SynecdoChick’s Review of “Balto” (Best American Short Stories 2007)

“There are two kinds of truths, good truths and hurtful ones” (55). Now that’s a first line …


I found this story compelling from the very beginning. I criticized “Solid Wood”—probably unfairly—because not enough happened. As Fiction Anemic rightly corrected me, the interior action of the characters can be all the action a story needs. Maybe “Solid Wood” seemed to be lacking not so much because nothing happened, but because there seemed to be so little at stake. All the action that mattered happened in the characters’ pasts. “Balto” is compelling because there is a great deal at stake for the characters—their actions will have significant consequences in the present tense.

I also liked the way Boyle structured this story—at first the reader isn’t sure what has happened or what it is that the lawyer is asking Angelle to do. On a first reading, I was propelled to the end just to find out what Boyle meant by that first line and to find out what Angelle would say in the courtroom. In the end, the reader isn’t sure whether Angelle confessed because it was the right thing to do or whether it was simply an act of adolescent rebellion. It reminded me of the ending of John Updike’s “A&P”—you’re not sure about the character's true motivations, but you’re sure the character’s life will never be the same.

Boyle is such a skillful storyteller that it’s easy to overlook any faults in the story. For example, on the first page of the story, Angelle thinks deeply about the metaphor “crow’s feet,” relating the image to Edgar Allen Poe’s famous raven. Is this a likely train of thought for a 13-year-old?

I also wondered how the tale of Balto functioned in the story? Why was it significant enough to be referenced in the title? I know T.C. Boyle has written extensively about Alaska … but how is that story-within-a-story related to the story Boyle is telling here?