The second layer of narration can be seen in the play-within-a-play itself, which could be regarded as a mimetic narration, since the play-within-a-play presents an eventful and cohesive story that would continue to remain coherent, even if Verdecchia refrained from uttering comments towards the audience. The third layer is located above the second layer by adding Verdecchia’s comments and remarks between individual utterances of the play-within-a-play.

The play-within-a-play in “Roll Call” includes Verdecchia as an actor “inside the action”, which presents an example for an epic element in drama. The reason for this is that Verdecchia’s role is reminiscent of a first-person narrator. In addition, Verdecchia addresses the audience while the plot unfolds. This technique can be identified in terms of an aside ad spectators. One could argue that the analysis of the communicative situation that I have provided is sufficient, since Verdecchia’s functions within the scene “Roll Call” have been identified. However, viewing this part of the play from the perspective of mimetic and diegetic narration reveals that it is unclear, which of the characters Verdecchia plays are speaking since there are no indications in the primary or the secondary text.

For the purpose of analysing Fronteras Americanas, it is of importance to note that drama texts require to be treated differently in comparison to poetry or narrative fiction. The argument which is particularly relevant when dealing with drama is that dramatic texts are mainly created to be performed. This is of significance in the scene “Roll Call”. Since the communicative situation is entirely different from other literary

forms, the medium by which drama is intended to be consumed is not a literary text that is read by a recipient, but a performance to be watched by an audience. This involves verbal as well as non-verbal communication. As a result, visual and acoustic dimensions are added which can produce witty overtones, including irony, sarcasm or other signs of humour or absurdity. Another important consideration is the experience of the spectator. Instead of reading a text by oneself, the recipient is part of an audience, which is engaged in the performance by the actors in various plays. The setting of the location, the stage, as well as the costumes are part of the experience, which is the reason why drama is often referred to as a “multimedial form of presentation” (Pfister, cited in Nünning 77). However, every theatrical performance is different and can never be replicated. For this reason, every single performance needs to be regarded as an individual performance of art. In the field of literary studies, the focus lies solely on the characteristics of the theatrical text, rather than the theatrical work. Theatrical work, or theatre studies is a discipline in its own right, focusing on various aspects concerning the performance of a play (Nünning 78).

1 Verdecchia: I am seven years old. The teacher at the front of the green classroom 2 reads names from a list.

3 “Jonathan Kramer?”

4 Jonathan puts his hand up. He is a big boy with short red hair.

5 “Sandy Nemeth?”

6 Sandy puts her hand up. She is a small girl with long hair. When she smiles we can see 7 the gap between her front teeth.

8 “Michael Uffelman?”

9 Michael puts his hand up. He is a tall boy with straight brown hair who is sitting very 10 neatly in his chair.

11 My name is next (Verdecchia 13).

12 Minutes, hours, a century passes as the teacher, Miss Wiseman, forces her mouth into 13 shapes hitherto unknown to the human race as she attempts to pronounce my name.

14 “Gwillyou-rellye-moo … Verdeek-cheea?”

15 I put my hand up. I am a minuscule boy with ungovernable black hair, antennae and 16 gills where everyone else has a mouth.

17 You can call me “Willy,” I say. The antennae and gills disappear (Verdecchia 13).

18 It could have been here – but I don’t want to talk about myself all night (Verdecchia 14).

In this scene, Verdecchia plays the role of his 7-year-old alter ego, the adult Verdecchia as the main character the play, and the teacher at the same time. In the lines 4,6,7,9,10,11-16 (which I have numerated as a point of reference) Verdecchia interrupts the utterances of the teacher to add information on his classmates and himself. In the lines in question, it is unclear, whether the adult Verdecchia, or the seven-year-old Verdecchia is speaking. Therefore, the entire excerpt starting from the ending of the scene “History”, until the ending of the scene “Roll Call”, could be perceived differently, depending on how the scene is interpreted by the individual recipient of the play. Debatably, Verdecchia might raise the pitch of his voice when he acts as his seven-year-old alter ego during a performance. If this was the case, then it would be unreasonable to exclude this information in the secondary text. If the adult Verdecchia is the speaker, then the effect is reminiscent of watching a movie or reading a novel in which a narrator states a comment on the level of narrative transmission. The interpretation of Verdecchia’s comments in terms of diegetic narration is reasonable since the play-within-a-play is the recounting of a tale in retrospect, which provides a key characteristic of narrative fiction.

The results between the application of the communication model of drama and mimetic and diegetic narration differ significantly. To demonstrate the differences, I am going to investigate the communicative situation, by applying it to two popular TV series.

The first example is Malcolm In The Middle. In the TV series, Malcolm frequently turns into the camera, which is a technique that serves to establish a channel between the actor and the audience. If the series was performed on stage, the channel between the actor and the audience could be established by the utilisation of an aside ad spectatores, instead of speaking into the camera directly. In reminiscence of the scene “Roll Call” in Fronteras Americanas, Malcolm functions as a first-person narrator, which constitutes an epic element. This observation translates to the previous analysis, which applied the communication model for drama. As a result, the effect that the actor is part of the theatrical world is created, which provides the audience with his or her point of view. When looking at the scene “Roll Call” from this angle, it appears that the 7-year-old Verdecchia comments on the situation inside the play-within-a-play.

The second example is provided by the TV series Everybody Hates Chris. The series shows the early stages of the life of Chris Rock, who is played by a young actor. In addition, Chris Rock himself narrates the story and introduces and explains various situations. In this instance, Chris Rock functions as an extradiegetic narrator commenting on specific situations from his childhood. An attempt to translate this situation to the scene “Roll Call” suggests that the adult Verdecchia comments on the scene as an extradiegetic narrator.

As previously indicated, neither the primary text nor the secondary text of the play provide information on the intended perception of this scene. One reason for why this scene can be perceived differently is that all parts are played by one actor. Adding to the complexity is Verdecchia’s use of the present tense and the past tense. On the one hand, it could be argued that retrospectivity is absent in this scene, since at the end of the scene “History”, Verdecchia introduces the upcoming scene by utilising the present tense by stating ‘I attend my first day of classes at Anne Hathaway Public School’ (Verdecchia 13). The scene “Roll Call” starts with Verdecchia, stating that he ‘is’ seven years old (13). When the teacher attempts to read his name, 7-year-old Verdecchia states that ‘You can call me Willy’, which is then followed by adult Verdecchia’s utterance ‘I say’, which addresses the audience (13). On the other hand, at the end of the scene “Roll Call”, Verdecchia directly establishes retrospectivity since he states that ‘It could have been here – but I don’t want to talk about myself all

night’ (Verdecchia 14). As a result, it remains unclear, whether Verdecchia’s comments are uttered by the 7-year-old Verdecchia, or the adult Verdecchia. An argument in favour for the theory that adult Verdecchia is the speaker is supported by the fact that there are no indications in the secondary text that hint towards a raise in pitch. In addition, it could be argued that a shift of the speaker would constitute a stylistic inconsistency. However, since the expansion of the form of drama is one of the trademarks of Fronteras Americanas, the possibility of an alter ego Verdecchia as a speaker cannot be dismissed entirely.

3.2. Character Analysis

Dramatis personae in drama commonly consist of major and minor characters. The difference between these characters are generally marked by their frequency of their appearances, as well as their relevance and contributions to the plot. These differentiations have a tendency towards being intricate. While on the one hand, one person might argue that one character can be considered of minor importance, since his or her appearances are infrequent, their contributions on the other hand, can have a substantial impact on the plot. In the case of Verdecchia’s Fronteras Americanas, differentiating between minor and major characters is comparatively easy, since the dramatis personae of Fronteras Americanas consists of only two characters. Both are without doubt major characters. However, their functions within the play, as well as their connection between each other are highly complex.

3.2.1. Guillermo Verdecchia

Guillermo Verdecchia has several functions within the play as a character. Firstly, he is the protagonist. His thoughts and narrations are the driving force of the plot, but the plot by contrast, is not driven by concrete events that take place during the play. The reason for this is that the plot appears to be disrupted at times due to the neuroticism of Guillermo Verdecchia and a lack of structure. From the beginning, the recipient is faced with a character who welcomes everybody at the theatre openly and confidently. However, Verdecchia proceeds by claiming to be insecure and being a person who lacks understanding his position in life. He proceeds by explaining that maps in general are incomprehensible to him and in order to reduce inconvenience, he has hired an interpreter. The first scene reveals substantial information on 14

Verdecchia’s character, which contrasts his own claims. Considering his appearance at the beginning of the scene, Verdecchia’s confidence is reminiscent of politicians or trained speakers. Even though the focus of this analysis is based on the text only, rather than a real theatrical performance, Verdecchia’s opening statements suggest that a deeper meaning lies behind his words, which indicates that he is more confident than he admits. Notably, his description of his incomprehensibility of maps and Geography are considerably provocative. Before introducing the main topic – namely having lost his way crossing the border – Verdecchia clearly indicates that he knows precisely what he intends to show to the audience and that he has already decided what his message to the audience will be. It could be argued that Verdecchia is difficult to trust as a character. As he proceeds by claiming to be unsure when he first started feeling lost, it appears that he tries to convince the audience with substantial effort, that he is unaware of the origins of his confusion. His seemingly random recounting of historic events, in which he directly and indirectly criticises western depictions of the historic events he mentions, his narratives about childhood memories that appear in random order aim to convince the reader of Verdecchia’s confusion. Notably, a furthermore intriguing interpretation might suggest that Verdecchia actively attempts to confuse the audience. It could be argued that on a meta level the character seeks to evoke the same feelings he has as a person in real life in the audience or the reader. A possible explanation for this might be that Verdecchia uses the play to come to terms with his own emotions. Arguably, the play serves him as a therapy. In addition, Verdecchia could be alleged of utilising the play as a means of revenge on society seeking to confuse the recipient. If revenge was one of Verdecchia’s purposes, it could entail inflicting parts of his complex emotions on the ethnic group that appears to consume his craft – which he has dedicated his life to and worked so hard to achieve true mastery – the most.

One could argue that due to the autobiographical nature of the play, Verdecchia must be considered a multidimensional character. On the other hand, he presents himself as a highly insecure person, who is even called neurotic by Wideload. While it is obvious that Verdecchia is more than a multidimensional character in real life, he does not reveal other substantial traits of his personality apart from the fact that he is insecure in terms of his identity, outlining in detail why and how he seeks to find answers for his questions. In addition, Verdecchia can also be considered a dynamic

character, since he finds the answers for the questions he has been looking for and is able to form his own identity, while at the same time being aware of the underlying socio-political developments in society that in his opinion will become increasingly difficult in the future.

3.2.2. Wideload

Additionally, Verdecchia disguises himself as Wideload. The reason for why I use the term disguise is that instead of hiring an additional actor, it is visible to the audience and clearly indicated in the secondary text that Wideload and Verdecchia are played by the one actor. While Wideload is undisputedly a distinct character, the interpretation of Verdecchia’s character provides a foundation for the character analysis of Wideload. Wideload’s presence differs significantly from Verdecchia’s. One aspect of this is Wideload’s confidence. However, the two characters are closely connected (Verdecchia).

The latent provocative side of Verdecchia’s character is drastically exaggerated by Wideload. Wideload presents himself as a person with superior knowledge in the fields of migration, displacement, and Latin American culture. His character appears to be arrogant and rebellious, which is undermined by the fact that he refers to himself as a Pachuco. In an interview from December 2020 Verdecchia stated that one of his main inspirations for Wideload was Pachuco in the movie Zoot Suit from 1981 (“Guillermo Verdecchia shares some stories and images from Fronteras Americanas”). According to Luis Valdez – the director of the movie Zoot Suit – Pachuco is an incorrigible rebel who never gives up, who lives by his own standards and refuses to admit mistakes (Orona-Cordova 98). These characteristics can be attributed to Wideload.

Notably, Pachuco was a youth culture with a distinct dialect that started in El Paso in the 1930s. The Pachuco movement is regarded as a self-empowerment movement, since the people involved in this movement rejected being labelled as Mexicans or Americans and fought for their own identity (Chàvez Candelaria 610-611).

Even though Wideload is an individual character within the play, it could be suspected that Wideload offers Verdecchia the opportunity to appear as a mystical figure, who allows him to state remarks and opinions that he presumably would not have dared to state under his real name. Therefore, by disguising himself as Wideload and presenting him as another distinct character, Verdecchia creates circumstances that allow him to express himself without taking risks. As a result, it can be argued that Verdecchia’s personality is split into two characters. On the one hand, Verdecchia himself appears as a neurotic, insecure and witty character and on the other hand, Wideload allows him to be cynical, dark, and confident (Verdecchia).

Another notable aspect of Wideload’s character is his utilisation of different languages. Wideload mixes English and Spanish and – typically for postmodernism – transforms it into a hybrid language. As a Pachuco, Wideload uses jargon words from Mexican Americans. A prominent example for this is the word ese, which refers to a friend or a trusted companion. However, the word ese is a slang word commonly used among specific groups of Mexicans living near the U.S. border, as well as the Pachucos. Wideload projects the image of the rebel upon himself and the audience, however, the result of this behaviour propels the audience’s imagination to perceive Wideload as the exact opposite, namely the personification of Latino stereotypes.

Wideload is arguably a mono dimensional character. Even though he insists that he is not a cliché, he displays several clichés and he can be regarded as the personification of the border itself. Thus, Wideload represents a type as a literary character. Another argument that supports this claim is that he lives at the border and combines numerous stereotypes of a Latin American immigrant and displays his knowledge on misinterpretations of identities and the history of the American continent. In addition, he provides information on the surreal reality of the perception of the identities of “Latinos”. In the scene “Latin Invasion” in act 2, Wideload undergoes a change of heart, which is characteristic for a dynamic character. His change of heart is visible in the moment in which he approaches the topics of his concern more seriously, and admits that he has been ‘too nice’ to the audience (Verdecchia 54).

3.2.3. Facundo

Latino stereotypes within the play are considerably obvious when analysing the third character – who can also be considered the only minor character in the play – namely Facundo. At the beginning of the first act, Wideload disguises himself as a “bandido”. According to Verdecchia, the origin of the idea for Facundo lies in his recollection of watching American Western movies as a child, in which Mexican bandits were usually the only elements, which he was able to identify himself with. However, the Mexican bandits were either portrayed as the villains in the movies, or they required help from the Americans. The visual representation of the Mexicans was reduced to them wearing a Sombrero, a moustache and a poncho (“Guillermo Verdecchia shares some stories and images from Fronteras Americanas”). Facundo’s entire text consists of roughly 250 words, with which he significantly contributes to the atmosphere and sets the tone for the entire play. However, whether Facundo can be considered a third character or not, is disputable. At the end of Facundo’s text, it is indicated in the secondary text, that pistols are fired and that Facundo removes the bandit’s outfit. He then proceeds by claiming that it was an old Halloween costume and he introduces himself as Wideload. Since the character himself admits within the primary text that the outfit was a disguise, it is reasonable to view Facundo’s text as a play-within-a-play instead of an additional distinct character. In both cases, it is necessary to investigate Facundo’s purpose within the play, regardless of the fact whether he is a distinct character or not, since Facundo provides a deeper insight into the character constellation and the connection between Wideload and Verdecchia. On the surface, Facundo appears as a character that is played by Verdecchia. Facundo then takes off his clothes and Wideload introduces himself and explains that he has only impersonated a fictive bandit that he shares the same first name with. When taking a further step into the analysis and taking the character constellation into consideration, Facundo adds another layer of complexity. The reason for this is that if the assumption that Wideload functions as a disguise for Verdecchia is taken into account, then it could also be argued that Facundo functions as a disguise for Wideload before he introduces himself. Notably, the first introduction to Wideload to which the recipient is exposed to is stated by Verdecchia, who claims that he has hired an interpreter. However, Wideload chooses to appear as Facundo at the beginning. Facundo’s initial text is in Spanish, in which he welcomes the audience at the “border house”. He then proceeds by addressing 18

the Non-Latin Americans in English. Facundo makes fun of himself, claiming that his breath kills small animals, he drinks sewer water and Tequila and he eats burnt Tortillas. In doing so, the audience is invited to laugh about stereotypes, but in the next moment, he fires his pistol at the audience before the scene ends. The ambivalence between humour in one moment and aggression in the next captures the atmosphere and sets the tone for the rest of the play. This serves Wideload’s and Verdecchia’s purpose, since Facundo demonstrates the ugliest facets of stereotypes, clichés and racism in a direct manner, which is contrary to the way Verdecchia and Wideload approach these problems. By introducing another character by means of a play-within-a-play, Verdecchia is able to push the rude and indirect utterances farther away from himself and leave them to Facundo.

3.3. Postmodernist Features

Guillermo Verdecchia’s works – including Fronteras Americanas – constitute prime examples for postmodernism. However, for understanding why this is relevant, an examination of what postmodernism stands for is mandatory. This includes, first and foremost, the rejection of the Enlightenment project (Grenz 5). “The Enlightenment Project is the attempt to define and explain the human predicament through science as well as to achieve mastery over it through the use of a social technology” (Becker, cited in Capaldi 17). This means that human behaviour is subject to general laws, which can be analysed by integrating it into scientific systems, for example psychology, sociology or economics. As a result, prejudice, dogma and tradition are considered obstacles that can be overcome, as subjective impulses are rejected (Capaldi 17). While there have been various postmodernist movements in various places at different times – which have made it substantially difficult to find a consensus on what postmodernism universally entails – it is commonly agreed that at its core, postmodernism marks the end of a singular universal worldview that claims to provide answers to fundamental questions of human existence solely based on rationality and logic. Postmodernism by contrast, emphasises differentiation instead of objective reality (Grenz 12). The rise of deconstruction as a literary theory provided the immediate impulse to question and ultimately dismantle the Enlightenment project. As a result, deconstructionists argue that the meaning of any given text is created by every single reader individually, since interpretations vary from person to person.

Another characteristic of postmodernism is pessimism. While the Enlightenment era highlighted inevitable progress, postmodernism tends to suggest negative prospects. These include economic prospects, environmental prospects, prospects of peace and problematic developments in society (Grenz 6-8). The effects of postmodernism can be seen in all forms of art, not just literature. However, for the purpose of this paper I am going to investigate postmodernist drama, since it provides the tools to interpret Verdecchia’s drama Fronteras Americanas.

Postmodern drama seeks to transform the form of traditional drama. What immediately captures the attention of the reader in Fronteras Americanas are the numerous breaks of conventions of traditional drama throughout the text. One example for this is that it is highly unconventional that the dramatis personae consists of only two or three characters, which are played by one actor. Notably, the communication model presented in chapter 3.1. appears to be hard to apply to this text, since the communicative situation in Fronteras Americanas is despite the scarce dramatis personae considerably complex. The addressee in Fronteras Americanas is always the reader or the audience watching the performance. As for the addresser, who is not just a character within the play, but also the author himself, he creates an additional layer of theatrical illusion, which blurs the line between the intratextual and the extratextual level of communication. However, the addresser never removes the line between these two levels of communication completely, since the protagonist also appears as Wideload, who frequently breaks the theatrical illusion several times throughout the play. The constant creation of drama by extensive deconstruction constitutes Guillermo Verdecchia’s drama Fronteras Americanas as a significant example for post-modernist writing and as a result, meta-discourse is generated and formal features are foregrounded. Notably, postmodernism does not aim at destroying traditions of the genre, but rather explores the possibilities and limitations of it and utilises these in order to expose social or cultural predicaments embedded in a specific political climate. The emphasis lies on cultural references, which are created by decontextualization (Schmidt 31-36). Fronteras Americanas provides numerous examples for these postmodernist features.

3.3.1. Act 1: “Latin Lovers” and “Dancing”

In the scene Latin Lovers, Wideload displays various pictures of Latin American celebrities on a projector, who fulfil the cliché of the Latin Lover as portrayed in the media. Among them are Antonio Banderas, Rudolph Valentino, Ramon Novarro, Salma Hayek and Penelope Cruz. The projections also include a picture of Dolores del Rio. Wideload recites an article that had been written about her, which thematises her appearance and why people are sexually attracted to her. The focus of these descriptions lies on physical features associated with her Latin American heritage. Wideload proceeds by reading an article from Elle magazine, which features a detailed description of the physical attributes of Latin lovers:

“He’s short, dark and handsome, with lots of black hair from head to chest. He’s wildly emotional, swinging from brooding sulks to raucous laughter and singing loudly in public. He’s relentlessly romantic, with a fixation on love that looks to be total: he seems to be always about to shout, ‘I must have you’. He is the Latin lover, an archetype of masculinity built for pleasure” (Verdecchia 24-25).

Wideload continues by arguing that in Hollywood movies, Latin Americans are unable to solve problems on their own, they do not win the Nobel Prize, they are reduced to being an ethnic group that sings, dances, and fulfils the sexual dreams of white people. Verdecchia commented on this scene in a Youtube video himself, in which he claims that while the portrayal of Latin Americans in the media is evidently problematic due to the stereotypes that this ethnic group is reduced to, it has affected him on a personal level as well, since he finds himself unable to live up to these expectations. Moreover, he has asked himself numerous times throughout his life, why he is unable to match these expectations (“Guillermo Verdecchia shares some stories and images from Fronteras Americanas”).

Another example for a widely spread stereotype is the depiction of Latin Americans as great dancers, which works in tandem with the Latin lover stereotype. However, Verdecchia uses a slightly different approach to dealing with the stereotype of Latin American dancers, since he turns the situations around and makes fun of the white people in the audience. In the scene “Dancing” Wideload takes the stage and describes his thoughts when he sees a white person dancing. Notably, he

acknowledges that white women ‘have learned a move or two’ (Verdecchia 20). He refers to the white people as Saxons, who trigger him to feel annoyed every time white people feel elated when they hear the song La Bamba. Wideload proceeds by mocking the dancing skills of white men by stating that he is amazed by their ability to dance freely to the extent, where their movements are entirely disconnected from the music. As Wideload continues to explain, he finds enjoyment in watching white people attempting to connect with Latinos or Latinas through dancing. He remarks that even the shoes that white people wear are inappropriate. Before the scene ends Wideload claims that he has no intention of mocking white people and that he respects their culture. However, he then proceeds by mocking the traditional English Morris dance.

These scenes are exemplary for postmodern theatre, since they expose important socio-political problems and the role of the media within the discussed problems. A remarkable aspect to consider is the utilisation of a projector as an unconventional form of media. The projector intensifies the theatrical experience since it serves to draw the attention of the audience to crucial topics. Wideload and Verdecchia are clearly angry since they are forced to face the same stereotypes and clichés over and over again. The examples provided by them are numerous and show that their anger is justified since the idea of the Latin lover is extensively exploited by mainstream media. Neither Verdecchia nor Wideload provide answers to the questions the play raises. It is up to the audience or the recipient to find solutions and draw conclusions by themselves. The scene “Dancing” reverses the traditional roles between victims and perpetrators since Wideload confronts white people. He discriminates English culture and white people engaging in Latin American culture. Another stereotype Wideload puts forward is that white people lack a sense of rhythm. On the one hand, Wideload’s utterances are committed humorously, but on the other hand, Wideload shows white people in the audience or white readers the emotions it triggers, when a person is reduced to stereotypes or clichés. As briefly indicated before, a postmodernist trademark that is evidently present in these scenes, is that no explanations, solutions or advice for future action are provided (Verdecchia 19-27).

3.3.2. Act 2: Drug War Deconstruction

Wideload weighs in on the depiction of the Medellin cartel in Colombia in the American movie The War On Drugs. He states that the Colombian drug lords are illustrated as the evil antagonists who are accumulating wealth by selling drugs and ensuring their own safety by threatening the people who oppose them with violence. The American agent from the Drug Enforcement Agency is depicted as the hero, whose goal is to arrest Pablo Escobar and his men. However, Wideload points out that the movie fails to show the full complexity of the situation, as the Americans used confiscated drug money to wage war in Nicaragua, killing thirty thousand Nicaraguans. He also states that the movie withholds the fact that the Bank of America gained substantial wealth by laundering drug money, which serves to exemplify that the concept of good and bad, which are shown in the movie, are only applied to one side of the story. As a result, Wideload’s arguments suggest that the concept of good and bad as a universal worldview is insufficient, which provides another example for a postmodernist feature. The reason for this is that Wideload points out misleading depictions of a dark chapter in Colombian history from a different point of view than the point of view presented in a famous Hollywood movie. Remarkably, Wideload tells this story to the audience in a way that is reminiscent of high school presentations or slide shows, since the projector shows pictures to which Wideload states comments. The form of drama is significantly transformed in this instance and it could be argued that the form is also extended. Arguably, in traditional drama one character would explain the situation to another character on stage. (Verdecchia 39-41).

3.3.3. Act 1: Wideload’s Terms

In this scene Wideload refers to Verdecchia and the play itself, by criticizing its construction and one of the main characters. His remarks result in a break of the theatrical illusion and add a layer of meta-referentiality. A further interesting technique that is characteristic for postmodernism is used in this scene: namely decontextualization. Wideload refers to the experience of living with a U.S. family, as his first encounter with an “ethnic family” (Verdecchia 15). Notably, in this case the concept of decontextualization can only be applied, if the audience or the reader understands the conception that U.S. citizens are colloquially and culturally not being

referred to as “ethnic” and “exotic”. Wideload’s statements evoke a bizarre impression, since he shifts traditionally expected perceptions. The bizarre impression that has been evoked, results in tension. The reason for this is that the bizarre impression itself, felt by the spectator or reader, is the proof of Wideload’s argument. His reference to a U.S. family as “ethnic” reveals that different perceptions of different cultures exist and little research is required to prove his point. In addition, the tension created by Wideload’s remark increases since he rejects commenting or elaborating on his statement and ignores laughter likely occurring from the audience (Verdecchia 14-15).

3.3.4. Act 2: “Latin Invasion”, “Consider” and “Going Forward”

In the scene “Latin Invasion”, Wideload shows the audience the picture of an insensitive advertisement by McDonald’s towards Mexicans. The advertisment shows a Mexican who crosses the border in order to eat Fajitas he bought at Mc Donald’s. He uses this ad as an example to illustrate the purpose of the whole play. For the purpose of emphasis, he continues by blaming every single individual in the audience for the stereotypes, clichés and racism he has experienced throughout his life. Notably, Wideload generalises for a purpose. He explains that his intention is to demonstrate to people the feeling of being subject to generalisation. From the end of the scene “Latin Invasion” until the end of the scene “Consider” pleas for future actions are stated. It could be argued that these pleas are at their core not postmodernist since postmodernism neglects providing solutions. However, in the last scene of the play (“Going Forward”), Verdecchia states that he is building a house on the border, because he refuses to choose sides. This refusal is inherently postmodernist since Verdecchia’s final statements and his personal conclusion suggest hybridity, as well as a rejection of a definite answer. He rejects the concept of identifying oneself over citizenship entirely. He is neither Argentinian nor Canadian and he has realised that the third option is the border itself, which encompasses both sides and explains the complexity of defining one’s identity (Verdecchia 53-55).

3.4. The Representation of Time and Space

Fronteras Americanas presents an open temporal and spacial structure. The text plays with the imagination of the reader or the audience by consequently destroying conventions. The representation of the temporal and spatial structure in the text are highly complex and thus worth considering when conducting an analysis. One reason for this is that on the surface, the plot itself appears to entirely reject the concept of structure. The recounting of various tales throughout Verdecchia’s life seems to follow no particular temporal order. After Wideload’s introduction, Verdecchia appears again, who claims that he has been confused for a considerable amount of time, which leads him to reconsider where his search for answers should begin. Verdecchia precedes by recounting historic events of the continent, as well as including personal memories. Before Verdecchia is able to decide on a starting point for his story, Wideload appears again and starts telling tales about his life and how he perceived living together with a North American family, to whom he ironically refers to as an “ethnic family” (Verdecchia 15). Another example for the seeming lack of cohesion is that in one scene Verdecchia describes being suggested to see a palm reader, because seeing a therapist failed to help him. This sequence is then followed by a scene, in which Verdecchia recounts one experience where he auditions for a role in a movie. During these two scenes, there is little to no information provided on when either of these events took place.

However, the plot and the change of settings remain comprehensible for the most part. The main reason for this is Verdecchia’s effective use of word-scenery. In his exposition, Verdecchia immediately destroys the theatrical illusion by stating that he and the audience are in a theatre. He then proceeds by re-establishing the theatrical illusion by creating a new setting. He invites the audience to come with him to the border and asks them to reset their clocks to “border time” (Verdecchia 3). As a result, the addressee becomes part of the play. Moreover, the audience is guided through the play from one setting to the next, without indications of physical movement. In addition, e.g. in the exposition, there is no hint provided that time between the exposition and the arrival at the border has passed. At this stage of the play, the border has become the setting. However, after the introduction of Wideload, the setting is undefined. Verdecchia starts to use a projector and provides a history

lesson on America, in which he criticises the falsehood of the discovery of America, as well as other historic events. At this point, one could argue that the theatre itself has become the setting again. Notably, the reader remains under the impression that the theatrical illusion has been broken again, which exemplifies Verdecchia’s skill to blur the line between the extratextual and the intratextual level. After this scene, there is an abrupt shift in time and space, as the addresser describes a situation in school, when he was 7 years old, and the teacher was unable to pronounce his name correctly. As Wideload reappears he breaks the theatrical illusion again by criticising the play itself and thus, adding a layer of meta-referentiality: ‘I mean, I doan know about you, but I hate it when I go to el teatro – to de theatre – and I am espectin to see a play, and instead I just get some guy up dere talking about himself – deir life story – who cares? Por favor…’ (Verdecchia 14). One could argue that in doing so, Wideload asks the audience why they even bother to stay in the theatre and thus, criticises the audience or the reader as well, as he points out that there is ‘No plot, no central character. No fourth wall. That is shoddy construction.’ (Verdecchia 14).

3.5. The Ambivalence in Verdecchia’s Humour

Fronteras Americanas is highly entertaining for the reader or the audience due to its numerous postmodernist features. An additional aspect that has to be taken into consideration when investigating Verdecchia’s strategy to keep the audience emotionally invested and entertained, is his sense of humour.

All comic aspects in Fronteras Americanas root in the exposure of stereotypes and clichés. Verdecchia incorporates numerous strategies in order to make the recipients laugh. One of these strategies is the extensive use of irony. In the literary form of drama, the use of dramatic irony is a frequently used tool, which serves to create an additional – and from the perspective of the recipient – unintended meaning by providing information from one character on another, without their knowledge. This information equips the recipient with superior knowledge and leads to a comic effect (Nünning 186). In Fronteras Americanas there are only three instances in which it could be argued that the concept of dramatic irony can be applied.

The first example is in the previously mentioned scene “Wideload’s Terms”, in which he criticises the structure of the play and that Verdecchia only talks about himself. The second example appears in the scene “Wideload’s Terms” in the second act, in which Wideload refers to Verdecchia as a neurotic Argentinian. The final instance, which could be interpreted as an example of dramatic irony, takes place after Verdecchia’s remarks on Tango music and dancing. Wideload appears at the end of the scene and immediately states that ‘Tango is music for fucked-up people’ (Verdecchia 39), by which he indirectly criticises Verdecchia’s protracted deliberations on the subject. The first example highlights the complexity of postmodernist writing on the example of self-irony, since it takes place on the intratextual and the extratextual level at the same time. On the intratextual level Wideload states a complaint, which refers to the other character and the author as well. Wideload breaks the theatrical illusion and thus overcomes the border between the intratextual and the extratextual level, which serves to create the connection required to evoke an ironic effect. The recipient is aware that the two characters and the author are one person and can thus conclude that on the extratextual level, the author uses Wideload to make fun of himself. The same principal is applicable for the second and the third example, since all three cases carry the same message.

On the one hand, Verdecchia is unaware of Wideload’s remarks on the intratextual level, he arguably supports Wideload’s claims in his appearances throughout the play and also succeeds in creating a comic effect. On the other hand, these instances can arguably not be classified as dramatic irony, since Wideload does not provide additional information on Verdecchia. Wideload utters negative comments on Verdecchia’s personality traits, but arguably, no additional meaning is created by these utterances. However, the reason why this is relevant for the analysis is that these examples display a different and omnipresent facet of Verdecchia’s humour – namely self-irony. Throughout the text Verdecchia and Wideload present themselves as insecure people, who insist on not being regarded as stereotypes or clichés and whose actions and storytelling constitute a meaningful plot on the one hand, but also reach absurd proportions on the other hand. The contradiction between their claims of their own personality and their further actions and utterances triggers the recipient to laugh about the stereotypes and clichés that Wideload and Verdecchia ironically display to the highest degree.

In the first scene of the second act “Call to Arms” Verdecchia states that his play is not ‘a plea for tolerance’ (Verdecchia 33), but ‘a summons to renegotiate your place on the continent’ (Verdecchia 33). However, several scenes later – after Wideload’s remarks on Latin Americans in American TV – Verdecchia describes auditioning for a TV movie. In the audition, he reads the part for the character Sharko – ‘An overweight Hispanic in a dirty wife-beater, it says here. I’m perfect for it’ (Verdecchia 43). Sharko appears as an arms dealer who is caught by an American agent disguised as a potential buyer of arms. As Sharko explains the terms for the deal, the American agent reveals his true identity indirectly, by stating that he already owns a gun, which he received as a present by his “Uncle Sam”. Though on the surface the comic effect is triggered by the element of surprise in the middle of the negotiation, the author’s evocation of a humorous element consists of three layers. Firstly, the scene “Pop Cops” can be referred to as a play-within-a-play, in which the surficial comic situation takes place. Secondly, in the previous scene “Audition”, Verdecchia provides the recipient with the background knowledge required to understand “Pop Cops” and also makes fun of himself, by stating that he fits the role perfectly. In addition, it could be argued that Verdecchia’s statement can also be interpreted as sarcasm. Lastly, the result of this statement is self-irony, since the character admits contributing to the negative stereotypes presented in the media by auditioning for the role himself. In doing so, Verdecchia shows that despite his concerns on the American film industry and its depiction of Latin Americans, he also attempted to be a part of the said same industry. As a result, the scenes “Audition” and “Pop Cops” illustrate Verdecchia’s clever use of self-irony in the form of a play-within-a-play, while utilising the intratextual and the extratextual levels of communication (Verdecchia 42-43).

For the purpose of analysing Fronteras Americanas the structural elements of the communication are of significant importance, since it aids to understand the underlying message of the play. In the numerous humorous situations in which Verdecchia utilises the concept of self-irony, he displays the complexity of defining one’s identity. Equally important though is the author’s illustration of the problems caused by questionable depictions in the media and the stereotypes and clichés that exist within society.

4. The History of Native Americans and the U.S.-Canadian Border

Blackfoot Indians are a people who live in the plains of Montana in the U.S. and Saskatchewan and Alberta in Canada. The Blackfoot tribe are among more than five hundred Native American tribes in the U.S. and more than six hundred in Canada. The ancestors of the people, who consider themselves Native Americans today, settled in North America thousands of years ago and it is suspected that their roots originate from eastern parts of Asia. While it is impossible to define the exact dates of their migrations as well as their means of transport during this time, it is assumed that their migrations took place during the ice ages, approximately twelve thousand years ago. During the ice ages, the area between northeastern Alaska and Asia was dry land. Therefore it was possible to walk between the continents. It is estimated that circa ten thousand years ago the temperatures increased to the point where the climate reached today’s levels (Dwyer and Stout 4-5).

After their arrival in North America, numerous tribes, including the Blackfoot Indians, continued to live nomadic lives and spread across the continent. By 3500 B.C., first settlements from Washington State to Alaska had been established near coastal areas, due to the rich food supplies provided by the Pacific Ocean. It is assumed, that approximately four hundred years ago the Blackfoot tribes migrated to the Great Plains. After the arrival of Columbus in 1492, the Spanish were the first explorers of the continent, who took over the land of the Native Americans and forced them to work for them. The British, French and Dutch soon followed the Spanish and began to trade with the Native Americans, as well as looking for places to settle. It is estimated, that the Blackfoot first established contact with the Europeans in 1690, which was fatal for numerous Blackfoot Indians, since they came into contact with diseases they had not encountered before. More than half of the Blackfoot Indians who were infected with these diseases, namely the measles and smallpox, were unable to recover and died (Dwyer and Stout 5-7).

Even though the Blackfoot Indians traded numerous goods with the Europeans – including weapons – they were at a fatal disadvantage in battles. One reason for this is that at the beginning, only the Europeans had firearms. However, this problem was not restricted to the Blackfoot Indians, but to Native Americans in general. In addition, Native Americans were forced to fight in battles for the British and the French, who were waging wars against each other. The Blackfoot Indians started trading with the Europeans in the 1780s. Before that, the Blackfoot obtained guns and horses from other Native American tribes, who had received them in trades with Europeans. Towards the end of the eighteenth century, Europeans started expanding their territory across the continent and reached the west coast. This expansion was a disastrous development for the Native American tribes (Dwyer and Stout 7).

The border between the U.S. and Canada was defined in the Paris Peace Treaty of 1783. The treaty stated that the border between the two states is the 49th parallel. Unfortunately, the diplomats who attempted to solve the disputes concerning numerous territories had little knowledge about the history and geography of the territories in question. Therefore, the definitions for the border in the Paris Peace Treaty were unrealistic and imprecise. In 1818 a British-American convention defined the western border between the United States and Canada. However, the region west of the Rocky Mountains remained undefined. As a result, a heated dispute over the claims over the Oregon territory began. In 1846, the Treaty of Oregon was signed, which extended the western border from the Rocky Mountains to the Pacific Ocean on the latitude of the 49th parallel. One exception remained, namely Vancouver Island. Vancouver Island became part of Canada in its entirety, even though the southern part of the island exceeds the 49th parallel (Bonikowsky, "History of the Canada-US Border in the West").

During the course of this development, the Native Americans were forced to migrate to reservations in the west. The Native Americans, who refused to move from their homelands, were killed by the Europeans. In 1873, the first reservation for Blackfoot Indians was established in Montana. A few years later, three additional reservations for Blackfoot Indians were established in Canada. Laws in the United States and Canada prohibited Native Americans to practice their religions and they were forced to adapt to the customs of white Americans. Children were forced to go to boarding

schools, in which they were forbidden to speak their mother tongues. Despite persecution, Native American cultures did not entirely disappear, since numerous Native Americans refused to give up their traditions. In 1911, the Society of American Indians was founded, which demanded that Native Americans must be granted American citizenship. In 1924, their campaign was successful. Since then, several Native American organizations have been formed to promote Native American cultures and have been campaigning for political rights of Native Americans (Dwyer and Stout 7-8).

5. About Thomas King

Thomas King is an author who was born on 24 April 1943 in Roseville, California. He is a member of the Order of Canada and was nominated for the Governor General’s Award. His works include short stories, novels, essays and screenplays. In addition, he is a photographer (Busby, “Thomas King”).

Thomas King is the son of a Greek mother and a Cherokee father. In the 1960s, King worked on a steamboat and crossed the Pacific, which led him to find a job in New Zealand and Australia as a photographer and photojournalist. He returned to the United States in 1967 and graduated from Chico State University in 1972. He continued his career as an administrator and teacher at Humboldt State University and the University of Utah, where he obtained his PhD in 1986. In 1980, Thomas King migrated to Canada, where he started working and teaching at the University of Lethbridge in Alberta in the field of Native Studies. During his time in Alberta, King started his career as a writer. In 1990, he published his first novel Medicine River, which received remarkable critical praise. As a result, his first novel was adapted as a CBC movie. Two of his later works, namely a children’s book called A Coyote Columbus Story from 1992 and the novel Green Grass, Running Water from 1993, were nominated for the Governor General’s award. In 1994, King received the Canadian Authors Award for fiction for Green Grass, Running Water. In 1998, a second children’s book was published, called Coyote Sings to the Moon. One year later, his novel Truth and Bright Water was published. In 2002, King’s detective novel Dreadful Water Shows Up was published under the pseudonym Hartley GoodWeather. Thomas King has been praised by critics and reviewers for his sense

of humour since he poignantly portrays the challenges indigenous peoples face in Canada (Busby, “Thomas King”). The characters in his works are presented as resilient and strong in times of oppression and prejudice. However, they are not displayed as perfect heroes, since they are portrayed as imperfect human beings, whose failures are shown by the utilisation of humorous elements. In 2004, Coyote’s New Suit was published, which is the follow-up to Coyote Sings to the moon. In 2006, King’s short story collection A Short History of Indians in Canada won the McNally Robinson Aboriginal Book of the Year Award (Busby, “Thomas King”).

From 1993 until 1994, King worked as a story editor for the CBC Television dramatic series Four Directions. From 1997 until 2000 King wrote Dead Dog Café Comedy Hour for CBC Radio, in which he also starred. In addition to his works, Thomas King has edited Canadian Aboriginal fiction anthologies, including All My Relations and First Voices, First Words. In 2003, King delivered the Massey Lectures as the first Aboriginal in Canada. Nine years later, King received a Queen’s Diamond Jubilee Medal. In 2014, King won the B.C. National Award for Canadian Non-Fiction and the RBC Taylor Prize for his work The Inconvenient Indian: A Curious Account of Native People in North America (Busby, “Thomas King”).

Thomas King has been a member of the Order of Canada and is professor emeritus at the University of Guelph, where was teaching at the School of English and the department of Theatre Studies (Busby, “Thomas King”). In his work Borders, which I have chosen for my analysis, Thomas King displays the problems of a modern Canadian family, whose heritage roots in the Indian Blackfoot tribe, when they attempt to cross the border on their way from Canada to the U.S.

6. Borders by Thomas King

Borders is a short story in which a young boy travels with his mother to Salt Lake City. The reason for their enterprise is to visit the young boy’s sister Laetitia. At the age of seventeen Laetitia left the family, which is described as a traumatising event for the family. The mother was against Laetitia‘s departure initially, but admitted years later that ‘She did real good’ (King 131). Laetitia has sent postcards to her family regularly and frequently invited the family to visit her in the Salt Lake City. Unfortunately for the young boy, his mother always refused to follow Laetitia’s invitations.

To his surprise, his mother one day decides to go to Salt Lake City with him. As they leave, his mother argues that they both have to “dress up” (King 133), since she insists that she refuses to cross the border “looking like Americans” (King 133). The young boy proceeds by explaining that the border consists of two towns. The town Sweetwater is located on the American side of the border and the town Coutts is located on the Canadian side. As they reach the point of the border patrol, a guard stops the car and asks the mother for her citizenship. She keeps replying to the same question numerous times declaring that she is a Blackfoot Indian. A second guard approaches them and the same question is asked again numerous times, until the mother and the young boy are asked to park the car and follow the border guards inside the border house. Inside the building, a female detective talks to the mother again and explains the necessity to declare her citizenship. They spend four hours in the office, until the female detective tells the mother and her young son that they are denied to cross the border, until they have declared their citizenship. On their way back home, they now have to face the Canadian border patrol. Since the mother still refuses to answer the question of their citizenship to the satisfaction of the border guard, they are unable to move in either direction and are caught between two borders. Fortunately, they are allowed to spend the night inside the house of the border patrol. On the next day, they drive towards the American border again and spend the day inside and in close proximity to the duty-free shop. On this day, they spend the night inside the car. In the next morning, they head for the U.S. border again, towards the border patrol. The result remains the same and they spend a second night inside the car. In the following morning several vans of various TV stations appear. The reason for their appearance is that people from the media are

interested in the story of the young boy and his mother. After having responded to questions from a person who appears to be an editor or spokesperson, they both enter the car. A guard approaches them and asks them the same questions again and the mother still refuses to declare her citizenship. Despite his visible anger and irritation, the border guard finally allows the young boy and his mother to cross the U.S. border, which is accompanied by tremendous applause by the media. The people from the media are elated to an extent where they film and chase the car, while the mother and her son finally cross the border to the United States.

After their arrival in Salt Lake City, they are reunited with Laetitia, who claims to have heard about the story and watched it on TV. Laetitia shows her mother and the young boy numerous sights of Salt Lake City and approximately stay there for a week. On their way back to Canada, they meet the manager of the duty-free shop named Mel, who they encountered numerous times when they were unable to cross the two borders. As a souvenir from Salt Lake City, Mel receives a green hat from them and he states that the young boy’s mother is an inspiration. After their conversation, they return home to Canada and the young boy watches the border disappear from the backseat of the car (King).

6.1. The Form of the Short Story and the Positioning of Thomas King’s Borders as a Canadian Short Story

Borders constitutes an example for the literary form narrative fiction. According to Edgar Allan Poe, the core characteristics of short stories are brevity and the necessary coherence of a meaningful story, which combined create the impression of totality (Poe, cited in Lawrence 274). There are numerous definitions for the term short story. One popular definition is that a short story is a brief tale, which can be read in one sitting. Considering Poe’s definition, he added that the effect of any given short story aims to produce a single effect on the reader (Lawrence 274-275). One example for this is The Scarlet Letter, by Nathaniel Hawthorne. Adhering to the standards of brevity and the theory of creating a single effect, The Scarlet Letter is exemplary for Poe’s suggested definition (Lawrence 276). However, Poe’s definition

is far from complete since it fails to answer one of the most obvious questions, namely how short is short? An example for this is Hemingway’s work The Old Man and the Sea, which is considered a novel that is shorter than other works that are classified as short stories (Cox 14).

Since numerous attempts of finding a definition for the short story genre have been misleading, Mary Louise Pratt has suggested a set of rules, which consist of eight distinct points that aim to explain the dependency of the short story from the novel. By means of a detailed delineation between the two genres, a greater understanding of the short story is provided.

1. Pratt argues that one aspect relevant for further investigation is the fact that the short story is often perceived as incomplete. By comparison, the short poem is hardly perceived as incomplete in relation to the long poem. The bottom line is that completion is a matter of perspective. Pratt states that the novel tells the story of an entire life and the short story is limited to a fragment. However, the presentation of a fragment cannot necessarily be considered as incomplete. Borders provides an interesting example for this. The plot revolves around a short fragment of the lives of the individual characters, however the plot is undoubtedly completed at the end of the text.

2. Pratt agrees with Poe on the aspect that short stories focus on single aspects within the plot. Examples for this are topics or themes. Remarkably, the theme of the text is not restricted to the characters. It could be argued that the character’s themselves only constitute a vehicle for the underlying message of the text. This argument

3. A further proposition put forward by Pratt suggests that short stories show a tendency to present their content by means of their title, which is evidently true for Borders.

4. Short stories are embedded in other works, when they are published. This argument provides an obvious distinguishment from the novel. While novels

are published individually, this is hardly the case for short stories since they are usually published as part of a collection of numerous works.

5. Pratt states that short stories have a tendency to portray excerpts from the lives of people, who live on the margins of society. This claim holds up when it is applied to the short story Borders, since it portrays an excerpt of the lives of Blackfoot Indians, which features the mother as a resilient character that shows a deep aversion to the system she is forced to live in.

6. Short stories incorporate oral-colloquial speech forms, which may coincide with Pratt’s argument in bullet point number 5. Colloquial language is omnipresent in Borders, since the composition of the conversations as well as the narration rely heavily on informal speech.

7. Novels and short stories have contrasting narrative traditions. While the novel is rooted in history and travel, the short story appears to have its roots in folklore and anecdote.

8. Short stories imply depths of a larger world, reaching beyond the circumscription of the words in the text (Pratt, cited in Cox 15-21).

The eight rules presented by Pratt (cited in Cox 15-21) can be considered an approach towards the characteristics of the short story. Several of these rules can be applied to the Borders, which are helpful to identify Borders as a short story. An additional feature to consider is that Thomas King’s work is part of a distinct phenomenon in the world of literature, namely the Canadian short story.

This phenomenon however, is relatively new since it has existed for a little more than 100 years. The Canadian short story emerged around 1890, with authors like Isabella Valancy Crawford, Susan Frances Harrison, Ernest Thompson Seton. The short story failed to receive recognition until the 1920s, when Morley Callaghan’s modernist short stories appeared. The biggest impact on the ascendancy of the Canadian short story happened in the 1960s, as the diversity and quality of works were rising to new levels (Nischik 1). The 1960s are often referred to as the Elizabethan Era of

Canadian Literature, or the Canadian Renaissance. One of the main reasons for this development was the flourishing of the print industry. In the 1960s, numerous publishing houses, as well as literary magazines, who specialised on Canadian literature were on the rise, which provided the necessary infrastructure for works to be puslished (Nischik 16).

Today, the Canadian short story is a vital genre that has gained substantial recognition and is considered one of the most important genres in Canadian literature. Major Canadian writers have produced internationally recognised short story collections. Moreover, contemporary Canadian writers of short fiction, such as Alice Munro and Margret Atwood, are among the most renowned writers in the world (Nischik 1).

Even though Thomas King’s work Borders is undisputedly categorised as a Canadian Short story, the problems addressed by King inherently criticise the nature of categorisation by means of citizenship. Notably, King’s work portrays the struggles of displacement in a humorous way. However, the misery of being caught between two borders is illustrated by means of a simple endeavour, which results in a complex situation, due to the complex composition of the characters and the way the characters identify themselves.

6.2. Character Analysis

6.2.1. The Young Boy, Son and Brother of Laetitia

The young boy, who functions as the narrator and protagonist in Borders, remarkably remains unnamed throughout the text. Arguably, one reason for this is that the reader sees the plot unfold from the perspective of the young boy, who narrates the story from his point of view. This includes fragments of conversations, entire conversations and his comments, which contribute additional information on the other characters in the text. His motivations as a character are in part difficult to define, since he rarely states his opinions. The effect that is created through his rejection of judgement of others intensifies the reader’s perception of experiencing the story through the eyes of an innocent child.

One example for this can be viewed in the situation where he and his mother are inside the border house. After several hours without progress, the young boy remains unaffected by the entire scene. He states no worries, fear or anger. He remains calm and remarks that one of the officers bought him a drink. The young boy’s inability to make decisions by himself is arguably the reason for why he refuses to directly question his mother’s or Laetitia’s actions and statements. His possibilities for taking action are limited since he is subject to his mother’s judgement. Therefore, his best option is to follow his mother’s instructions, since it is unlikely that he is able to change her plans. Notably, the boy’s motivations are clear to the reader, even though the boy refuses to make explicit statements. The reason for this are the boy’s witty comments, as well as the fragments of the conversations he chooses to display, which point into a distinct direction. However, there are instances, in which he chooses to state his opinion to the fictive reader. One example for this is provided after their first encounter with the guard at the American border. The young boy states his disappointment and explicitly provides arguments for his feelings.

A furthermore important aspect to investigate in his character is his utilisation of witty comments, in order to point the reader into a specific perception of his family. On the surface, he appears as innocent, but his remarks by contrast occasionally reveal another side of his character. Before being asked to enter the house of the border patrol, the son states that ‘It didn’t take them long to lose their sense of humour, I can tell you that’ (King 136). His statement reveals that he has a clear understanding of the point of view of the border guards. In addition, this revelation nourishes the idea that the young boy is aware of the complex situation inside his family and at the border. Arguably, he utilises the idea that children are innocent, in order to paint a critical picture of his family inside the minds of the readers. His apparent indifference constitutes an act of defiance, which raises the possibility to classify the young boy as an unreliable narrator, at least to the extent of his own behaviour.

The young boy can be considered a multi-dimensional character, since his character illustrates numerous facets. There are two reasons for this: Firstly, he tends to withhold his opinion. Secondly, his witty remarks and occasional comments reveal his wisdom and unreliability as a narrator, which contribute to the depth of his character. Equally important is the observation that he can be considered a static character.

Through the course of the plot, the traits of his character are revealed, but there is no indication that his character undergoes visible changes.

6.2.2. Laetitia

Laetitia by contrast, can be regarded as a static, mono-dimensional character. Laetitia is presented as a young independent woman, who seeks to live life to the fullest extent and without compromise. Unfortunately, her mother disagrees with her goals in life and she is forced to be resilient in order to fulfil her dreams. Arguably, these character traits are reminiscent of the character of the mother, who is subject to the analysis in the next section of this chapter.

The relationship between Laetitia and her mother is highly complex due to these circumstances. Their conversations include peculiarities to the extent where they can be considered highly dysfunctional. An example for this is provided in the moment, in which Laetitia, her mother and the young boy arrive at the border, before Laetitia leaves Canada to start a new life in Salt Lake City.

Mother: ‘This is real lousy coffee.’ Laetitia: ‘You’re just angry because I want to see the world.’ Mother: ‘It’s the water. From here on down, they got lousy water.’ (King 132).

In this situation, Laetitia and her mother talk to each other, however this conversation fails to constitute meaning. Arguably, Laetitia intends to resolve problems with her mother before she leaves. Unfortunately for Laetitia, her mother attempts to evade the difficult situation, by deliberately ignoring her daughter’s comments. In addition, the mother indirectly criticises Laetitia’s decision to leave, by stating ridiculing comments about the United States. The comments of the mother are deeply insulting for Laetitia since the mother’s behaviour makes it impossible for her to leave for Salt Lake City on peaceful terms.

These character traits remain intact throughout the play, which classifies her as a static character. Additionally, Laetitia’s character functions as a strong vehicle for the plot since she provides the motive for the young boy and his mother to cross the border. Furthermore important to point out is the cultural background and the

underlying message that is implied through the border as a boundary that is sought to overcome.

6.2.3. The Mother

The mother of the young boy constitutes a prime example for a deep, multidimensional character, even though the young boy intentionally aims at presenting her as a person, which constitutes a mono-dimensional character. However, the categorisation of the mother as a mono-dimensional character appears to be short- sighted, since it fails to grasp the bigger picture of her character. The reason for this is that her stubborn attitude is the driving force of the plot. She takes great pride in her heritage and in addition to her stubbornness, she is presented as a narrow- minded person. Even though she can be considered a mono-dimensional character, there is an instance, in which a change of mind can be observed on the day she decides to visit her daughter. Despite her stubbornness, she overcomes her pride, which was dominant during the conversations between her and her daughter at the beginning of the text. Ironically, her change of heart, her decision to visit Laetitia provides the impetus for the plot to unfold. Therefore, the mother can arguably be considered a multi-dimensional character.

The pride of the mother is a remarkable aspect to consider for the evaluation of her character. Notably, her pride functions as a border, which glues together two fundamentally contrasting character traits, which are under constant dispute with each other and as a result, form a character that is constantly under tension. On one side, she is a proud, resilient and strong woman with strong beliefs. These beliefs include pride in her heritage as a Blackfoot Indian and political beliefs, which propagate a hostile attitude towards the border that was drawn between the United States and Canada. In her perception, the border crossed her life and separates people, who belong together culturally and historically. Notably, this argument holds up, considering the history of her tribe (see chapter 4.). On the other hand, the worldview of her daughter significantly differs from hers. The mother is caught between her own beliefs and her love and support for her daughter. This inner conflict is revealed in their conversations, in which the daughter as well as her mother fail to achieve a functional discussion about their emotions. The conversations between the mother and the daughter presented in the text, either consist of constant

indirect criticism towards the other person’s beliefs or the daughter’s future endeavours. Furthermore intriguingly is the absurd structure of their conversations since the mother refuses to solve disagreements directly. By contrast, the conversations between the mother and the son are characterised by a simple structure. The mother and the young boy appear to reject the concept of conflict with each other entirely. The mother makes decisions and the young boy follows her and executes tasks he is asked to execute by her. As previously discussed in the section of the young boy’s character, he shows a clear understanding of the situations. In addition, the picture that he aims to draw of his mother suggests that a positive result of an argument with her is impossible. In order to avoid unproductive conflict, the young boy refuses to attempt discussions with his mother.

Even though the mother is presented as a difficult person to live with, her stubbornness succeeds in the end. As a result, she is perceived as an inspiration. A furthermore intriguing aspect to remark in her character’s composition is her ability to metaphorically, and literally cross borders by defending her beliefs with resilience. A side effect of her resilience is to expose the weaknesses of the system. An example for this is the mother’s and young boy’s inability to leave the border after their first rejection on the American side of the border and their second rejection on their way back to Canada. By refusing to comply with the habits established by white men at the border, the mother and her son find themselves in a situation, which puts pressure on the border patrol. The reason for this is that the system was unprepared for this scenario. An additional example for why the mother’s behaviour exposes weaknesses in the system is arguably more striking, since the mother manages to cross the border to the United States, despite her refusal to adhere to the established rules.

6.3. Narration and the Narrative Situation

In order to analyse the structure of a narrative text a clear distinction between “story” and “discourse” is imperative. The term “story” concerns itself with the chronological sequence of events of the plot, which has already been outlined in the chapter “Borders by Thomas King”. The term “discourse” refers to the strategies and techniques utilised for providing meaningful narration (Nünning 102).

Adhering to the concepts introduced by Genette, the young boy, functions as a homodiegetic narrator, since in addition to his function as a narrator, he is also one of the characters in the text. Since the young boy is also the protagonist, he can be considered an autodiegetic narrator. In addition, the young boy is an overt narrator since he explicitly appears as the narrator (Nünning 118-119). The young boy cannot be considered as an omniscient narrator. The reason for this is that the young boy’s perspective is limited to his own perception. Considering the literary theory in terms of narrativity, he functions as the focalizer, which is defined as the person inside a narrative text, who provides the centre of orientation (Nünning 188). Further distinguishments can be made within the realm of focalisation. Since the young boy is a character within the story, he is an internal focalizer and since he is also the narrator, he constitutes a narrator-focalizer (Rimmôn-Qênān 74).

6.4. The Communicative Situation

A communication model for narrative texts serves the same purpose as the communication model presented in the analysis of Fronteras Americanas. The aim is to utilise the communication model as a tool that provides a concept and terms for reference.

Extratextual level of communication

Narrative text

Intratextual level of communication I:

Level of narrative transmission

Real Fictive Fictive Real Intratextual level of Author Narrator Reader Reade communication II: r Level of the characters and the story Character Character as as Addresser Addressee Fig. 2. A communication model for narrative texts, Nünning 2009: 104

The communication model presented in Nünning, explains the communicative situation in three layers. The first layer is the intratextual level of communication II, which takes place on the story level on which the characters exchange information with each other by means of dialogue. The second layer is the intratextual level of communication I, which takes place on the level of narrative transmission. Notably, the terms “narrative transmission” and “story level” correspond to the terms “discourse” and “story”, since they refer directly to the meaning of “discourse” and “story”. On this level, a fictive narrator functions as an addresser, who addresses a fictive reader. By contrast, in drama, the intratextual level of communication is reduced to the dialogue between the characters. The recipient of the text on the extratextual level in drama is the audience, and in narrative fiction, the recipient is the reader (Nünning 104-105).

In Borders, the dialogues between the individual characters are situated in the first layer. The autodiegetic narrator is located inside the story and is able to shift between the first and the second layer. In the second layer, the autodiegetic narrator turns towards the fictive reader. On this level, the protagonist is able to state comments and provide background knowledge as an independent entity, who serves the real reader as a focalizer. On the third level, the reader is confronted with the story written by the real author. The third layer is of significant importance to the short story, since it carries a clear, single message to the reader. Even though the real author may reject a direct plea or advice for future action, an underlying message is presented by the themes and motifs that are expressed and addressed in the text.

The underlying motif in Borders is the predicament of being caught between two borders. The motif can be seen as a symbol for the theme that the author intends to carry to the real reader, by using the text as a vehicle for the message. The motif of being caught between two borders is omniscient throughout the text. However, an additional instance can be observed in the composition of the character of the mother, who is constantly torn between her own beliefs and the love for her daughter.

6.5. The Representation of Time and Space

The investigation of time and space in narrative fiction inform on important aspects, including frequency, order, duration and location. Frequency refers to the condition of reoccurring events. Borders provides an example for “singulative narration”, since events are narrated once.

An equally important step for the analysis is the order of the story. The plot can be narrated in chronological order, however there are numerous exceptions that utilise a different approach. Borders constitutes an example for an underlying narrative structure, in which the main storyline is presented chronologically. In addition, numerous situations from the past are inserted in the main storyline, which help the reader to understand the relationship between the individual characters. Therefore, Borders constitutes an example for anachronic narration (Nünning 127).

The term duration refers to the discrepancy between “story time” and “discourse time”. “Story time” is situated on the intratextual level of communication II, which refers to the time that actions take within the story on the level of the characters. “Discourse time” by contrast, is the period of time it takes for the addressee to read the text. In drama for instance, events unfold in what is perceived by the audience or the reader as their individual time in reality. Therefore, no discrepancy between “story time” and “discourse time” occurs. This instance constitutes the literal definition of the term “scene” in literary studies. While this zero-time discrepancy is inherent in drama, different rules are frequently applied in narrative fiction, which can be observed in Thomas King’s Borders.

Scenic narration is an omnipresent tool used extensively in Borders. In addition, it constitutes a core characteristic of the short story as a literary form (see chapter 6.1.). One of the reasons for this is that the underlying message behind the text is strengthened, due to the detailed point of view the reader is exposed to. In Borders, the reader experiences the difficult situation of the characters between the borders and between family members through the eyes of a child. The reader is drawn into the plot and becomes emotionally invested in the characters, since the scenic narration creates the illusion of proximity. Despite the anachronistic order, the scenic nature of story persists with only few exceptions. However, there are instances that can be classified as summaries. Summaries refer to a shorter “discourse time” than the “story time” inside of which the characters are located. An example for this can be viewed in the situation where the young boy and the mother spend their first night in the house of the border patrol (Nünning 127).

“We parked the car to the side of the building and Carol led us into a small room on the second floor” (King: 139).

Summaries accelerate the story and provide the possibility for the plot to evolve without taking the risk to lose time for information the author views as irrelevant to the reader. An additional technique for the purpose of “speeding-up” the plot is an “omission” or “ellipses”. In the case of an “ellipses”, a period of time on the level of narration is omitted, but the “story time” remains unaffected. A stretch on the other hand is the opposite, in which the “discourse time” extents to a longer time period than the “story time” (Nünning: 127). An additional possibility for discrepancy 45

between “story time” and “discourse time” is provided by a “pause”, by means of which narration takes place, while the ”story time” freezes. In Borders, numerous instances of “pauses” can be observed (Nünning: 127). An example for this is provided during a conversation with a young woman, who works as a guard at the border patrol.

Border Guard: ‘Where are you going?’ Mother: ‘Standoff.’ Narrator: The woman’s name was Carol and I don’t guess she was any older than Laetitia. Border Guard: ‘Wow, you both Canadians?’ Mother: ‘Blackfoot.’ (King: 138)

The text switches between narration and dialogue in an unexpected moment, which immediately creates the impression that time freezes since the narration takes place in the middle of the conversation. A considerably more difficult task is to detect “stretches” in Borders, due to the fact that approximately 90 per cent of the plot consists of scenic narration and “pauses” caused by the young boy as an autodiegetic narrator, who frequently interrupts dialogues. The theme of the text is displacement, which is symbolically represented by the borders between the United States and Canada (see chapter 4.). Therefore, the most intriguing aspect for the analysis of the short story Borders is the representation of space.

6.5.1. Coutts

Coutts is a fictive town situated on the Canadian side of the border. The narrator states that ‘Coutts was on the Canadian side and consisted of the convenience store and gas station, the museum that was closed and boarded up, and a motel.’ (King 134). The young boy hardly states his opinion or significant features of the town and prefers to present Coutts as an insignificant place that owes its existence to the border. He comments on the sound of the name of the town and describes it as ‘rude and abrupt’ (King 134). The young boy adds that due to the sound of the name one could suspect that Coutts is situated on the American side of the border. The town constitutes a major element for the development of the plot. One of the reasons for

this is that Coutts is revisited four times during the text and each time, different circumstances shape the perception and the function of the border.

At the first time of the family’s arrival, Coutts is a location that represents separation, since the daughter leaves the family to start a new life in the United States. At the second time, the young boy and the mother are able to move through the town until they arrive at the American border. The narrator explains that: ‘My mother straightened the dress across her thighs, leaned against the wheel, and drove all the way to the border in the first gear, slowly, as if she were trying to see through a bad storm or riding high on black ice.’ (King 134). The description of this moment suggests that the mother approaches the border with caution. The situation is reminiscent of a scene in a western movie, in which Indians fight against Americans. The information, that the mother approaches the border in the first gear, emphasises the rising tension, which is immediately transferred to the reader by means of the scenic narration. One could argue that the situation presented to the reader is reminiscent of a situation, in which two cowboys prepare for the moment, before they draw their revolvers in a duel at high noon. The implied tension is stressed by the author after the comma, in which the narrator adds the word “slowly” at the end of the sentence. The second important remark to consider is the young boy’s comparison to approaching a storm. The metaphor implies that an unpleasant location is being approached. Furthermore importantly to point out is the narrator’s emphasis on an uncertain future, which refers to his description of a storm that is difficult to see through. An additional metaphor for investigation is the narrator’s comparison to movement on black ice. Black ice suggests that difficulties are not restricted to prospects in the future, but implies that the young boy and his mother are already moving on a dangerous terrain, as they approach the border.

At the third arrival at the border, Coutts represents a location of conflict, since the young boy and his mother are denied permission to cross the border to the United States and are forced to return home. The conflict appears as a legal technicality on the surface. However, it reveals a conflict of interest and identity, which subsequently exposes fragilities within the legal system. Within the time span of the third visit of Coutts, the town transforms into a prison, since the young boy and his mother are denied permission to pass the border patrol at the Canadian border and are therefore

unable to return home. They spend the night on the Canadian side of the border inside the building where the border office is located. As a result, the place of separation, conflict and prison, is additionally transformed into a place of shelter. The protagonists spend almost three days at the border, during which they become friends with the manager of the local convenience store. During the time span between their rejection at the Canadian border until the moment, in which they are granted permission to cross the border to the United States, the reader is under the impression that the border is transforming into the new home of the young boy and his mother.

6.5.2. The Geography of the Border

A significant aspect for consideration are the geographical conditions of the two border towns. The reason for this is that the text fails to provide explicit information on the exact location of the border. The information provided from the text explains that the border consists of two towns. Therefore, the border is a highly ambivalent place. The ambivalence is a result of the conditions, which differ from borders that are more frequently encountered in reality since border patrols are situated along a distinct line, instead of two towns. In addition, the concept suggests that the border is crossed in the moment, in which the border patrol has been crossed. This explanation might appear generic on the surface, but its relevance for the analysis is striking. In the short story, the perception of the details of the location depend on the individual reader to a high degree. A supplementary attribute for the analysis is the system that is applied by the border patrol. There is little information provided, which explains the physical characteristics of the two towns. The reader is unaware of the physical connection between Coutts and Sweetwater since no distinct information is offered. One possibility is that the two towns are physically separated from each other, but connected through a road. Another possibility suggests that no physical boundary between the two towns exists. This possibility suggests that the geography of the two towns viewed from above, presumably is characteristic for a single town that has been formally divided. If this is the case, then the concept of a border that consists of two towns becomes even more ambiguous.

As the plot at the border unfolds, it remains unclear, whether the mother and the young boy are situated in America or Canada. Numerous interpretations of their location are possible. It could be argued that the protagonists are located in Canada, since they were rejected at the American border. A second possibility by contrast, suggests that they are located in the United States and Canada at the same time. A further interpretation incorporates the possibility that the mother and the young boy are located in neither of the two countries. The border in the short story constitutes a “mood-invested space” and a “space of action”, since the location in which the actions take place represents the theme of the text. The term “mood-invested space” refers to a location that represents a distinct symbolic value. The “space of action” is the location that functions as the setting, in which the events within the story take place (Hoffmann, cited after Nünning: 129). The border in the text can be considered both, which can be attributed to the nature of the genre of the short story.

6.5.3. Crossing the Border

The moment, in which the young boy and his mother cross the border to the United States is filled with symbolism. One attribute that contributes to the symbolism is the heroic impression that is generated through the presence of the media. The circumstance that the media covers the story in the news highlights the importance of the theme of the short story. This circumstance is amplified by the possibility that the story is covered on both sides of the border. It is explicitly stated in the text that the story of the protagonists is covered in the United States, since Laetitia informs the young boy and his mother later that she has seen them in the news in Salt Lake City. However, it can be assumed that a peculiar story that draws the attention of the media and that takes place directly at the border between two countries, will be broadcasted in both countries in real life. The symbolic power of the situation is enhanced by the applause that the mother and her son receive from the people of the media. In addition, the border guard who approaches them is described with a smile on his face. Moreover, the young boy describes that he is unable to see, since he is blinded by the lights from cameras from the people of the media. This description shows a distinct resemblance to birth, death and reincarnation, which constitutes a striking metaphor for the significance of crossing the border.

At the end of the story, the border is crossed again after the protagonists’ visit in Salt Lake City. The young boy and his mother return to the border on their way home and meet the manager of the convenience store again. The mother triumphantly hands him a souvenir from Salt Lake City, where he refers to her as an inspiration. This situation constitutes their last visit at the border. In this instance, the border is a symbol for triumph, a boundary that has been successfully overcome. Furthermore importantly to point out is that through the victory over the system and the symbolic reincarnation initiated through the first crossing of the border, the place of separation, conflict, prison, shelter, and home appears to have lost its power and ambiguity. The remarkable symbolism that this observation suggests, establishes the main message of the short story; namely that borders constitute nothing but illusions. The reader of the short story reaches this shift of perspective, during the last sentences of the text, in which the young boy describes losing sight of the border, as he sits on the back seat of the car.

6.6. Thomas King’s Utilisation of Humour

The underlying message of the text exposes cultural disparities between countries, ethnicities, younger and older generations, as well as displacement and separation (see chapter 6.5.). However, the message is accompanied by witty remarks and absurd situations, which allow the reader to approach serious topics by means of humour. An analysis by means of the felicity conditions is conventionally applied in the field of linguistics. However, the felicity conditions constitute practical tools for the analysis of the humorous situations within the short story. In order to perform speech acts accordingly. J.L. Austin (1962) proposed six “felicity conditions”, which can be divided into necessary (A1-B2) and sincerity conditions (C1 and C2) (Austin 1962, cited in Levinson: 229). The violation of the necessary conditions result in a loss of meaning of the intended act. When the sincerity conditions are violated, a different meaning from the surface meaning is created. If this is done on purpose, an ironic effect can be created.

A.1: A conventional procedure must have a conventional effect. An example for this can be viewed in legal acts. The utterance of the words “I divorce you” will be insufficient for a legal divorce, if the required legal documents have not been signed.

A.2: A2 refers to speech acts that require to be performed in distinct places with distinct props. The circumstances and people involved in the situation must be appropriate for the procedure. An example for failing this condition is provided, if one head of state welcomes another, but wrongfully addresses the bodyguard of the other head of state.

B1: A procedure is valid, if the actions required are carried out correctly and completely. For example, when a priest asks the bridegroom if he wants to marry the bride, he must respond by saying I will for the purpose of a correct procedure.

B2: A procedure must be carried completely by all participants in order to meet the conditions for B2. In the context of the example provided in B1, this means that the procedure is only fulfilled, if the bride utters the same response as the bridegroom.

C1 and C2 constitute the sincerity conditions, which require that the speakers must have the intention to act according to their words. This means that the maxims of the sincerity conditions are violated when a person intentionally states misinformation or intentionally provides counterproductive advice. (Levinson: 229-230).

In the case of the short story Borders, numerous peculiar situations are perceived as humorous by the reader, since the felicity conditions are violated. One example for this can be seen in the situation, in which the mother and the young boy approach the border and the mother is addressed by the border guard.

Border Guard: ‘Morning, ma’am.’ Mother: ‘Good morning.’ Border Guard: ‘Where you heading?’ Mother: ‘Salt Lake City.’ Border Guard: ‘Purpose of your visit?’ Mother: ‘Visit my daughter.’ Border Guard: ‘Citizenship?’ Mother: ‘Blackfoot,’ my mother told him. Border Guard: ‘Ma’am?’ Mother: ‘Blackfoot,’ my mother repeated. Border Guard: ‘Canadian?’ Mother: ‘Blackfoot.’ (King 134-135).

In this situation, the necessary conditions are violated, since crossing the border evokes a formal act officially required by the law. The procedure of declaring one’s citizenship is mandatory and is designed as a procedure that can be carried out within seconds. The formal act between the two characters is humorous, since the procedure is rejected by the mother, which consequently confuses the border guard. This effect is enhanced by the repetition of the question of the border guard and the response by the mother, since her response initiates a stalemate. At her first confrontation with the question, the mother is possibly unaware that she has to declare herself and her son as Canadian citizens, instead of Blackfoot Indians. To eliminate the possibility of a misunderstanding, the border guard explains the situation and the formal procedure to the mother. Since the mother refuses to answer to the formal question accordingly, despite her knowledge of the procedure, the sincerity conditions are violated. As a result, the meaning of the conversation is lost. In the following example, the situation presents an informal conversation between the mother and the young boy in their first night at the border.

Mother: ‘You see all those stars,’ she said. ‘When I was a little girl, my grandmother used to take me and my sisters out on the prairies and tell us stories about all those stars.’

Boy: ‘Do you think Mel is going to bring us any hamburgers?’

Mother: ‘Every one of those stars has a story. You see that bunch of stars over there that look like a fish?’

Boy: ‘He didn’t say no.’

Mother: ‘Coyote went fishing, one day. That’s how it all started.’ (King 142).

The first remarkable aspect to consider is that the conversation is highly dysfunctional since the necessary conditions are rejected entirely. The two characters appear to have two separate conversations simultaneously. On the one hand, the mother shares a nostalgic story from her childhood and on the other hand, the young boy talks about fast food. In this instance, the characteristic of the young boy as an indifferent, innocent person is emphasised to an extent that appears as surreal. In addition, both characters state questions towards the other characters, which remain unacknowledged by both parties. The second statement of the young boy elaborates on the question he has asked his mother. However, she switches the topic entirely by introducing a character called Coyote. Notably, the meaning behind the statement ‘That’s how it all started’ remains unclear (King 142). This statement can be viewed as the author’s method to enhance the comic effect of the situation. The mother’s initiation of a new topic suggests that the conversation is heading towards a direction that is arguably more chaotic. In addition, she does not elaborate on Coyote since the conversation ends at this point. Arguably, the conversation might continue, but it is not part of the text. This ending enhances the chaos of the conversation that is perceived by the reader, since it suggests that the conversation proceeds without meaning and is therefore ended by means of a pause. The reason for this is that at the beginning of the conversation, the two characters thematise individual topics, but towards the end of the conversation, even the characters themselves are unable to elaborate on one topic.

7. Overview of the Mexican-American War and the Establishment of the Mexican- American Border

On May 13, 1846, the president of the United States James K. Polk requested to wage war against Mexico. Following his request, the war was declared by the United States Congress on Mexico. The reason for this conflict was that Mexico claimed parts of the territory of Texas, insisting that the parts in question belonged to Mexico. The republic of Texas had established its independence from Mexico a decade earlier. However, President Polk insisted that the annexation of Texas to the United States was an important step on the United States’ quest from spreading democracy across the continent. Consequently, Mexico considered that acquisition of Texas by the U.S. as an act of war, which led to a series of combats at the border.

Two years later, the conflict was ended after a peace treaty was established, which was ratified by both governments. Mexico received approximately 18 million dollars in compensation for the lost war and the lost territory from the United States. The border was set between Mexico and Texas and the states California, Nevada, Utah, New Mexico, large parts of Arizona, Colorado and Oklahoma, as well as Kansas and Wyoming became part of the U.S. territory. The size of Mexico’s territory decreased by half of its size before the war, but the U.S. also had to face severe problems. The two main factors were the significant size of annexed territory, as well as the imbalance between free and slave states. The latter factor was one of the main reasons that triggered the start of the Civil War in the U.S. from 1861 until 1865, which ended in abolishing slavery across the union (“The Mexican-American War in a Nutshell”).

Even though the Mexican-American War had ended, the establishment of the border itself led to devastating problems for the people who have been living in the borderlands. Millions of people became part of a different nation with different identities, which has led to a devastating struggle of ethnic groups on both sides of the borders that has persisted until today, with no indications to end in the

foreseeable future. People whose heritage is Mexican, have been regarded as foreigners by Anglo-Americans, even though the people who are ethnically Mexican, had always been living on the northern side of the border. On the Mexican side of the border, people were suddenly separated from family members, and were unable to visit them or move to them since they were rejected permission to cross the border to the U.S. In addition, the establishment of the border led to conflicts of identity among the groups. The identity crises triggered by these events have led numerous artists and authors to digest their traumatising experiences by means of creative outlets. One of the most prominent authors is Gloria Anzaldúa.

8. About Gloria Anzaldúa

Gloria Anzaldúa was born on 26 September, 1942 in South Texas, in the Rio Grande Valley. Gloria Anzaldúa’s parents were a sharecropper and a field-worker. At the age of 11, Anzaldúa began to work in the fields as she moved with her family to Hargill, Texas, which is a city located at the border of the United States and Mexico. After having worked as a migrant worker in Arkansas for a year together with her family, her father decided to move back to Hargill since he realized that the situation in Arkansas was unbeneficial for the education of the family. Her father died when Anzaldúa was 14 years old, which forced her to support the family financially by working in her high school and college years. She obtained her B.A. at the Pan American University in the study program English, Art, and Secondary Education. She received her M.A. in English and Education from the University of Texas. She then worked as a teacher at numerous universities, including the University of Texas at Austin, Vermont College of Norwich University, and San Francisco State University. In her teaching career, she taught mentally and emotionally handicapped students and she educated students on the subjects of feminism, Chicano studies, as well as creative writing. Gloria Anzaldúa died in 2004 of complications with diabetes.

Anzaldúa won numerous awards for her works during her lifetime, including the Lambda Lesbian Small Book Press Award for Haciendo Cara, the NEA Ficiton Award, the Before Columbus foundation American Book Award and the Sappho Award of Distincion. One of her most famous works, Borderlands/La Frontera, was chosen as one of the 38 best books of 1987 by the Literary Journal.

Anzaldúa’s writing emphasises the importance of language as a border and taking pride in one’s heritage. Characteristic for Chicano literature, Anzaldúa mixes Spanish with English, which emphasises her approach towards hybridity.

9. To Live in the Borderlands Means You

The title of the poem is often referred to as To Live in the Borderlands since it provides a distinct title separated from the text. The first striking peculiarity of this poem is that the original title is represents the beginning of the poem. The title of the poem appears seven times throughout the text, which arguably shows similarities with the chorus of a Pop song. In literary terminology, this is considered a refrain. The poem consists of 41 lines and is divided into 8 stanzas. Notably, the refrain appears at the beginning of every stanza. The stanzas are formed by an irregular amount of lines. The text of the refrain varies from stanza to stanza and is translated into Spanish in the fourth stanza. In the penultimate line, the text of the refrain changes to “To survive the Borderlands”. This change is significant since the author provides a plea for the necessary steps that have to be taken to survive the situation of living in the Borderlands.

1 are neither hispana india negra espanola 2 ni gabacha, eres mestiza, mulata, half-breed 3 caught in the crossfire between camps 4 while carrying all five races on your back 5 not knowing which side to turn to, run from;

6 To live in the Borderlands means knowing 7 that the india in you, betrayed for 500 years, 8 is no longer speaking to you, 9 the mexicanas call you rajetas, 10 that denying the Anglo inside you 11 is as bad as having denied the Indian or Black; (Anzaldúa).

12 Cuando vives en la frontera 13 people walk through you, the wind steals your voice, 14 you’re a burra, buey, scapegoat, 15 forerunner of a new race, 16 half and half-both woman and man, neither- 17 a new gender;

17 To live in the Borderlands means to 18 put chile in the borscht, 19 eat whole wheat tortillas, 20 speak Tex-Mex with a Brooklyn accent; 21 be stopped by la migra at the border checkpoints;

22 Living in the Borderlands means you fight hard to 23 resist the gold elixir beckoning from the bottle, 24 the pull of the gun barrel, 25 the rope crushing the hollow of your throat;

26 In the Borderlands 27 you are the battleground 28 where enemies are kin to each other; 29 you are at home, a stranger, 30 the border disputes have been settled 31 the volley of shots have scattered the truce 32 you are wounded, lost in action 33 dead, fighting back;

34 To live in the Borderlands means 35 the mill with the razor white teeth wants to shred off 36 your olive-red skin, crush out the kernel, your heart 37 pound you pinch you roll you out 38 smelling like white bread but dead;

39 To survive the Borderlands 40 you must live sin fronteras 41 be a crossroads. (Anzaldúa).

9.1 Structure and Postmodernist Features

The structure of the poem shows significant characteristics of postmodernism since Anzaldúa expands the form of traditional poetry significantly. Traditional poetic features such as rhythm, rhyme, and metre appear to be entirely rejected on the surface. However, there are visible instances, which create the impression of rhythm, as well as other literary devices utilised in poetry. An example for this is that commas occur at unsuspected locations, which interrupt and accelerate the reading process numerous times. The author also dismisses the traditional placement of commas at the end of each line. However, there are exceptions to this rule, namely after enumerations at the end of the lines 12 until 14, 18 and 19, 23 and 24, and 29. Remarkably, line 1 presents the only example in which enumerations are not divided by commas. An additional consistency is constituted by the regular occurrence of semicolons. Their occurrences may be irregular in terms of the number of lines after which they occur, but semicolons are almost always placed at the end of a stanza, before the refrain reappears in the next line. This consistency is broken two times after the lines 20 and 28. The occurrence of a semicolon at the end of the lines 20 and 28 appears to follow no distinct reason, but their appearances provide two examples for a situation in which the reading process is significantly decelerated. An additional observation in terms of the structure can be viewed in the composition of the stanzas. In each stanza the refrain functions as an introductory clause, which could be inserted several times between the subsequent lines. In addition, the refrain can be viewed as the beginning to the answer of a question. An example for this is: What does it mean to live in the Borderlands? The indented lines after the refrain form the detailed answer of the lyrical I. However, these observations reflect the superficial structure of the poem without taking the meaning behind the words into consideration.

9.2. The Communication Model for Poetry and Postmodern Aspects in the Lyric Speech Situation

Extratextual Level = Production and Reception

Intratextual Level = Literary Text/Poem Real Real historical Fictive Speaker: Subject-Matter Fictive Addressee: Reader

Author Lyric Persona of Speech ‘lyrical thou’ (‘lyrical I‘)

Fig. 3. A Communication Model for Poetry, Nünning 53

The first important distinction has to be made between the author of a lyrical text and the fictive speaker. The lyrical text is not considered a direct expression of the author, he or she delegates the words to the lyrical I (Nünning 53). This approach provides the foundation to deal with a lyrical text scientifically. However, Anzaldúa’s poem To Live in the Borderlands Means You is considered autobiographic, and provides an insight into the feelings of the author towards the presented themes and motifs in the poem. Therefore, it is a considerably difficult task to differentiate between the lyrical I and the author. As a result, the extratextual level and the intratextual level (presented in figure 3) are not only connected, but interwoven. In addition, the differentiation between the lyrical I and the lyrical thou cannot easily be detected in the poem. The lyrical I never occurs as an explicit lyrical I. The only personal pronoun that hints towards a person is “you”. Notably, it could be argued that “you” is a strong indicator for an explicit lyrical thou that is addressed by the lyrical I. While this assumption might be reasonable, it lacks the consideration of an autobiographical poem. Consequently, the poem would remain cohesive for the reader, even if the word “you” was replaced by the word “I”. While this hypothesis presents an approach towards the analysis of the lyric speech situation of the poem, it is indifferent towards an important aspect that requires consideration. Since the author chose to utilise the personal pronoun “you” it is reasonable to question the reason and the effect of this choice. In the course of the reading process, two main functions of the word “you” can be deduced. Firstly, the utilisation of the word “you” creates the feeling of a 59

conversation; or, moreover, a monologue directed towards another person. In doing so, the identity of the reader is transformed into the identity presented in the poem. Secondly, the word “you” indicates that the author provides a guide for any given foreigner that attempts to understand and ultimately survive the borderlands. As a result, it can be concluded that the poem provides examples of an implicit lyrical I and an implicit lyrical thou. However, the fictive addresser and the fictive addressee are difficult to separate from each other. Additionally, the same observation holds true when it is applied to the extratextual level. Since To Live in the Borderlands Means You is considered an autobiographical poem, the distinguishment between the extratextual level and the intratextual level is considerably difficult to maintain. In this respect, Anzaldúa’s work shows similarities with Fronteras Americanas (see chapter 3.3.). Consequently, these observations contribute to the idea that Anzaldúa’s work provides an example for postmodern poetry.

9.3. Themes and Motifs

The first stanza thematises the displacement felt by the lyrical I. The lyrical I explains that the person living in the borderlands is unable to declare one’s identity by means of a single place of origin, namely Hispanic, Native American, African, Spanish or Gabacha, which is a colloquial term utilised by Mexicans to refer to white Americans in a condescending way. Notably, the enumeration in line 1 occurs without a comma, which accelerates the reading process. The effect created by the omission of the comma, which is inserted after “gabacha”, can be viewed as an indifference from the lyrical I towards the identities that are dismissed in the first line. In addition, the insertion of the comma at the beginning of line 2 suggests that the first line has been cut off, which constitutes the rhetorical device of an enjambment. In line 3, the “crossfire between camps” presents a metaphor for a violent dispute over defining one’s identity. A metaphor consists of a “tenor”, a “vehicle”, and a “tertium comparationis” (Nünning 72). In this metaphor, the “crossfire between camps”

functions as the vehicle, which presents the image that is used for comparison. The “tenor” refers to the predicament of being torn between identities. The “tertium comparationis” in this metaphor is arguably conflict. Furthermore, it stresses that the identities mentioned in line 1 stand in conflict with each other. In line 4, the metaphor is expanded by utilising the concept of weight as an additional difficulty that aggravates the situation of the lyrical I. The metaphor is completed in line 5, where the lyrical I confesses to be unable to distinguish between friend and enemy and is therefore unable to choose sides. The metaphors in the first stanza from line 3 to line 5 are connected and therefore constitute a conceptual metaphor. Notably, the last three words of the stanza constitute an alliteration, which is a rhetoric device frequently used in the literary form of poetry.

6 To live in the Borderlands means knowing 7 that the india in you, betrayed for 500 years, 8 is no longer speaking to you, (Anzaldúa).

Stanza two accentuates the inner conflict of the lyrical I. The first line of this stanza presents the refrain, but in this case the word “you” is exchanged with the word “knowing”. In line 7, “the india inside you” refers to the Native American heritage of the lyrical I that is also part of the identity of the lyrical I. The betrayal in the second part of line 7 refers to the tragic history of Native Americans (see chapter 4.). In line 8, a central element of the inner conflict of the lyrical I is revealed, which thematises the relationship between the lyrical I and Native Americans. The lyrical I is aware that he or she is in part also Native American. Line 8 indicates that the heritage has been denied by the lyrical I. Line 7 and line 8 present an intricate structure of figures of similarity. Firstly, the term India is a metaphor for a Native American, which draws upon the same concept that can be seen in the metaphor for the British Empire, which is often referred to as a family. Secondly, the literal meaning of the word India refers to the country Columbus wrongfully claimed to have reached in 1492, which as a result, led the colonialists to refer to Native Americans as Indians. Arguably, the lyrical I may also refer to female Native Americans since in Spanish, the word India can mean both, depending on the context. The metaphor remains intact in both cases, since the concept is not affected by this distinction. However, if the lyrical I referred to his or her heritage by means of a country, an additional layer of meaning can be detected. By utilising the name of the country and the name of its people 61

invented by the colonialists as a vehicle for the metaphor, the betrayal of the Native American heritage is indirectly stressed. In addition, it contributes to the confusion of the identity of the lyrical I since the lyrical I is perhaps unaware of this historically and culturally relevant distinction. If line 7 and line 8 are viewed from this perspective, the additional meaning provides an additional trope, namely a personification. The reason for this is that a country is ascribed human characteristics. A country cannot be betrayed and a country is unable to speak for itself. Evidently, a country is therefore unable to decide, whether it wants to speak to a person. Moreover, it is impossible that a country is located “in” a person.

9 the mexicanas call you rajetas, 10 that denying the Anglo inside you 11 is as bad as having denied the Indian or Black; (Anzaldúa).

In line 9, an additional facet of the identity of the lyrical I is exposed, namely the revelation that the Mexican part of the lyrical I’s identity is rejected by Mexicans, and Mexican women in particular. The term rajetas is used by Mexicans to denounce people who claim to have more than one identity and who disguise or reject their heritage for opportunistic reasons. The lines 10 and 11 reflect the other side of the lyrical I’s identity and the predicament of being caught between conflicting sides. Notably, line 10 interrupts the reading process since it appears to be semantically incorrect. Therefore, the introduction of the final argument of this stanza is highlighted since it forces the reader to remember the chorus. The capitalisation of the words is remarkable, since it adapts to the rules of the English and the Spanish language. Therefore, the Spanish words are not capitalised.

The third stanza is introduced by the refrain, which is written in Spanish. Line 13 presents a metaphor and a personification. The metaphor occurs before the first comma and expresses the insignificance felt by the lyrical I. This feeling is elaborated on in the personification, which takes place after the first comma. The wind is attributed human characteristics. The entire line suggests that the lyrical I feels like a ghost, since the lyrical persona feels ignored by his or her environment. In line 14, “burra” and “buey” constitute an alliteration. In this line Anzaldúa mixed English with Spanish again, which highlights her emphasis on hybridity. The two Spanish words in combination with the expression “scapegoat” are aggressive insults, which is typical for Anzaldúa’s radical use of language to confront the reader with the problems faced by the lyrical I and arguably, by the author herself. The main theme of the poem becomes explicit in the lines 15 to 17. Anzaldúa claims that if you live in the borderlands, you are part of a new race, and even a new gender. This suggests that typical perceptions of identities divided by countries, gender roles and sexuality do not apply in the borderlands. These concepts are entirely rejected by Anzaldúa. The structure of line 16 presents itself in a chaotic way that is reminiscent of a stream of consciousness. The reason for this is that during the reading process the words appear randomly and unorganised, which is similar to the initial thinking process of humans. Line 16, would be considerably more cohesive, if the line was “half and half woman and man”. However, through the utilisation of “half and half-both” Anzaldúa suggests that it is insufficient to identify a person as half a woman and half a man. After the comma, the word “neither” is added, which suggests that both genders are insufficient. Even if a person at the borderland was identified as 100% woman and 100% man, it would still be inadequate. As a result, the author concludes that the single possibility left is defining a new gender since neither of the two suggested sexes are adequate. The thinking process of the author in line 17 evokes the impression of an improvised text, which adds a musical quality to the poem that is of central importance in music genres like Blues and Jazz. A furthermore remarkable observation is the impact of line 16 on line 17 and the connection between these two lines. It could be argued that the author is searching for the correct term that defines her identity, which she finds in line 17. Stanza 3 can be summarised in terms of the author’s quest to explain to the reader her interpretation of her identity. Notably, I have switched from referring to the speaker as the lyrical I to the author Anzaldúa.

The reason for this is that the stream of consciousness creates the impression of a direct channel between the author and the reader.

17 To live in the Borderlands means to 18 put chile in the borscht, 19 eat whole wheat tortillas, (Anzaldúa).

In stanza 4, the concept of hybridity is exemplified by means of metaphors of food and colloquial language. After the refrain, presented in lines 17, the lines 18 and 19 illustrate traditional meals that are combined with ingredients traditionally used in recipes from different cultures. Borscht is a traditional soup of eastern European origin, whereas chile is a spice for Mexican food. In line 19, wheat tortillas refers to tortillas that a popular in the U.S., whereas the original tortillas from Mexico are based on corn. Notably, there is no explicit need to expand the dish to “whole wheat” tortillas. However, this addition produces an alliteration by means of an eye rhyme.

20 speak Tex-Mex with a Brooklyn accent; 21 be stopped by la migra at the border checkpoints; (Anzaldúa).

Line 20 incorporates an intriguing mixture of languages and accents. Firstly, Tex-Mex refers to a hybrid language between Spanish and American English that is spoken in Texas. Secondly, a furthermore remarkable aspect in this line is created through the addition of the Brooklyn accent, which suggests that the disparities in language exceed the boundaries between Spanish and English. The Brooklyn accent proposes that the disparities also exist between the countryside and the city and the south of the United States, and the east coast since Brooklyn is a borough of New York City. The concluding line in stanza four highlights the displacement of the people living in the borderlands since it implies that even the inhabitants are frequently stopped by immigration. The ambiguity of this circumstance is furthermore extensively insinuated by referring to the immigration authorities in Spanish, namely “la migra” (Anzaldúa).

22 Living in the Borderlands means you fight hard to 23 resist the gold elixir beckoning from the bottle, 24 the pull of the gun barrel, 25 the rope crushing the hollow of your throat; (Anzaldúa).

In stanza 5, the lyrical I thematises the dangers and seductive vices that are hard to resist as a result of the harsh life at the border. In line 23, alcohol is presented as a “gold elixir”, which is a strong euphemism for alcohol addiction. In addition, it constitutes a metaphor that insinuates that alcohol is perceived as a cure from the problems faced by the people living at the borderlands. The word “beckoning” implies a constant struggle between remaining sober and surrendering to the temptation of intoxication. The described struggle can be felt intensively by the reader since the utilised verbs “fight hard”, “resist”, “beckoning” and “crushing” (Anzaldúa) evoke an impression of urgency and hardship. In the lines 24 and 25, the lyrical I leads the reader to the darkest place possible, namely suicide. In accordance with line 23, the author utilises explicit imagery to display the sincerity of the described struggle. Instead of presenting suicide as an option directly, the author draws the attention of the reader towards the traits of the tools used to commit suicide that ultimately cause death. Stanza 5 is the shortest stanza of the poem, but it arguably has the most significant emotional impact on the reader due to the euphemistic circumscriptions of addiction and death, presented as welcomed means of escape.

Stanza 6 is the longest stanza of the poem, and it includes contrasting ideas, which are delivered with a substantial amount of pathos that develop into a stream of consciousness. However, there are two interpretations possible, which are both reasonable and convey a similar message. In the first interpretation, the metaphorical reference to the people who live in the borderlands as the battleground can be interpreted as a statement that suggests the existence of a war taking place inside the minds of the affected people. In this case, the people who suffer view each other as the enemies. Therefore, they are strangers, even though they are at home. Conversely, the lines 27 to 29 can also be interpreted in a way that the suffering

people are defenceless against outside forces, who enforce their powers on the borderlands at the cost of the people who live in the borderlands. When taking the entire poem into consideration and connecting stanza 6 with the previous 5 stanzas, it is reasonable to assume that both of these interpretations work in tandem. The lines 30 to 33 are debatably more difficult to deduce. The reason for this is that line 30 implies the exact opposite of what has been stated throughout the poem. It is questionable, whether the lyrical I refers to a political dispute that has been settled, and that the remaining battles are fought inside the minds of the people who are forced to concern themselves with the aftermath of historical battles. By contrast, the lyrical I may refer to a literal war, instead of a metaphorical war. However, considering the context in terms of the author’s Chicana background, and clear geographical references, it can be assumed that the described hostility is a reference to conflicting identities, and political and social instabilities. Line 30 marks the ending of a war and thus divides the stanza in two parts. Notably, stating the end of the border disputes in the middle of the stanza constitutes a surprising element that appears in an unpredicted location inside the poem. Therefore, line 30 is reminiscent of a stream of consciousness again since its random appearance shares similarities with the random appearance of a thought, which hints towards an improvised line. Line 31 by contrast, presents a high degree of literacy since it provides rich metaphors that are in accordance with the conceptual metaphor of a war that is omnipresent throughout the poem. “The volley of shots” (Anzaldúa) can be interpreted as an exchange of insults, or the shots fired in the course of numerous suicides (as indicated in stanza 5). Hypothetically, “the volley” (Anzaldúa) can be seen as shots fired between conflicting authorities, or conflicting identities cultivated by the people who live in the borderlands. The lyrical I proceeds by arguing that these shots have “scattered the truce” (Anzaldúa), which feels harsh and aggressive in the course of the reading process. Notably, it is difficult to detect a clear meaning behind these words. The verb “scatter” is highly ambiguous, since it could be understood in various ways. One possibility is that the constant struggle of the people living in the borderlands allows for no truce, and all attempts for truce are immediately destroyed by the cruel conditions at the borderland. Therefore, the word “scatter” could be substituted for the word “destroy”. An additional interpretation suggests that truce is only possible among distinct ethnic, social, or political groups. However, unity and peace between all the conflicting entities is an impossible goal for

since the animosity between the conflicting unities of people allows for no peaceful coexistence. Line 32 emphasises the toll the conflicts take on the individual, which are demanding to an extent, that the orientation of the individual is lost. Line 33 presents an effective utilisation of an oxymoron. The line contradicts itself and leaves room for interpretation. While on the one hand, a dead person is unquestionably unable to fight back, the author highlights the ambiguity felt by the lyrical I on the other hand. The last line of this stanza proposes that the lyrical I is trapped in a situation that can be compared with the human imagination of the concept of purgatory. In the case of living in the borderlands, this means that the lyrical I struggles for the purpose of living a peaceful life in the future. To overcome one’s misery, one must survive and withstand the forces that prevent peace.

Stanza seven is the second to last stanza of the poem, and the reader is able to feel that a climax is approaching. The reason for this is that the lyrical I is describing in detail a process that can be regarded as torture. The mill can be understood in terms of racial prejudice of white people enforced by society and the authorities. Moreover, a mill represents an on-going process, which initially evokes the thought of an approaching climax. “The razor white teeth” (Anzaldúa) constitute a metaphor that overtly put the blame of the situation faced by the people in the borderlands on white people, who aim to force white culture and the standards of white people on other ethnic groups. Line 36 proposes that the heart, which can be understood as the core of a person’s identity, is the white men’s ultimate goal for destruction. The commas in this line enhance the brutality that is expressed by the lyrical I since they visually support the graphic idea of the teeth penetrating the skin of the victims bit by bit until they reach the heart. Line 37 utilises the literal devices repetition and alliteration, which introduce a rhythmic element that constitutes a trochaic tetrameter. The rhythm proposes that the pace of the mill is accelerating, which creates a horrifying image in the course of the reading process. Line 38 states that as a result, the lyrical I’s identity has been stolen in the most brutally imaginable way.

39 To survive the Borderlands 40 you must live sin fronteras 41 be a crossroads. (Anzaldúa).

The last stanza of the poem is the shortest stanza and it provides a plea for future action. The author once again utilises English and Spanish to stress the message she attempts to convey. In line 40, the lyrical I claims that two measurements must be implemented to survive the harsh living conditions in the borderlands. The first measurement is to reject the concept of borders entirely. Further importance can be attributed to the measurement presented in line 41, which proposes peaceful coexistence as the goal. However, this goal can only by achieved, if the people in the borderlands take pride in their identity and learn to consider themselves part of the solution.

9.4. The Representation of Time and Space

To Live in the Borderlands Means You constitutes an example for postmodernism since the author extends the form of poetry. This observation is also relevant for the investigation of the concepts of time and space. As indicated in the previous chapter, the advancement of the poem is reminiscent of a stream of consciousness since time appears to stand still. This remark is supported by the grammatical tense utilised by the author. The entire poem is written in the present tense, which creates the feeling that the reader is placed directly into the borderlands. This technique allows the reader to get a glimpse of the living conditions inside the hostile environment described by the lyrical I.

The borderlands, which present the setting of Anzaldúa’s poem is arguably the most intriguing facet to consider for the analysis. The borderlands are presented as a hostile and ambiguous place, filled with violence, ambivalence, and history. Each stanza provides insights into different facets of an abstruse place that becomes increasingly clearer, as the poem advances. Stanza one immediately captures the reader’s attention since the reader feels thrown into a place that is located between two camps that are at war with each other. In addition to the themes and motifs

discussed in the previous chapter, the presentation of the setting at the beginning of the poem sets the mood for the entire work.

In stanza two, the setting evolves into the place, where in addition to the cultures of mentioned in stanza one, also the present and the past meet. The present and the past function as significant entities since time and space are defined as two different dimensions by the laws of physics. However, time appears within the dimension of space personified by the Native American who has been asserted to have been betrayed by the lyrical I.

In stanza three, the author states predictions of the future since the statements “forerunner of a new race” or “a new gender” (Anzaldúa) constitute an ideal of a futuristic, hybrid identity. In stanza four, space is represented by food and language. The metaphors used by the author explain the concept of hybridity by mixing languages, accents, and ingredients of traditional dishes from Mexico and the U.S. In stanza five, space embodies the temptation of harming oneself. The reasons for this are outlined in the stanzas six and seven (see chapter 9.3.), but they are still relevant for this chapter since the space itself is described as a war zone, characterised by hostility, animosity and even torment in stanza seven. In the last stanza, space is represented not only in terms of the borderlands, but also in terms of the lyrical persona. The plea to ‘be a crossroads’ (Anzaldúa), suggests that human beings must “melt together” with the borderlands. Therefore, space is presented as a literal and metaphorical entity at the same time.

As a conclusion, space is more than a mere location in Anzaldúa’s works. The representation of space, the themes and the motifs of this poem are interconnected and root deeply in post colonialism (see chapter 10.1.). Moreover, the concept of space presented by Anzaldúa correlates with the works of Guillermo Verdecchia and Thomas King to a high degree.

10. Comparative Analysis

The constant struggle of displacement felt by Anzaldúa, and the characters in Borders and Fronteras Americanas, can be described with the Third Space Theory that was coined by Homi K. Bhabha.

“The Invention of the Third Space of enunciation, which makes the structure of meaning and reference an ambivalent process, destroys this mirror of presentation in which cultural knowledge is customarily revealed as an integrated, open, expanding code. Such an intervention quite properly challenges our sense of the historical identity of culture as a homogenizing, unifying force, authenticated by the originary Past, kept alive in the national tradition of the People” (Bhabha 54).

The Third Space Theory represents hybridity and individuality and challenges the idea of a homogeneous society. This concept of hybridity is ubiquitous in the works of Verdecchia, King and Anzaldúa. The challenge faced by the protagonists of the analysed works revolves around the notion that one is expected to decide on one identity by society. Verdecchia concludes that “to choose is to go wrong”, by which he claims that it is unnecessary to choose one identity. The final stanza in the poem by Anzaldúa provides a claim that is comparatively more direct and radical. She states that it is necessary to live without borders and to be a crossroads in order to survive. The conclusion that can be drawn from these statements is that the question of either-or is inherently wrong since the question itself presupposes the existence of fixed spaces to choose. The Third Space Theory claims that each individual carries its own identity and any attempt for categorisation constitutes a violation against individuality.

The representation of time and space in Borders presents a mysterious location since the protagonists are caught in a place that cannot be defined as U.S. or Canadian territory (see chapter 6.5.). The ambiguity, which I have referred to as displacement frequently throughout this thesis is exemplary for the Third Space. The border towns Sweetwater and Coutts can be interpreted as metaphors for the Third Space. It is unclear on which side of the border the story takes place. The information on the geography of the border towns remains an enigma to the reader. The postmodernist

structure of Verdecchia’s Fronteras Americanas provokes a similar observation. Verdecchia frequently blurs the line between the intratextual and the extratextual level of communication, which establishes an open spatial structure. The frequent shifts of the settings accelerate and decelerate the story. In addition, Verdecchia takes the audience on a journey through time, by recounting historic events as well as childhood memories from him and Wideload. Verdecchia’s extensions of time and space, as well as the structure, frequently break the theatrical illusion, which leads the reader, or the spectator in the theatre, to feel exhausted by these constant shifts. It is debatably demanding to follow the story since Verdecchia guides the audience on a journey through time and space that withstands the laws of physics. As a consequence, Verdecchia transforms the theatre into a Third Space on a meta-level. On the level of the story, Verdecchia’s search for identity takes place in the Third Space permanently throughout the text. His conclusion at the end, which leads him to the statement that he will “build a house on the border”, and that he will “call off the border patrol” (Verdecchia 55) ultimately places him in the location, where the story of Thomas King’s Borders takes place. While the notion that it is necessary to renegotiate their identities is ubiquitous in the works of all three authors, the means of negotiation differ significantly between King and Verdecchia on the one side, and Anzaldúa on the other side. By comparison, Anzaldúa approaches the struggle of borderland identity in a more radical and direct fashion than King and Verdecchia. Verdecchia and King’s approach utilise humour to draw the attention of the reader to displacement and identity crises. Verdecchia confronts the reader with intricate situations by making fun of himself. In addition, Verdecchia’s sense of humour aims at entertaining the reader, which triggers the reader to re-evaluate his or her worldview and his or her notions of the Americas. The humorous events presented in King’s work are deeply rooted in absurdity. Anzaldúa however, paints a more violent picture of the borderlands. In this context, one must not ignore the fact that Gloria Anzaldúa was a lesbian woman. Therefore, in addition to Verdecchia’s and King’s depictions of struggle with identity, Anzaldúa’s gender and her sexuality further complicated the problems she was forced to face, due to the prejudices and gender inequalities that are still omnipresent in society.

An additional aspect to consider is the form of the three works. Even though their forms differ substantially, there are parallels that can be drawn between them. Verdecchia’s Fronteras Americanas is categorised as drama, however narratorial mediation takes place inside the story (see chapter 3.1.). The scene “Roll Call” can be compared to the narrative situation in Borders. As I have outlined in chapter 3.1., the seven-year-old Verdecchia can be viewed as an internal focalizer. When viewing the scene from this perspective, the seven-year-old boy addresses the audience similarly to the young boy in Borders, who comments on dialogues and provides additional information to the reader. The effect provokes a humorous situation, due to the innocence that is associated with a seven-year-old boy. Another comparison can be drawn between Borders and To Live in the Borderlands Means You. The stream of consciousness that can be viewed on numerous occasions in the poem (see chapter 9.3.), evoke the illusion that the reader suddenly finds him-or herself located inside the borderlands, provided with Anzaldúa’s as the focalizer. The effect is similar to one of the core characteristics of the short story since short stories have a tendency to present a distinct abstract of the life of a character, which the reader dives into immediately without an introduction.

10.1. Colonialism

Considering the topics addressed by Verdecchia, King and Anzaldúa, the notion that imperialist powers have, in addition to waging war, also distorted, disrupted, and destroyed communities along both sides of various borders is omnipresent. The borders discussed in the works of the mentioned authors target the northern and southern U.S. border in particular. This statement might lead one to conclude that the United States can be blamed as the sole aggressor. It must be noted that this conclusion is indifferent and ignorant towards the history of the American continent. Ever since the Europeans “discovered” America, European imperialism has shaped the world. The British Empire and France controlled immense territories. Among them were Canada, Australia, New Zealand, colonies in the Caribbean, North and South America, India and Africa. The colonial era casts a long shadow and laid the basis for the economic and military relationships between former colonial countries and colonised countries (Said 5-9).

An attempt to take a closer look at the concepts of colonialism and imperialism reveals that both exceed the simple pursuit of accumulation and acquisition. Arguably, imperialism can be defined as the practice of a dominating centre ruling a distant territory, while colonialism can be defined as the result, which causes the establishment of settlements on distant territory. Imperialism and colonialism are propelled by ideological formations that suggests that people and territories require domination. The vocabulary of 19th century culture is filled with expressions like “authority”, “inferior”, “expansion”, “dependency”, and “subordinate peoples”. By contrast, the expansion of Russia sought to annex territory close to its borders, which led the country to achieve today’s proportions. Britain and France however, sought expand their territory on regions located on the other side of the world (Said 10). Their objective was to gain further profit, which can be seen in the conquest for spices, sugar, slaves, cotton, opium, gold, and silver. As a consequence, the inhabitants of the imperialist countries began to accept the notion that peoples from distant countries can and should be ruled over and, since they are less advanced, they might deserve it (Said 10). This notion can serve as one explanation for the animosity, lack of empathy, and feeling of superiority towards minorities.

10.2. Postcolonial Literature and the Characters in the Works of Verdecchia, King, and Anzaldúa

The end of World War II marked the end of the colonial era, however, it did not trigger the end of imperialism (Said 282). Postcolonial literary theory constitutes a useful tool to investigate ethnic literatures of the American continent (Madsen 1). In the course of history, postcolonial literature has developed three definitions. Firstly, it refers to historic writings that are produced in a country that has been colonialized and previously gained independence. However, this definition is problematic since it suggests that for example, American literature written after the War of Independence is postcolonial. The second definition of the term postcolonial literature encompasses all historical and cultural processes including the pre-colonial and the colonial era, leading up to the gain of independence and beyond. The third definition concerns itself with the critic, instead of the author, who assumes a postcolonial position. In this sense, the critic evaluates his or her own postcolonial status (Madsen 2). The second definition however, is of major use when applying it to Native American and Canadian 73

literature. Imperialism and post colonialism is an omnipresent theme in Thomas King’s Borders. The character of the mother encompasses the pre-colonial, colonial, and postcolonial condition. The composition of the mother’s character and her emotional struggle with contrasting identities is omnipresent in Borders. The mother holds strong grudges against the system, which is historically rooted in her native identity. Her daughter Laetitia, who is loved dearly by her mother, represents the postcolonial era (see chapters 8.2. and 8.3.). The same principles can be applied to Fronteras Americanas. Guillermo Verdecchia’s identity problems may stem from a different geographical area, namely his predicament of being caught between being Canadian with an Argentinian heritage, but the journey he takes the audience to points into the same direction, and he explains his situation by means of numerous historic events on the American continent (see chapter 3.3.). The comparison between the two works is furthermore striking, when linking the character of the mother in Borders with Wideload in Verdecchia’s work. Notably, Wideload’s pride is not disrupted by his love for one of his children, but his pride is the driving force his character. Wideload’s pain originates from severe injustices, which can be compared to the injustices faced by Native Americans. On both sides of the borders the famous slogan of the Mexican immigrant rights movement “We didn’t cross the border, the border crossed us” holds true. The pain and suffering of Wideload caused by the suffering through imperialism connects him to the mother in Borders. In both cases, territory was stolen from indigenous peoples. In To Live in the Borderlands Means You, Anzaldúa positions herself as a postcolonial writer in the same way as Verdecchia and King. Anzaldúa emphasises the postcolonial conditions in the borderlands in stanza six of her poem. She argues that despite the ending of the disputes over the territory, sustainable peace appears to be out of reach. The result of the battles and disputes have left “wounds” behind (Anzaldúa). In Fronteras Americanas, Verdecchia utilises the same metaphor as he reluctantly goes to see a palm reader, who explains to him that he has a “border wound” (Verdecchia 48). Verdecchia’s work implies that every Canadian is affected by its relationship to Latin America. In addition to concerns about free trade, the effects of globalisation and the cultural proximity to the U.S. play an important role. Fronteras Americanas can be interpreted as a plea that American border are not limited to the U.S.-Mexican borders, or the U.S.-Canada border, but that the entire continent can be seen as a border zone (Fellner 231). Thomas King’s works by comparison, have raised

awareness and drawn attention to Canadian indigenous writings, which are embedded in colonialism and in a hemispheric context. In addition to the Third Space (see chapter 10.), it must be noted that the border towns Coutts and Sweetwater are situated in an area that are also tribal contact zones. Nationality, culture, and history are subject to change, and the border described in Thomas King’s short story is a monument that is a result of colonial history (Fellner 235-236). Anzaldúa’s work explicitly thematises the U.S.-Mexican border, but her texts in Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza, which includes To Live in the Borderlands Means You is considered one of the most important writings in Border Studies. Even though the geographical aspect is clearly defined in terms of borders between countries, which Anzaldúa views as mechanisms that create exclusion, the ideological aspect of her writings exceeds the realm of the U.S.-Mexican border, and can be applied to any border, which includes the realms of psychology, and sexuality (Fellner 236).

11. Conclusion

The conceptualisation of America, and migration in America is in the minds of many people reduced to the United States, and to people whose mother tongue is not English, attempting to become U.S. citizens. As one can learn from the texts by Verdecchia, King, and Anzaldúa, the situation is considerably more complex and demands re-evaluation, and education. The first important notion that struck me at the beginning of the reading process is the term Latin American. Fronteras Americans made me re-evaluate my personal understanding of this term. The geographical region, which is commonly referred to as Latin America, has a population of approximately 640 million people, which is almost twice the population of the United States, spanning across a territory that is approximately twice the size of the U.S. The notion, that the term Latin American is ignorant of the differentiation between Argentinian, Puerto Rican, Cuban, Brazilian, etc. constitutes a major gap of information, which opens the doors for discrimination and generalisation.

The literary analysis in combination with the historical and cultural context raises a question of urgent importance. Namely, how can these borders be overcome in the long run, and be respected by societies that do not suffer from the problems thematised by the authors in this thesis? The displacement and the feeling of battling

conflicting identities is rooted in complex social and psychological structures that are deeply interwoven with historical contexts. Verdecchia argues that “Somos todos Americanos” (Verdecchia 2), which can be regarded as a first major step towards healing the “border wound”. If the notion that every person living on the American continent was considered an American, then a first attempt towards the renegotiation of identities on the continent could take place. When taking chapters 10.1. and 10.2. into consideration, then it is evident that the imperialism during the Colonial Era shaped the structure of today’s borders all over the world and its effects are reflected in the works of Verdecchia, King, Anzaldúa and countless other authors, whose works are subject to Border Studies.

Verdecchia, King, and Anzaldúa reflect their identity through the concept of physical and psychological borders. However, the perception to view borders as mere obstacles that must be overcome is insufficient. The reason for this is that even though geographical borders are invisible lines drawn by authorities that separate and disrupt communities, it is necessary to find a way to live and coexist with these borders. Psychological borders function in the same way since they are also invisible constructs created by men. Psychological borders are a result of true separation in real life, but they solely exist inside the minds of people. In Fronteras Americanas, Borders, and To Live in the Borderlands Means You, the solution for the struggle lies in the notion to claim the space that is located between geographical, and psychological borders and to create one’s identity individually inside the hybrid space.

17. Bibliography

Primary Sources:

Anzaldúa Gloria. Borderlands/La Frontera: The New Mestiza. Aunt Lute Books, 1987, pp. 194–195.

King, Thomas. “Borders.” One Good Story, That One. HarperCollins, 1993. 129–46.

Verdecchia, Guillermo. Fronteras Americanas. Talonbooks, 2013.

Secondary Sources:

Bhabha, Homi K. The Location of Culture. Kindle ed., 2nd ed., Routledge, 2012.

Bonikowsky, Laura Neilson. "History of the Canada-US Border in the West." The Canadian Encyclopedia, 04 March 2015, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/forty-ninth-parallel-feature. Accessed 27 April 2021.

Busby, Brian John. “Thomas King”. The Canadian Encyclopedia, 04 April 2014, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/thomas-king. Accessed April 26, 2021.

Capaldi, Nicholas. “The Enlightenment Project”. The Enlightenment Project in the Analytic Conversation. Philosophical Studies in Contemporary Culture, vol 4. Springer, 1998 doi.org/10.1007/978-94-017-3300-7_2. Accessed 27 Mar. 2021.

Cox, Ailsa. The Short Story. Cambridge Scholars Publishing, 2008. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=539843&site=ehost- live.

Candelaria, Cordelia. Encyclopedia of Latino Popular Culture. Greenwood Press, 2004.

Dwyer, Helen, and Mary Stout. Blackfoot History and Culture. Gareth Stevens, 2012.

Everybody Hates Chris, written by Chris Rock, 2005-2009.

Grenz, Stanley J. A Primer on Postmodernism. William B. Eerdmans Pub. Co., 1996.

Grinnell, George Bird. Blackfoot Lodge Tales : The Story of a Prairie People. Digital Scanning Inc, 2001. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=420129&site=ehost- live.

“Guillermo Verdecchia.” Centre for Drama, Theatre & Performance Studies, 21 Sept. 2018, www.cdtps.utoronto.ca/people/directories/all-faculty/guillermo-verdecchia. Accessed January 4, 2021.

“Guillermo Verdecchia shares some stories and images from Fronteras Americanas.” YouTube, uploaded by Tarragon Theatre, 27 Dec. 2020, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dd-OeQ9jmWg&t=1s.

Fellner, Astrid. "Fronteras Americanas: Guillermo Verdecchia's Canadian Border Texts." A Fluid Sense of Self: The Politics of Transnational Identity. Eds. Silvia Schultermandl and Sebnem Toplu. LIT, 2010. 231-245.

Jones, Elizabeth, et al. “Gloria Anzaldúa.” Voices from the Gaps. 2005, Retrieved from the University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy, https://hdl.handle.net/11299/167856. Accessed 11 May 2021.

Lawrence, James Cooper. “A Theory of the Short Story.” The North American Review, vol. 205, no. 735, 1917, pp. 274–286. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/25121469. Accessed 27 Apr. 2021.

Levinson, Stephen C. Pragmatics. Cambridge UP, 1983.

Malcolm In The Middle, written by Linwood Boomer, 2000-2006.

Madsen, Deborah. Beyond the Borders : American Literature and Post-Colonial Theory. Pluto Press, 2003. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=167954&site=ehost- live.

Nischik, Reingard M. The Canadian Short Story: Interpretations. Camden House, 2007.

Nothof, Anne. “Guillermo Verdecchia.” The Canadian Encyclopedia. 16 December 2013, https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/guillermo-verdecchia. Accessed January 4 2021.

Nünning, Ansgar, and Roy Sommer. “Diegetic and Mimetic Narrativity: Some Further Steps towards a Transgeneric Narratology of Drama.” Theorizing Narrativity, edited by John Pier and José Angel Garcia Landa, 1st ed., de Gruyter, 2008, pp. 331–55. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=556382&site=ehost- live.

Nünning, Vera, et al. An Introduction to the Study of English and American Literature. Klett, 2009.

Pier, John and Garcia Landa José Angel. Theorizing Narrativity. De Gruyter, 2008. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=nlebk&AN=556382&site=ehost- live.

Richardson, Brian. “Voice and Narration in Postmodern Drama.” New Literary History, vol. 32, no. 3, 2001, pp. 681–694. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/20057683. Accessed 7 Mar. 2021.

Rimmôn-Qênān, Šûlammît. Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics. New Accents, 1983.

Said, Edward W. Culture and Imperialism. Vintage Books USA, 1994.

Schmidt, Kerstin. The Theater of Transformation: Postmodernism in American Drama. Rodopi, 2005.

“The Mexican-American War in a Nutshell.” National Constitution Center. 13 May 2021, constitutioncenter.org/blog/the-mexican-american-war-in-a-nutshell. Accessed June 8 2021.

Valdez, Luis. “Zoot Suit and the Pachuco Phenomenon: An Interview with Luis Valdez”, by Roberta Orona-Cordova, Mexican American Theatre: Then & Now, Arte Publico Press, 1982. Uploaded by Ms Effie’s LifeSavers, https://mseffie.com/assi”gnments/zoot_suit/Valdez%20Interview.pdf. Accessed April 4, 2021. 18. Table of Figures

Fig. 1. A communication model for dramatic texts ...... 6 Fig. 2. A communication model for narrative texts ...... 43 Fig. 3. A Communication Model for Poetry ...... 59