Who is speaking? First person, past tense. This is a reflection. Our protagonist has grown older and is reflecting.

We should immediately ask: why is he re-telling this story?

Immediate complexity within the figure of Earl - he is a criminal, but knows he needs to give his daughter a better shake in things. What defines Earl, his intentions or his actions? An Existential view would say his actions define him.

Genre connections right from the opening wanderers, figures on the fringe of society. Earl: a criminal and single father Edna: a divorcee with a violent ex-husband

There is a certain flux/chaos and sadness to the line just beached by the same tides when you got down to it. Its a beautiful metaphor, but sets up the sombre mood, not what we expect from a relationship. The situation is accidental. Further, a beaching is a tragic event, it suggests loss: loss of control, loss of freedom. It suggests that Earl has no control over his life - connects to that loss of purpose, without which we reach a stopping point because we have nothing driving us forward.

Are they in love? We arent told how Earl currently feels about Edna. Fits nicely into genre, an important story element is left unsaid.

Consider Ednas rationale for leaving. She, like Earl seems aimless. She leaves because she has no reason not to. Both figures clearly lack purpose.

Ford constructs three Earls here. The one that Danny knows, the one his ex-wife in Waikiki Beach knows (but how are we to trust this?), and the one we are getting to know through the course of this story. His identity is already plural. Dannys position can be seen as an example of the fundamental unknowability of people. It also sets up a difficulty for us - what is being presented to us as readers? How accurate is Earls representation of himself?

The car becomes a symbol. The car is important to the story as a whole and will work as a symbol of what Earl is not; as a reminder of the lie he is living. The car is a symbol of status, of wealth, of direction, but Ford undermines that symbol and uses it instead as a symbol of appearance with no substance.

We get a nice example of realist writing. This description is sparse. Little tinges of imagery, but everything else is very matter of fact - drove here, rented this, ate ribs, drank beer, laughed. This is important in terms of capturing the voice of the narrator and in shaping the tone of the story.

everything seemed then like the end of the rainbow. The wisdom of the older speaker comes in here, it impacts on the tone. A present tense narrator would just have said everything was like the end of the rainbow, but this is undermined. The choice is important because it introduces an illusion that Earl is chasing that simply doesnt exist.

Again the description is very direct - barbed wire fence...hardpan prairie. Theres no embellishment, no emotive imagery. It is stark/sparse writing. Suits the sparseness of the landscape and continues to set the tone of the story as a whole.

The red light works as an ongoing symbol. It is a really nice representation of the reality of the situation. If the car is to represent Earls journey, then the light can come to represent the going break down of that journey. It can be read as a reminder of the instability and uncertainty of the situation, and again works as a marker for Earls lack of control over his existence.

Every now and again we get an insight into Earls feelings - short lines that express his general unease. We must remember that these are his recollections, and this suggests that Earl is coming to terms with his past. He seems to be using the story as a way of dealing with/understanding the past.

The dialogue is full of half-truths and conflicts. Earl essentially lies to his daughter - he knows that something is wrong. Cheryls line is a non-sequitur (it doesnt logically follow what came before) offering up the notion that the person Earl is closest to is also the person he can communicate with the least effectively. Ednas dialogue is filled with veiled insults and frustrations. Her dialogue balances out Earls optimism and is potentially more potent because it is direct speech, compared to Earls crafted narration.

There is a consistent schism (division) between Earls thoughts/attitudes and his actions. His thoughts would see him as a success story - in control, deciding his own fate - but his actions suggest otherwise. This tension is important to the story as a whole - this takes on a more significant meaning when seen in light of thoughts about flux of identity. This helps us to see that Earl represents the tension within identity caused by such flux.