The Sasquatch Poems by Sherman Alexie Summary and Analysis

1.
I believe in Sasquatch
just as much as I believe in God
which is not logical
since more people have seen Sasquatch
than have seen God.

Summary

“I believe in Sasquatch just as much as I believe in God,” the speaker begins. The speaker claims that more individuals have seen Sasquatch than God, which makes this comparison sound odd. The poet explores religion, belief, and the mysteries humans accept without evidence right away.

Analysis

Alexie examines the peculiar character of believing in these lines. He makes the argument that people frequently believe in concepts like God or Sasquatch that are impossible to observe or validate. The poet appears to be wondering why some ideas are accepted while others are not when he claims that Sasquatch has been “seen” more than God. The poet illustrates how people’s religion is frequently founded on a need or feeling rather than on evidence.

Language Device: Irony

Here, Alexie primarily employs irony. It is humorous to contrast the widely held belief in God with the Sasquatch idea, which some may view as absurd or impractical. This irony prompts readers to consider why, despite the fact that neither belief has concrete evidence, some are given more weight than others.

2.
We hire priests and politicians
who promise us there are no mysteries
only doors that can be opened easily.

Summary

The poet discusses how we depend on politicians and clerics who assert that there is nothing in life that is genuinely unknown or mysterious. These leaders claim that all of life’s problems can be resolved, treating them like “doors that can be opened easily.” This implies that they eliminate the sense of mystery and awe by telling people that everything is easy to achieve.

Analysis

In these lines, Alexie criticizes the way society turns to specific people, like as political and religious leaders, to feel secure and confident about the mysteries of life. While politicians give solutions and social control, priests frequently offer theological answers. They give consumers a sense of security by promising that all questions can be answered. But as Alexie points out, this method prevents people from considering difficult or inexplicable topics in depth. According to him, there may be many mysteries in life, and depending too much on these leaders may prevent individuals from looking for their own solutions.

This suggests that these “simple” answers may be misleading and provide only fleeting solace. People may cease attempting to solve the deeper mysteries of life when they are taught that everything can be simply understood or explained. By implying that some secrets are worthwhile and deserving of preservation, the poet questions the notion that everything should be explained.

Language Device: Metaphor and Irony

At the heart of this is the idea of “doors that can be opened easily.” It represents straightforward solutions offered by those in positions of authority. These “doors” stand for information or comprehension that doesn’t fully address or reach the core of more profound queries. Irony also exists here; these authorities may be attempting to appear educated or smart, but they may simply be ignoring the complexity of life and preventing others from learning things on their own. By emphasizing this, Alexie challenges readers to think critically about such “simple” solutions and to examine how mysteries could enrich life.

3.
Mystery is a series of large footprints
leading us from the edge of the forest
to the center of the desert.

At the center: an Anasazi pot.

In Hopi, Anasazi means ancient, alien one.
After 1200 A.D., the Anasazi vanished, leaving behind
only the slightest traces of their sudden departure.

Only the Hopi know where they went.

Summary

Alexie likens mystery to a trail of big footsteps that stretch from the forest to the desert in this verse. An Anasazi pot, a piece of pottery from the Anasazi people, who vanished inexplicably around 1200 A.D., marks the end of the footprints in the middle of this desert. According to the poet, “Anasazi” means “ancient, alien one” in Hopi, and although the Anasazi left scant traces of their whereabouts, only the Hopi are aware of their absence.

Analysis

The image of a trail is used in this verse to symbolize the enigmatic or unknown. As they lead us from the familiar (the forest) to the unknown (the desert), the enormous footprints may represent the pursuit of something greater or more significant. Alexie links mystery to the historical disappearance of the Anasazi, a Native American tribe who left behind artifacts but few hints as to where they went or why, by situating the Anasazi pot at the center of this trail.

Alexie gives the riddle a cultural and spiritual dimension by including the Hopi language. The Hopi represent knowledge that is concealed or unavailable to outsiders since they are the custodians of the Anasazi’s secrets. The poet might be implying that certain secrets, such as the fate of the Anasazi, are only known to people who have a strong cultural bond with them and cannot be resolved by outsiders.

Language Devices: Metaphor and Symbolism

Metaphor: The process of looking for answers is symbolized by the footprints. The desert is a huge, open area where answers are more difficult to find, but the forest is a representation of the known.

Symbolism:Because it symbolizes a vanished culture that only left behind shards of its existence, the Anasazi pot is a potent symbol of mystery. It serves as a reminder to the reader that some mysteries, like as the disappearance of the Anasazi, cannot be entirely resolved and will always be a part of the Hopi people’s cultural history and identity.

Contrast: discovering the truth can bring us to unexpected or disturbing areas, highlighting the difficulty of discovering genuine answers. This is highlighted by the contrast between the desert, a harsh and desolate location, and the forest, a place of life and growth.

4.
In the year I was born, a Sasquatch chased N
from Benjamin Lake to Turtle Lake.

N was on horseback
and still barely escaped.

N refuses to speak of this event now
and will only smile
when asked about the chase.

Summary

A Sasquatch chased a man named N from Benjamin Lake to Turtle Lake in the year the speaker was born, according to the story told in this verse. N, on horseback, just made it out alive. When asked about the chase, N only smiles and now won’t discuss the incident.

Analysis

A personal contact with the Sasquatch is described in this stanza, yet it is veiled in mystery and quiet. The Sasquatch is a strong, nearly legendary creature, as evidenced by the fact that N barely made it out while riding a horse. When questioned about the incident, N chose to smile rather than talk about it, which suggests a deeper, unsaid anxiety or uneasiness. The Sasquatch and the meeting become more fascinating and unnerving as a result of this quiet, which also lends an air of mystery.

N’s hesitation to talk about the chase may be interpreted as a metaphor for how people occasionally refrain from talking about upsetting or puzzling experiences. The smile can also imply that N has accepted it in some manner or that they see it as an aspect of who they are that is difficult to fully articulate to other people.

Language Devices

Juxtaposition: There is an intriguing contrast between the perilous pursuit and N’s composed response, which is a silent smile. This demonstrates how people may feel wonder or resignation rather than terror after coming across something so enigmatic or terrible.

Imagery: An expansive, natural setting is vividly depicted through the visual of being followed from lake to lake. It heightens the sensation of danger by highlighting the chase’s duration and intensity.

Symbolism: The Sasquatch represents the unknowable or the scary, something greater than life that is difficult to comprehend or handle. N’s quiet response and reluctance to discuss the incident highlight how potent and inexplicable the encounter was.

5.
Because we are human
we assign human emotions to Sasquatch.
When it chased N from lake to lake
we assume Sasquatch was angry.

How would our hearts change
if we discovered Sasquatch was running
just for the sake of the run, the burn
in the leg muscles and lungs?

Summary

The speaker in this verse considers how people often attribute human emotions—especially rage—to the Sasquatch when it pursues N from lake to lake. The speaker then asks: What would we think if we found out that the Sasquatch wasn’t angry but was only rushing to get the “burn” in its lungs and muscles?

Analysis

The human propensity to impose our own feelings and perceptions onto animals or other entities that we don’t fully comprehend is examined in this verse. It’s common to imagine that the Sasquatch, an enigmatic and unknown character, is furious as it pursues N. This demonstrates how people perceive behaviors in light of their personal emotional experiences. The notion of a creature running “just for the sake of the run” subverts our natural tendency to imbue everything with passion and motivation.

The poem challenges the reader to reevaluate their preconceptions by implying that the Sasquatch may be running for fun or exercise rather than out of rage. It challenges us to consider the extent to which our perceptions of other animals are influenced by our own feelings and how those presumptions might alter if we adopted a different viewpoint.

Language Devices

Irony: The idea that Sasquatch might just be running for bodily pleasure is juxtaposed with the perception that it is angry. This irony emphasizes how our perceptions of the creature’s behavior may be wholly incorrect.

Metaphor: The phrase “the burn in the leg muscles and lungs” refers to the physical strain or fulfillment that jogging provides. By relating the Sasquatch to human experiences of physical exertion and exercise, this metaphor helps people relate to the animal.

Rhetorical question: The speaker challenges the reader to consider their preconceptions and consider how their emotional reaction may change if they adopted a different viewpoint on the Sasquatch by posing the question, “How would our hearts change…?”

6.
We tell these Sasquatch stories
because we are Spokane Indian.

We are Spokane
because our grandparents were Spokane.

Our grandparents told Sasquatch stories.
Our grandparents heard Sasquatch stories

told by their grandparents.
In this way, we come to worship.

Summary

In this stanza, the speaker describes how the Spokane Indian community has been telling Sasquatch legends for decades. Because their grandparents were Spokane and they heard Sasquatch legends that their own ancestors also told, the speaker identifies as Spokane. The Spokane people learn to respect and “worship” the Sasquatch through this generational storytelling.

Analysis

The Spokane people have a strong cultural and spiritual bond with Sasquatch stories, which is reflected in this verse. Since it connects generations and maintains their legacy, storytelling is shown as an essential component of their identity. “Our grandparents” is used repeatedly to highlight how these tales have persisted over time and to imply that they are essential to the Spokane community’s cultural and spiritual existence.

The statement “In this way, we come to worship” implies that the Sasquatch stories have been passed down through the generations, elevating the monster above mere myth or folklore to become a part of the Spokane people’s holy traditions. The word “worship” suggests that the Sasquatch have a spiritual importance in the society based on the legends that have been passed down. The importance of storytelling in preserving the Spokane community’s culture and identity is equally revered as Sasquatch itself.

Language Devices

Repetition:The term “Our grandparents” is used repeatedly to highlight the Spokane culture’s value of oral traditions and generational continuity.

Anaphora: The repetition of “We tell,” “We are,” and “Our grandparents told/heard” reinforces the community nature of storytelling by establishing a rhythm that symbolizes the transmission of customs between generations.

Metaphor: The concept of “worship” serves as a metaphor for the Spokane people’s profound love and awe for the Sasquatch, as well as the influence these stories have had on their spiritual and cultural lives.

7.
By now, the hunters and hobbyists also call them Sasquatch
because they have come to understand a little
of what Indians have always understood.

Summary

The poem discusses how non-Indigenous people, such as hunters and enthusiasts, have begun referring to the enigmatic creature as Sasquatch. In comparison to what Indigenous people, such as the Spokane, have known and believed for decades, their knowledge of Sasquatch is still quite limited.

Analysis

The poem demonstrates how Indigenous and non-Indigenous people have different perspectives on Sasquatch. The Spokane and other Indigenous people view sasquatch as more than merely a species to research or hunt. It is ingrained in their spiritual beliefs, legends, and culture. Their knowledge of Sasquatch is profound and ingrained in their customs, and they have been aware of it for many years.

However, outsiders such as hunters and hobbyists have just lately begun referring to the animal as “Sasquatch.” Although they may have read books or heard stories about it, their understanding is more cursory. Although they may find Sasquatch fascinating and wish to learn more, they are not as connected to it as Indigenous people are. These outsiders are only now starting to grasp a small portion of what Indigenous people have long understood about Sasquatch, as the poem makes clear.

This implies that although outsiders can learn about Sasquatch, they can never fully comprehend the creature’s significance until they also acknowledge the depth of its cultural and spiritual significance for the Indigenous people who have been telling these stories for generations. They are almost subtly reminded by the poetry that their comprehension is still incomplete and that the story is far more complex than what they initially see or hear.

Language Devices

Contrast: The poem draws a comparison between the Indigenous people and hunters and enthusiasts. Although they are learning about Sasquatch, outsiders lack the in-depth understanding and ties that Indigenous people possess. This demonstrates the greater understanding of the Spokane people.

Implied Criticism: The phrase “a little of what Indians have always understood” suggests that although outsiders may be beginning to grasp Sasquatch, their knowledge is still limited. It implies that their knowledge is inadequate and that Sasquatch has a much deeper meaning than they currently grasp.

Cultural Reference: The word “Sasquatch,” which is essential to many Native American tribes, is used in the poem. This allusion illustrates how outsiders may be using this term without understanding its cultural connotations.

8.
Headline in the tabloids:
“Bigfoot Baby Found
in Watermelon: Has Elvis’s Sneer.”

Summary

“Bigfoot Baby Found in Watermelon: Has Elvis’s Sneer,” the headline, is a lighthearted, over-the-top news article designed to get attention. It alludes to the ridiculous notion that a newborn Bigfoot was found inside a watermelon and that the infant somehow has Elvis Presley’s trademark smirk. The title creates an odd and humorous image by incorporating comedy and a sense of surprise.

Analysis

This title exemplifies sensationalized journalism, in which the media frequently fabricates strange tales or exaggerates facts to get readers’ attention. The headline blends a fantastical scenario—a baby Bigfoot inside a watermelon—with the idea of Bigfoot, a mythical and enigmatic creature. People wouldn’t anticipate something so odd to reach the news, thus this adds a sense of surprise and fun.

Another amusing turn of events is the reference to Elvis’ sneer. The headline’s claim that the Bigfoot infant has that sneer—which Elvis Presley was known for—adds an even more ridiculous element to the narrative. The notion that there is a Bigfoot that looks like Elvis is entirely made up and is intended to amuse rather than educate.

This type of headline is meant to pique readers’ interest and encourage them to read the story, which may contain numerous equally ridiculous information. It’s a lighthearted commentary on how the media frequently favors strange or unique topics over more important news. The headline makes fun of how the media exaggerates occurrences and fabricates stories that are neither credible nor realistic.

Language Devices

Hyperbole: The claim that a “Bigfoot Baby” was discovered in a watermelon is overstated in the title, which is patently untrue. This excessive exaggeration attracts notice and conveys a sense of ridiculousness.

Allusion: The reference to the well-known rock and roll icon “Elvis’s sneer” adds a pop culture element and makes the scenario even more absurd.

9.
Those who say “Bigfoot”
are those who don’t believe.

We must learn to fear metaphor.

Summary

The speaker implies in these remarks that those who discuss “Bigfoot” are frequently doubtful or contemptuous of its existence, suggesting that they don’t think there is anything enigmatic or unknowable. “We must learn to fear metaphor,” the second phrase, advises us to be wary of the ways in which metaphors influence how we perceive the world. The speaker cautions that metaphors can warp reality or instill fear in our thoughts. A metaphor is a means of describing something by comparing it to something else.

Analysis

A paradox is brought to light by the statement, “Those who say ‘Bigfoot’ are those who don’t believe.” The phrase “Bigfoot” is used to indicate anything enigmatic or unknown, and some individuals may not genuinely believe in this fabled creature. This implies that they are assigning a title to something they don’t completely comprehend. To disassociate themselves from the actual mystery or dread, they, in a sense, transform something enigmatic into a joke or myth.

“We must learn to fear metaphor,” which is the second portion of the statement, presents the idea that metaphors—figures of speech in which one thing is depicted as another—have power. A metaphor can make something innocuous seem threatening or lead us to believe in unreal things. For instance, we may become afraid of something if we refer to it as “a monster” when it is only strange. The speaker is cautioning us about the way metaphors influence our thoughts. Treating things as metaphors can lead to misconceptions or unfounded anxieties.

Language Devices

Metaphor: “We must learn to fear metaphor” is a metaphor in and of itself. It implies that the idea of metaphor—comparing one thing to another—can be harmful if it is applied to skew our thoughts or anxieties.

Irony: The irony that humans frequently use language they don’t completely embrace to describe the unknown is highlighted by the claim that Bigfoot is a legendary creature that is utilized by individuals who don’t believe in it.

10.
We followed the footprints from the source of the stream
to the place where it emptied into the river.

We saw its hair snagged on branches ten feet above us.
Its smell was still powerful a full day after it had passed through.

The smell: rotten eggs, sulfur, burned hair, blood, sawdust
pine sap, bat piss, standing water, split granite, sunlight.

Summary

The speaker talks about traveling from a stream’s source to a river by following a trail of footprints. They come across evidence of the creature’s existence along the road, such its hair lodged in tall trees and a pungent odor that persists for a day. The smell combines natural scents like pine sap and sunlight with disagreeable ones like sulfur, burnt hair, and rotten eggs.

Analysis

The description emphasizes the creature’s power and mystery, which are sensed by its potent odor and the scars it leaves behind. The persistent odor implies that the creature is something powerful and enigmatic rather than merely a typical aspect of nature. A feeling of unease and otherworldliness is evoked by the blend of unpleasant and natural scents, which supports the notion that this creature is supernatural.

Language Devices

Imagery: The description of smells and sights helps the reader imagine the scene more clearly, using specific details like “rotten eggs” and “burned hair.”

Juxtaposition: The combination of unpleasant smells and natural elements (like pine sap and sunlight) highlights the creature’s strange and unnatural presence.

Alliteration: The repetition of sounds, like in “sulfur, burned hair, blood,” makes the description more vivid and rhythmic.

11.
Even now, we like to think science replaced religion
when, in fact, religion became science.

Summary

The speaker considers the connection between religion and science. The speaker contends that religion has changed to become more like science in terms of its structure and understanding, despite the widespread belief that science has supplanted religion.

Analysis

This claim contradicts the widely held notion that religion has been supplanted by science in society. Rather, it implies that religion has not vanished but rather has evolved, assuming traits of scientific ideas like methodical views and justifications. It draws attention to how religion is evolving and how it has been reinterpreted in contemporary times to make sense within a more empirical or rational framework.

Language Devices

Juxtaposition: The contrast between “science” and “religion” suggests they are not entirely separate but interconnected in some way.

Irony: The idea that “religion became science” is an ironic twist, as it challenges the traditional view that religion and science are opposing forces.

Metaphor: The transformation of religion into science is metaphorically framed as an evolution, pointing to a shift in how both are understood.

12.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my father and mother.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my sister and brother.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my version of God.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my only effective blanket.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my Adam and Eve.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my porcupine quill.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my cup of ice water.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my metamorphic rock.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my saxophone.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my last will and testament.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my favorite red shirt.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my basketball.
I ran into the house on fire and saved my book about Sasquatch.

Summary

The speaker recounts numerous times rushing into a burning house to rescue various items, including personal goods and family members. From loved ones to tangible belongings to one-of-a-kind items, every item mentioned has special meaning for the speaker.

Analysis

This passage emphasizes how diverse things in life can take on significance depending on the individual and expresses a sense of devotion to both people and material goods. It also demonstrates how, even in life-threatening circumstances, we have a tendency to give priority to things that we hold in high regard. The speaker’s hurry and resolve to save what they value are highlighted by the repeated usage of the phrase “I ran into the house on fire.”

The combination of private belongings and seemingly insignificant items, such as a “favorite red shirt” or a “book about Sasquatch,” implies that our priorities during a crisis may be shaped by attachments or personal experiences that aren’t immediately obvious to others.

Language Devices

• Repetition: The repeated phrase “I ran into the house on fire and saved…” builds a rhythm and emphasizes the speaker’s devotion to saving these objects and people.
• List: The use of a list creates a sense of urgency and growing absurdity, as the objects go from deeply meaningful to seemingly random or trivial.
• Contrast: The contrast between life-saving actions (saving family) and seemingly inconsequential objects (like a saxophone or a basketball) underscores the variety of things people value.
• Metaphor: “Saved my version of God” and “saved my Adam and Eve” could symbolize the speaker’s personal beliefs or foundational ideas, showing how abstract concepts are treated as precious as physical things.

13.
After D. B. Cooper hijacked the commercial jet
and parachuted 30,000 feet into the Cascades
where he and his newly acquired money disappeared

we can only assume that he lived
because his death would kill the mystery.
Our only certainty: D. B. Cooper is not Sasquatch.

Summary

The speaker considers the enigmatic case of D.B. Cooper, who stole money, hijacked a plane, and disappeared after parachuting into the Cascades. The speaker reflects that since D.B. Cooper’s passing would put an end to the mystery surrounding him, speculation about his life following the incident is left to the reader. The conclusion of the text adds a feeling of ridiculousness or fun to the riddle by stating unequivocally that D.B. Cooper is not Sasquatch.

Analysis

This paragraph examines the attraction of mystery and the human propensity to maintain the interest by leaving some events or characters unclear. The reference to the disappearance of D.B. Cooper emphasizes how some unresolved issues or mysteries, such as Cooper’s fate, can grow out of proportion and continue to occupy a place in the public consciousness. The last claim that “D. B. Cooper is not Sasquatch” gently moves the emphasis to another unresolved mystery (Sasquatch), highlighting the tendency for people to associate the unknown with legendary characters.

The idea that mysteries are maintained by the unknown rather than by concrete facts is further supported by the juxtaposition of these two characters (Sasquatch and D.B. Cooper), which implies that both are products of popular myth or legend.

Language Devices

Juxtaposition: Playing on the notion that mysteries and myths coexist in popular culture, the simultaneous mention of D.B. Cooper and Sasquatch offers an intriguing juxtaposition between a legendary and an actual, unresolved mystery.

Irony: A sense of absurdity is created by the satirical notion that D.B. Cooper’s death will solve the mystery, suggesting that his disappearance is more precious than his life.

Humor: Despite detailing a serious occurrence, the sentence is made humorous by the final phrase, which adds a hint of humor by rejecting any potential connection between D.B. Cooper and Sasquatch.

14.
In order to know what Sasquatch is
we must know what he is not.

Summary

According to the speaker, one must first comprehend what Sasquatch is not in order to fully comprehend what it is. This emphasizes the idea that comparing what something is with what it is not frequently shapes knowledge and comprehension.

Analysis

This phrase embodies the philosophical idea that in order to define something, boundaries must be established, and that sometimes knowing what something isn’t helps us define those boundaries. Perhaps the speaker is pointing out that the mystery of Sasquatch is defined more by the ambiguities and issues surrounding it than by any hard proof of Sasquatch’s true identity. It implies that the unknown is frequently simpler to comprehend or define than the known.

Language Devices

Antithesis:The sentence’s structure, which contrasts “what Sasquatch is” with “what he is not,” creates balance and draws attention to the difference between presence and absence.

Philosophical undertone: The statement encourages contemplation about the nature of knowledge and how, rather than direct knowledge, understanding frequently results from negation or contrast.

15.
Here, I wonder why I speak of Sasquatch as male
when more female Sasquatch have been seen

including the most famous: the Sasquatch woman
who walked across deadfall in the film

shot by Roger Patterson on the Hupa Indian Reservation
in Northern California. We have all seen her

pendulous breasts, prominent brow, large feet
and shadowed eyes as she turns to face the camera

and the commotion caused when Patterson’s horse threw him.
Patterson continued to film as he fell, as he climbed

to his feet, and ran after the Sasquatch. His home movie
has never been discounted, only ignored or dismissed.

Summary

Although there have been reports of female Sasquatch, including the well-known one seen on camera by Roger Patterson, the speaker considers how Sasquatch is frequently referred to as male. The Sasquatch woman, who has distinctive physical characteristics including pendulous breasts and enormous feet, is seen wandering across deadfall in the video, which was shot on the Hupa Indian Reservation. The speaker emphasizes the enigmatic and enduring character of Sasquatch encounters by pointing out that, although being ignored by some, Patterson’s footage has never been completely discounted.

Analysis

This section challenges preconceived notions about Sasquatch, especially the belief that it is a male species despite the fact that females have been sighted. The speaker also discusses the well-known Patterson movie, which has grown to be a significant part of Sasquatch mythology. Sasquatch, as a cultural and mythical entity, continues to elude total explanation despite contradicting evidence, as evidenced by the remark of the film’s rejection by some yet reluctance to be entirely disregarded. Human interest with Sasquatch’s elusiveness is further highlighted by the focus on the female Sasquatch, her physical characteristics, and the hectic filming process.

Language Devices

Rhetorical question: The line “I wonder why I speak of Sasquatch as male” questions the reader’s preconceived notions about Sasquatch’s gender and challenges them.

Imagery: The vivid visual elements created by descriptions of the Sasquatch woman’s “large feet,” “prominent brow,” and “pendulous breasts” give the scene a more palpable quality and contribute to the magical atmosphere around Sasquatch.

Allusion: The allusion to the well-known Patterson-Gimlin movie places the story in the context of Sasquatch sightings and stories.

Juxtaposition: The mystery and doubt surrounding Sasquatch are highlighted by the contrast between the footage’s disregard or ignoring and the public fascination with Sasquatch.

16.
The scientists don’t want Sasquatch to exist
because her existence would destroy their God.

Summary

Because recognizing Sasquatch would contradict or challenge their worldview, which is frequently based on scientific or religious views, the speaker implies that scientists reject her existence. It is believed that the presence of Sasquatch would contradict their widely held beliefs, particularly with regard to ideas of God and creation.

Analysis

There is a clash between belief and science in this line. The speaker suggests that Sasquatch, an unexplained and unknown phenomena, threatens the conventional wisdom of scientists, who are frequently regarded as the arbiters of truth. By stating that Sasquatch’s existence would “destroy their God,” the speaker is implying that something as enigmatic and inexplicable as Sasquatch would undermine scientists’ confidence in their own logical explanation of the world. This might be a statement about the limits of human comprehension and the conflict between the need for certainty and the unknown.

Language Devices

Hyperbole: The overblown statement “destroy their God” implies that Sasquatch’s existence would contradict firmly held ideas or philosophical frameworks.

Metaphor: The notion that Sasquatch may “destroy their God” serves as a metaphor for how unknowable or inexplicable things can undermine long-held beliefs or worldviews.

Contrast:The line highlights how, in some people’s minds, the scientific quest for information and Sasquatch’s enigmatic, supernatural existence are fundamentally at conflict.

17.
Roger Patterson was a Yakama Indian
a fact which provides me with a small, secret pleasure.

I have been taught to keep secrets
and to fool you into believing I’ll reveal them.

Summary

Roger Patterson, who shot the well-known Sasquatch footage, was a Yakama Indian, the speaker discloses. Because of this fact, the speaker experiences a “small, secret pleasure.” A cultural lesson learned—keeping secrets and deceiving others into believing they will be revealed—is also hinted to by the speaker.

Analysis

The themes of secrets, cultural identity, and the influence of suppressing information are all explored in this text. The speaker enjoys the notion that Patterson, a significant character in the Sasquatch story, was Native American, which could provide a sense of mystery or authenticity to the tale. The reference to learning to “keep secrets” relates to a more profound cultural practice, possibly associated with oral traditions, in which specific information or tales are passed down in a selective manner. In keeping with Sasquatch’s mysterious character, the line “to fool you into believing I’ll reveal them” implies that part of the pleasure is in manipulating what other people know, generating intrigue, and preserving a sense of mystery.

Language Devices

Allusion: The speaker’s remarks are given more weight by the allusion to a well-known cultural moment—the Sasquatch movie and Roger Patterson.

Irony: The speaker’s acknowledgement that they enjoy keeping things hidden and tease the reader with the notion of revelation while not really disclosing anything contains a hint of irony.

Metaphor: Particularly in some cultures or traditions, the statement “I have been taught to keep secrets” serves as a metaphor for the more general practice of cultural or individual discretion. The concept of divulging secrets reflects Sasquatch’s larger mystique.

18.
If we sit in John F. Kennedy’s limousine on November 22, 1963
and then we look back over our shoulder just as the first shot is fired
we will see a shadowy figure in the sixth-floor window of the
Depository.

Moving closer, we can see the rifle, a gold ring, and brown eyes.
We can see a bead of sweat fall from forehead to gun stock, soaking
into the finely-grained wood. We can see the fine smoke rise.

We do know that Sasquatch did not shoot JFK
but we wonder if the man who pulled the trigger
was hired by the same men who pay the scientists.

Summary

The speaker in this chapter visualizes the events leading up to John F. Kennedy’s assassination while seated in his limousine. At the Texas School Book Depository, where the shot was fired, they report seeing a dark person in the sixth-floor window. As they picture the scenario, they question if there was a wider conspiracy and whether the assassin of JFK had any connections to influential scientists. The last sentence compares the mystery of Sasquatch to the secrecy surrounding the JFK assassination.

Analysis

The killing of President John F. Kennedy and the mysterious existence of Sasquatch are two significant American mysteries that are contrasted in this paragraph. The speaker emphasizes the specifics of the shot’s firing moment by describing the scenario with rich, nearly cinematic imagery. “A bead of sweat fall[ing]” and “fine smoke rise[ing]” provide the event a visceral element that makes it seem more than just a historical moment—rather, it’s something very real and immediate.

Though minor, the Sasquatch connection is important. The speaker draws a comparison between the cover-up of JFK’s assassination and the denial of Sasquatch as a real phenomena by implying that the man who shot JFK might have been “hired by the same men who pay the scientists,” implying a conspiracy of secret forces. Powerful forces strive to conceal or deny both mysteries, and the speaker suggests that they might be linked by a web of secret.

Language Devices

Imagery: The speaker uses detailed visual and sensory descriptions like “a bead of sweat fall from forehead to gun stock” and “smoke rise” to create a vivid picture of the assassination.

Allusion: The reference to the JFK assassination is a historical allusion, grounding the passage in a widely recognized event.

Metaphor: The mention of “the men who pay the scientists” serves as a metaphor for powerful, unseen forces that control knowledge and truth, drawing a parallel between conspiracy theories and the suppression of information.

Juxtaposition: The JFK assassination and Sasquatch are juxtaposed, linking the two mysteries as subjects of public fascination and skepticism, shaped by hidden forces.

19.
On his deathbed, Roger Patterson wished
he would have shot the Sasquatch
and proved her existence with a corpse.

Summary

The speaker considers Roger Patterson’s regret on his deathbed, when he wishes he had shot a Sasquatch to definitively establish its existence. Even if it meant killing the Sasquatch, Patterson, who gained notoriety in 1967 by filming the animal moving through a forest, seems to have yearned for hard evidence. This phrase emphasizes the conflict between evidence and belief as well as the extent people will go to in order to obtain confirmation of a mystery.

Analysis

This succinct analysis of Patterson’s dying desire emphasizes the tension between science and myth. Despite providing a visual record, Patterson, who is well-known for his contentious video footage of Sasquatch, is shown to have felt the need for something more physical—like a body—to persuade the world of Sasquatch’s existence. This urge to “prove” Sasquatch’s existence betrays a profound annoyance with the doubt that pervaded his movie.

A more concerning issue is the monetization of the unknown, which is shown by the notion of shooting the Sasquatch to “prove” its existence. The living thing is turned into evidence in the pursuit of proof, and its existence is disregarded in order to validate it. The remorse Patterson revealed on his deathbed points to a conflict between the need for the truth and the price of seeking it, particularly when it entails exploitation or violence.

Language Devices

Irony: The irony lies in the fact that Patterson, despite capturing footage, still felt the need for a dead Sasquatch to validate his work, as if the living, breathing mystery wasn’t enough.

Allusion: The mention of Roger Patterson’s deathbed regret alludes to the broader theme of how history often remembers those who pursued the impossible or mysterious, and how they often remain unsatisfied.

Foreshadowing: Patterson’s wish subtly hints at the tragedy of pursuing proof of something elusive, implying that he may have become obsessed with obtaining the evidence he believed was necessary, even at great cost.

Juxtaposition: The juxtaposition of “deathbed” and “shooting” evokes the tension between life, death, and the desperate need for validation. It contrasts the final moments of a life with a lasting desire to capture something impossible.

20.
Thesis: Indians can only be proven superstitious
if non-Indians are proved to be without superstition.

Summary

This thesis argues that the idea of “superstition” can only be applied to Indigenous people if we can prove that non-Indigenous people have no superstitions at all. In other words, for a belief to be called superstitious, there must be a clear standard of what is considered “rational” or “non-superstitious.” The thesis suggests that all cultures have some form of superstition, making it unfair to label any one group as more superstitious than another.

Analysis

1. Cultural Relativity: The thesis points out that no culture is completely free from superstition. What one group calls “superstition” might just be part of another group’s tradition or belief system.
2. Criticism of Colonial Thinking: Historically, colonizers labeled Indigenous beliefs as “superstitions” to justify their own dominance. The thesis challenges this view, suggesting that it’s unfair to call another culture superstitious while ignoring the beliefs of the dominant group.
3. Irony: The thesis creates an ironic situation where, to call one group superstitious, we would first have to prove that the other group is entirely rational, which is impossible. It shows that all people have beliefs that could be called superstitions.
4. Questioning Rationality: The thesis invites us to think about what “rationality” really means and whether it is possible for any culture to be completely free from irrational beliefs.

Language Devices

Irony: The thesis is ironic because it suggests that to call someone else superstitious, we must first prove that we have no superstitions ourselves, which is an impossible standard.

Rhetorical Question: The idea raises the question of what it means to be “without superstition,” encouraging us to think about whether anyone can be truly rational.

Contrast: The thesis contrasts Indigenous cultures, often labeled as superstitious, with non-Indigenous cultures, implying that both groups have superstitions, but one group is unfairly labeled.

Cultural Allusion: The thesis refers to “Indians” and “non-Indians” to discuss how Indigenous beliefs have been historically viewed as superstitions by Western societies.

21.
Do the Sasquatch believe in us?

The line “Do the Sasquatch believe in us?” makes us think about how humans and mythical creatures like Sasquatch see each other. It asks if Sasquatch, if it exists, might have its own beliefs about us, just as we have beliefs about it.

Analysis:

This line is a rhetorical question, meaning it doesn’t expect an answer but makes us reflect on the idea of belief. It also gives Sasquatch human-like qualities, making us imagine it might think about us the way we think about it.

Language Device:

Rhetorical Question: It encourages the reader to think without expecting a direct answer.

Anthropomorphism: It gives Sasquatch human traits, like belief.

22.
Do you take the bread and wine
because you believe it to be the body and blood?
I do, as other Indians do, too
because that colonial superstition is as beautiful
as any of our indigenous superstitions.

Summary:

The speaker is reflecting on the act of taking communion, which involves eating bread and drinking wine, symbolizing the body and blood of Christ in Christian rituals. They compare this to indigenous practices, acknowledging that, like many others, they participate in the ritual, not necessarily because they fully believe in its Christian meaning, but because it holds beauty and significance, similar to their own cultural beliefs. The line highlights how both colonial (Christian) and indigenous beliefs are treated with equal reverence, despite their differing origins.

Analysis:

The speaker uses the ritual of communion as a metaphor for how people adopt beliefs from both their culture and external influences, like colonialism. They do not deny the importance of colonial practices but instead highlight the shared human tendency to find beauty in beliefs, whether they are rooted in one’s indigenous culture or in foreign traditions.

Language Devices:

Rhetorical Question: “Do you take the bread and wine because you believe it to be the body and blood?” This invites reflection without expecting a direct answer.

Metaphor: The “colonial superstition” and “indigenous superstitions” are both treated as equally beautiful, comparing the adopted belief in the bread and wine to the speaker’s indigenous practices.

Juxtaposition: The contrast between colonial beliefs (Christianity) and indigenous beliefs, showing how both are valued despite their differences.

23.
Of course, Sasquatch and Indians have known of each other
for thousands of years. Certain Indians believed Sasquatch
were evil Indians banished from their respective tribes.

Others believed Sasquatch came down from the skies.
Some Indians have sat at lonely campfires and watched
the woods for signs of Sasquatch, their long-lost brother.

Summary:

The stanza talks about how Native Americans have long known about Sasquatch. Some tribes believed Sasquatch were evil members of their tribes who were banished, while others thought Sasquatch came from the sky. There are also beliefs that Sasquatch is a long-lost relative. Some Native Americans have watched the woods by themselves, waiting for signs of Sasquatch.

Analysis:

This stanza shows the deep connection between Native American culture and Sasquatch. It portrays Sasquatch as more than just a mythical creature, but as a part of their spiritual beliefs and history. The different views about Sasquatch highlight the diversity of thought in Native American tribes, with some seeing it as an outcast and others as a celestial or lost family member. The reference to campfires adds a sense of tradition and reverence, suggesting Sasquatch is important in Native American folklore.

Language Devices:

Imagery: The mention of “lonely campfires” and “woods for signs of Sasquatch” paints a vivid picture of solitude and mystery.

Allusion: The idea that Sasquatch could be a “long-lost brother” refers to deeper cultural connections and beliefs, suggesting a relationship between Sasquatch and Native Americans.

Metaphor: The belief that Sasquatch could be an “evil Indian” or a “being from the sky” metaphorically shows how Sasquatch is intertwined with different aspects of their spiritual world.

24.
A man named Anomaly is over there, in the dark
corner, with his eyes closed, dancing all by himself

Summary:

The line introduces a character named Anomaly, who is in a dark corner, dancing alone with his eyes closed. This suggests a sense of isolation, introspection, or a unique state of being that sets him apart from others.

Analysis:

The mention of “Anomaly” implies that the person is different or unusual, and his solitary dance in the dark could symbolize a kind of personal freedom or detachment from societal norms. The darkness and closed eyes might indicate that he is lost in his own world, unaware or unconcerned with how others perceive him. This could be a metaphor for someone who chooses to embrace their individuality or inner truth, even if it means being alone or misunderstood.

Language Devices:

Imagery: “Dark corner” and “eyes closed” evoke a sense of mystery and isolation, visually showing Anomaly’s solitude.

Symbolism: The act of dancing alone with eyes closed can symbolize self-expression, escape, or a disconnect from reality.

Characterization: The name “Anomaly” suggests that the man is not part of the ordinary world and might be a symbol for outcasts, rebels, or those who do not conform to societal expectations.

25.
I can give you proof of God: Jim Thorpe, Sac and Fox Indian,
won gold medals in the decathlon and pentathlon at the 1912
Stockholm Olympics. He won those medals despite the fact that
Indians were not yet recognized as United States citizens.

Summary:

The speaker uses Jim Thorpe, a Sac and Fox Indian, as proof of the existence of God. Despite being denied U.S. citizenship at the time, Jim Thorpe won gold medals in the decathlon and pentathlon at the 1912 Stockholm Olympics, showcasing his remarkable talent and defying societal limitations.

Analysis:

The speaker’s reference to Jim Thorpe’s achievement serves as a powerful argument for the miraculous or divine, emphasizing that a person can rise above societal injustices, like the denial of citizenship, and still achieve greatness. By calling Thorpe’s victories “proof of God,” the speaker implies that such remarkable feats transcend mere human effort and might be evidence of a higher power working in mysterious ways. The speaker challenges the notion of inherent limitations, especially against the backdrop of racial prejudice, highlighting Thorpe’s accomplishments as a form of divine intervention or proof of a greater force.

Language Devices:

Allusion: The reference to Jim Thorpe brings historical and cultural weight to the argument, invoking his legacy as a legendary athlete.

Irony: The fact that Thorpe won gold medals despite not being recognized as a citizen underscores the injustice faced by Indigenous people, adding depth to the argument that something divine or extraordinary was at play.

Juxtaposition: The contrast between Thorpe’s athletic success and the lack of recognition of his citizenship highlights the tension between personal achievement and societal prejudice.

26.
Sasquatch did not kidnap the Lindbergh baby.
Sasquatch did not bury the empty coffin of Heinrich Müller.
Sasquatch did not kill the prostitutes in White Chapel.
Sasquatch did not fly with Amelia Earhart.
Sasquatch did not roll the stone away from Jesus’s tomb.
Sasquatch did not build the pyramids.
Sasquatch did not create the Ghost Dance.
Sasquatch did not drop the bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
Sasquatch did not descend from the Missing Link.
Sasquatch did not drag boulders across Easter Island.
Sasquatch did not crash-land in Roswell, New Mexico.
Sasquatch did not walk across the Bering Strait.
Sasquatch did not sink Lemuria.
Sasquatch did not write Shakespeare’s plays.

Summary:

This passage lists a series of historical and mysterious events, from famous kidnappings to controversial incidents, and clarifies that Sasquatch was not responsible for any of them. The speaker seems to challenge common beliefs and historical narratives by humorously assigning outlandish events to Sasquatch, then promptly dismissing the idea.

Analysis:

The speaker is highlighting the absurdity of attributing complex and significant historical events to a mysterious or mythical figure like Sasquatch. By doing so, the speaker satirizes how society often ascribes blame or explanation to the unknown, much like some people might do with Sasquatch. The passage might also reflect on how society’s mysteries—like the enigma of Sasquatch—are often intertwined with actual historical mysteries, creating a kind of myth-making culture where the unknown is linked to the extraordinary.

Language Devices:

Repetition: The repeated phrase “Sasquatch did not…” emphasizes the absurdity of the idea that Sasquatch could be involved in all these significant events. This repetition builds a rhythm, giving the lines a humorous, almost mocking tone.

Allusion: The references to real historical events (e.g., “Lindbergh baby,” “Hiroshima and Nagasaki,” “Roswell, New Mexico”) are allusions that ground the fantastical subject of Sasquatch in the real world. These events are widely known and have been the subject of mystery, which adds a layer of irony to the speaker’s assertion that Sasquatch was not responsible for them.

Hyperbole: The suggestion that Sasquatch could be involved in events like the creation of the Ghost Dance or the building of the pyramids is an exaggeration, emphasizing the ridiculousness of attributing every unsolved mystery to Sasquatch.

Sarcasm: There is a sarcastic tone throughout, as the speaker dismisses these events as being beyond the reach of Sasquatch, subtly pointing to the way humans try to find explanations for everything.

27.
I can give you proof of Sasquatch: Indian tribes of the Pacific
Northwest carved ape faces into their totem poles long before
any Europeans arrived and brought news of such animals.
According to the scientists, there are no other primates, aside
from human beings, indigenous to North America.

Summary:

The speaker suggests that Sasquatch might exist by pointing to totem poles made by Indigenous tribes in the Pacific Northwest, which show faces that look like apes. This happened long before Europeans came and talked about such creatures. The speaker contrasts this evidence with the scientific idea that no primates, except humans, are native to North America, implying that Sasquatch may be real based on the old stories and carvings.

Analysis:

The speaker uses evidence from Indigenous culture, like the ape-like faces carved on totem poles, to suggest that Sasquatch has been part of their stories for a long time. The speaker is pointing out that these carvings were made before Europeans introduced the idea of creatures like Sasquatch. The passage challenges the scientific claim that no other primates are in North America, showing that there may be knowledge in Indigenous traditions that science hasn’t considered.

Language Devices:

• Allusion: The mention of totem poles with ape faces connects to the Indigenous people’s art and stories about creatures like Sasquatch.
• Contrast: The speaker contrasts the totem poles (which show Sasquatch-like creatures) with the scientific idea that there are no primates in North America, creating a disagreement between the two.
• Irony: It’s ironic that the Indigenous people might have known about Sasquatch long before scientists did, suggesting that their knowledge might be more accurate.
• Challenge to authority: The speaker challenges the idea of scientists by pointing out that Indigenous knowledge might have something important to say about Sasquatch’s existence.

28.
If Sasquatch is the deviation
then what is the common rule?

Summary:

The speaker questions what the “normal” or “accepted” thing is, by contrasting it with Sasquatch, which is seen as a deviation from the norm. This question suggests a deeper exploration of what society considers “normal” and challenges the idea of what is usually accepted as truth or reality.

Analysis:

By asking “what is the common rule?” in comparison to Sasquatch as the deviation, the speaker is prompting us to think about societal norms and the rules that govern our beliefs and perceptions. The speaker is questioning how we define what is “normal” and whether those definitions are too narrow or restrictive, especially in contrast to the mysterious or unexplained, symbolized by Sasquatch.

Language Devices:

• Rhetorical question: The question “what is the common rule?” is rhetorical, encouraging the reader to think deeply about societal norms and expectations.
• Contrast: The comparison between Sasquatch (the deviation) and the “common rule” highlights the tension between the unknown and the accepted, pushing us to reconsider what we take for granted as “normal.”

29.
Late night on the Spokane Indian Reservation
we can hear the shrill cry echo through the pines.

We have recorded the cry and played it for the experts
who cannot tell us which animal made that sound.

Summary:

The speaker describes hearing a mysterious cry late at night on the Spokane Indian Reservation, which echoes through the pines. They record the sound and play it for experts, but the experts are unable to identify the animal that made the cry. This suggests the existence of something unknown or unexplained.

Analysis:

This stanza emphasizes the mystery and unexplained nature of the cry, which defies scientific explanation. The inability of experts to identify the source of the sound hints at the idea that there are things beyond our understanding or perception. It might also reflect the disconnection between indigenous knowledge and mainstream scientific inquiry, as indigenous communities often have their own ways of understanding the world that may not always align with conventional science.

Language Devices:

• Imagery: The “shrill cry” and “echo through the pines” create vivid pictures in the reader’s mind, evoking a sense of mystery and eeriness.
• Contrast: The juxtaposition of the unexplained cry with the expertise of modern scientists highlights the tension between traditional knowledge and modern science, as the experts fail to identify the sound.
• Allusion: The reference to a “cry” that cannot be explained may allude to the Sasquatch myth, as Sasquatch is often associated with mysterious sounds and unexplained phenomena.

30.
Because the Sasquatch use tools, I wonder if they write poems.
Because the Sasquatch steal salmon from nets, I wonder if they
have justice.
Because the Sasquatch travel alone, I wonder if they love.
Because the Sasquatch travel in families, I wonder if they hate.
Because the Sasquatch stink, I wonder if they feel shame.
Because the Sasquatch hide, I wonder if they are afraid.
Because the Sasquatch cry in the night, I wonder if they believe
in God.

Summary:

The speaker reflects on various aspects of Sasquatch behavior, asking a series of questions about their emotions, beliefs, and social structures. These questions connect the Sasquatch’s actions, such as using tools, stealing salmon, and traveling in families, to human concepts like love, justice, shame, fear, and belief in God. The speaker wonders if these traits suggest that Sasquatch have similar experiences to humans.

Analysis:

The stanza explores the idea of empathy and the human tendency to attribute human-like qualities to other beings, even ones as mysterious and mythic as Sasquatch. Each question connects an action or characteristic of Sasquatch to human emotions and social constructs, suggesting a deep desire to understand the Sasquatch in human terms. It highlights the complex relationship between humans and the unknown, questioning what makes us human and whether other creatures—real or imagined—share similar experiences.

The repeated use of “I wonder if” emphasizes the uncertainty and curiosity of the speaker, reflecting an exploration of both the Sasquatch and human nature. The rhetorical questions imply that the Sasquatch, whether real or symbolic, are a mirror to human experiences, inviting the reader to reflect on their own beliefs and feelings.

Language Devices:

• Rhetorical Questions: The repetition of questions like “I wonder if they…” conveys the speaker’s curiosity and invites the reader to think deeply about the similarities between Sasquatch and humans.
• Contrast: The juxtaposition of Sasquatch behaviors with human emotions (e.g., “steal salmon” with “justice” and “cry in the night” with “belief in God”) explores the tension between the known and the unknown.
• Imagery: The mention of specific Sasquatch behaviors—using tools, stealing salmon, traveling in families—creates a vivid picture of Sasquatch as complex beings, even though they remain mysterious.
• Personification: The Sasquatch are given human qualities, such as love, hate, shame, and belief, making them relatable to the human experience.

31.
A large footprint in the damp sand.
A bush burning on the mountain.

Summary:

The lines describe two mysterious and striking images: a large footprint found in damp sand and a bush burning on a mountain. Both images evoke a sense of something significant or unnatural, suggesting an element of mystery or a disturbance in the natural world.

Analysis:

The brief nature of the lines highlights the mystery and intrigue of the two images. The large footprint suggests the presence of something unusual or unknown, possibly alluding to the Sasquatch or another elusive creature. The bush burning on the mountain evokes a sense of unexpected fire in an isolated, wild place, further intensifying the idea of something out of the ordinary occurring. These two images could symbolize the intersection of the known and the unknown, nature and the supernatural, or reality and myth.

Language Devices:

• Imagery: Both the “large footprint in the damp sand” and the “bush burning on the mountain” create vivid, visual images that appeal to the reader’s senses, especially sight and feeling (e.g., the dampness of the sand and the warmth or danger of the fire).
• Symbolism: The footprint might symbolize a creature’s presence or a sign of something important, while the burning bush could symbolize a warning, change, or mystery. Both elements suggest a larger, unseen force at work.
• Juxtaposition: The calmness of the damp sand contrasts with the violent, destructive nature of the burning bush, enhancing the sense of mystery and unpredictability.

32.
When I asked the Indian elder, she said
with a smile, “I don’t know if I believe in Sasquatch
but he sure does stink.”

Summary:

In this line, the speaker asks an Indian elder about Sasquatch, and her response, given with a smile, is that while she may not believe in Sasquatch, she acknowledges that it “sure does stink.” The elder’s comment adds a touch of humor while also referencing a common characteristic associated with Sasquatch in folklore — its foul odor.

Analysis:

The line uses humor and a casual tone to reflect the elder’s ambivalence toward the existence of Sasquatch. Rather than giving a definitive answer, the elder speaks to the widely known trait of Sasquatch — its unpleasant smell. This response suggests that, even in the face of uncertainty or skepticism about Sasquatch’s existence, there are still noticeable signs or experiences that people associate with it. The use of humor also underscores a cultural approach to mythical creatures — one that doesn’t necessarily demand absolute belief but can acknowledge the stories and the sensory experiences tied to them.

Language Devices:

• Humor: The elder’s response is light-hearted and playful, adding a sense of wit to the conversation. This makes the serious topic of Sasquatch feel less intimidating and more grounded in everyday life.
• Allusion: The mention of Sasquatch’s smell alludes to one of the most common traits in Sasquatch folklore — its strong, unpleasant odor, which has been associated with the creature in many accounts.
• Dialogue: The conversation with the elder adds authenticity to the narrative, giving a voice to indigenous perspectives on Sasquatch. It introduces a mix of skepticism and cultural knowledge, which adds depth to the topic.