Prologue as abstract “after-the-fact” Elkiya, for instance, mentions that, for starters, it establishes GOD as a petulant, presumptuous buffoon whose uptightness is implicitly at odds with Coyote’s more laidback sensibility; this conflict (“Christian Rules” vs. “Coyote Anarchy,” maybe?) is one that will continue throughout the book.

Prologue as abstract “after-the-fact” Elkiya, Sidoeri Dekker, Ryan Hainey and some others also point out that the final sentence of the prologue announces that “the purpose of the story is to explain how all the water got there”: “The four old Indians are arguing about the story and they finally agree that it starts with water being everywhere,” says Elkiya. “Eli Stands Alone lives in a cabin on the reservation that is in the way of the dam operation. I’m guessing there is water everywhere in the abstract/prologue because the dam failed.”

Prologue as abstract “after-the-fact” Jessica Schafer and Sidoeri agree: the prologue tells us that that the book is going to be about water. (As Sidoeri puts it: “if you continue reading, a pattern emerges where over and over again the question ‘Where does the water come from?’ is being answered in a slightly different way. In this respect the first three pages are an abstract.”)

Prologue as abstract “after-the-fact” But, says Jessica, the prologue also hints that the book will be about remaking or fixing the world—and fixing your mistakes, and running away from/coming back home.

Narrative tension/confusion as “rising action” Emily Jacen put it this way: “Each time a clue is revealed or two pieces of the puzzle are connected [what Evan Curry calls “hints of cohesion”] is when the action rises. This is because the reader has a revelation when they figure each thing out and it gets more complicated and intricate as the story goes on…

Narrative tension/confusion as “rising action” “…Also, there are some places [where] the action falls. For example, every time coyote interrupts. It’s like, I think I’m getting where the story is taking me but always at those critical moments Coyote interrupts and I get so confused and I have to go back and re-read.” (Wang Hui: “the complication of the whole plot is…[in some sense] the four Indians’ difficulty [with] beginning the story.”)

Narrative tension/confusion as “rising action” Emily concludes: “I feel that whe[re] the story comes together as a whole is where the climax is. The story is about trying to make the world a better place and maybe there will be an even bigger climax within the [larger] story. [But] the fun of this story seems to be all the intertextuality and all the little pieces of the puzzle that need to be put together.”

Character Conflicts Wang Hui and Ryan Hainey and some others pointed out that there are obvious tensions or rivalries between: Babo and Cereno, Charlie and Lionel, Eli and Sifton, Latisha and George.

Character Conflicts Ryan, along with Caitlin Larkins, also pointed out that many of the characters—Lionel, Alberta, Charlie, Eli—are struggling internally to make decisions, to flout social conventions, to escape identities that have been imposed upon them, or simply to change or define aspects of their own character and/or to achieve some self- recognition.

Character Conflicts As Carl Hesselin put it: “a lot of the orientation of these characters seems to be self reflection and what actions they themselves really need to take in order to better their own situations.” There are clear stakes in the outcomes or the resolutions of those predicaments.

Conflicting Narrative Sensibilities Rachel Young characterizes the opposition between Babo and Cereno this way: “[the cops] don’t seem to be that willing to sit and listen to the people who are telling the stories. They take the surface answers, and don’t care to dive in deeper.”