Boyle uses a distinct writing style in order to hook the reader in from the first page. He makes it seem that there is no author bias throughout the novel, forcing the reader to distinguish what is right and wrong. The whole premise of this writing style is based upon the idea that no outside influence should be needed in order for individuals to discover their own beliefs. I enjoy this style of writing as it allows the simple reader such as myself to engage with the characters more so than in other novels. Especially in times that Boyle talked about Delaney and his overprotective ways of conserving the environment around him, I was interested in seeing if he truly had an issue with humans infesting other speciesâ environments, or rather some phase he was going through because of the free time he possessed being a stay at home dad. Delaneyâs characterization shows him to be a kind hearted individual in some points in the book, and sometimes not the nicest, as seen when he confronts Candido, for example. Regardless of his moral compass, there is no doubt that Delaney makes a conscious effort to try to harmonize between the human population and the environment around him. âDelaney Mossbacher, of 32 Pinon Drive, Arroyo Blanco Estates, a liberal humanist with an unblemished driving record and a freshly waxed Japanese car with personalized platesâŚâ is what is said in the very first page of the book, and regardless of his true intentions, this statement of Delaney still remains my favorite of the whole text. It sums up his existence as one of the many stereotypical white upper middle-class males in the book. Delaney, being the liberal humanist the book claims him to be, is discussed in detail throughout the novel. Him and his family reside in Arroyo Blanco, the affluent community in the canyon, where he is a stay at home dad. With his wife Kyra bringing in most of the familyâs income, Delaney spends his day writing, observing nature, and oftentimes going through his back door to hike the mountain that his house is built on. At this point in the book, the throughout the first few chapters of the text, Delaney claims to be in harmony with the nature that surrounds him, and the civilized world of his house and family. It is in these pages that the idea of commonality seems to come up. Delaney understands that he is living in a different world than that outside his home. Nature is a larger dynamic compared to his world, and it is ever changing in its not-so-polite fashion. Nature stops for no one, and there is no taming of nature, as seen when, âHe flung openâŚjust in time to see a dun-colored blur scaling the six-foot chain-link fence with a tense white form clamped in its jawsâ (37). This is the first distinct example that Boyle uses to show that nature is omnipresent and just because we have houses and borders around those houses, nature remains omnipresent in its reach. With Sacheverellâs foot in its mouth, the coyote hops the six-foot fence and leaves into the unknown, the natural wilderness that Delaney and the other residents seem to be the outside. In reality though, the soon to be constructed borders around Arroyo Blanco, enclose what is truly outside. The homes constructed and driveways that are paved are not natural, and yet Delaney and company insist that the âoutsideâ is what is past the walls. As humans, we permanently alter the spaces we inhabit, and that is why humans are dynamic as well. But our existence as humans does not prove to be reason alone to consider us as owners of nature. Just as we are dynamically changing, with our borders and houses and roads, nature is just as much changing and reshaping. The changes are not always independent of each other though, because as seen in the novel, as nature forces us to change, we force nature to reshape its connections with us as well. Delaney goes on a sort of personal journey through the canyon where he says, âI am waiting for something, I donât know what, but if I can filter out the glowing evidence of our omnipresent civilization (passenger jets, streaking high overhead on their incessant journeys, the light pollution that makes the eastern sky glow as if with the first trembling light of dawn), I feel that all this is mine to have and hold, for this night at least.â (78) This is an excerpt from Delaneyâs article from "Pilgrim at Topanga Creek" What Delaney writes is a great representation of the majority of the human population that exists today. Delaney truly believes that all of this is his to own, that nature is in his hands. He believes that if he places a change on it, that nature will sit still and play along with his charades. What is interesting is his admittance of the omnipresent light pollution and vast exposure that humans have on the land, but he says so in the tone of nature being submissive towards us. His nighttime escapade into the canyon reaches a climax when he hears, âa high tenuous glissade of sound that I might almost have mistaken for a siren if I didnât know any better, and I realize that this is what Iâve been waiting for all along: the coyote chorusâ (79). Delaney gets, or rather, hears what he wants when he hears the howling of the coyotes in the canyon. The high-pitched noise is a reminder to him that nature exists beyond his home, but the full realization that nature is the one with all the power never enters his head. He understands the potential that nature encompasses, but he clearly does not give nature the full credit it deserves, and this proves to be very costly. Although Delaney is not a supporter at first when he goes to the town hall meeting, he does finally agree to put a wall up around the subdivision for the safety of the residents. This, as stated above is another great example of how the human population believes that it has control over what comes in and out. Delaney, claiming to be at harmony with nature, does not approve of this idea, but does want to eradicate the problem of coyotes killing the family pets. The main theme of the text is the artificiality of borders. The term artificiality is used because as much as we would like to think that the borders we have are useful, nature does not believe in borders and therefore does not identify with the existence of these borders. This goes for coyotes, floods, and even the humans inhabiting these lands. There can be no borders between humans and the nature that surrounds us because humans arenât in control of who gets to come in or out. The coyotes in the novel are great metaphors of the Mexican immigrants Candido and his wife America. Delaney thinks of them, as he thinks of all of the immigrants from Mexico, as wild and inhumane, such as the coyotes. They encroach on Delaneyâs land and this angers him because he believes that he owns the land he resides upon. But as we have seen in Tortilla Curtain, there is no one owner of the land, only nature owns itself, and we are but mere inhabitants living on the whim of nature and its apparent solace. The scene where Delaney is at the town hall meeting really culminates this wishful thinking that the residents of Arroyo Blanco have, which is that adding borders will keep the âoutsideâ world, out. The realization finally hits Delaney about the true intentions of the other residents: âWall the place in. That was exactly what they intended to do. That was what they were here for. That was the purpose of the gatheringâ (189). Now, Delaney deserves at least some credit for his ideals, he knows deep down that he cannot do anything about the intentions of nature, but he becomes like the rest of the residents of Arroyo Blanco when he finally caves in and thinks a wall can keep nature out. That is a moment of conformity for Delaney, and any ounce of credibility he had beforehand regarding his understanding of nature, comes crashing down. The final pages of text bring about a self-realization for Delaney. He finally understands that there can be nothing done in the protection the wild from encroaching the land they live upon. And the same can be said for the Mexican immigrants that are âinvadingâ their land as well. The coyotes, synonymous with Candido, America, and the rest of the Mexican immigrants who are trying to make a living in America, are just trying to survive. And although I do not feel as if Delaneyâs realization was that severe, I do consider his realization to be a step into the right direction. He states, âWe cannot eradicate the coyote, nor can we fence him out, not even with eight feet chain linkâŚThe coyotes keep coming, breeding up to fill in the gaps, moving in where the living is easyâ (215). He understand that nothing truly can be done to eradicate this apparent problem that they are facing, and that realization itself is more than enough, in my opinion. Overall, I would like to think that Delaney has a change of heart on his stance regarding the encroaching of coyotes and Mexicans on his land. Boyle writes in such a way that it is very easy to see the metaphors of coyotes to Mexican immigrants, and therefore the whole novel acts as a sort of political rationale, and yet Boyle does so without any bias. In a larger aspect, seen through Delaneyâs life, it has become very clear that humans cannot live without destroying the nature around us. For us to survive, there cannot be a harmony between the wild that lives beyond our artificial borders because every time we try to harmonize, nature will chance to adapt, since it is dynamic. And since our humanity is dynamic as well, the endless spiral of dynamic change, in hopes of an end product of harmony, will live on forever.
