Flight

Ambiguity refers to anything that can be interpreted in multiple ways. In “Flight,” Steinbeck wraps two key elements of his story—the inciting incident and the antagonist—in ambiguity. The murder essentially takes place “off stage” and is described only briefly by Pepé. Terse, disjointed, and fragmented phrases tell only part of the story: “The little quarrel—the man started toward Pepé and then the knife—it went almost by itself” (33). The disjointed nature of this description makes it impossible to determine exactly what happened to cause the antagonist to pursue Pepé. It also speaks to Pepé’s confused impression of the event. He is not conscious of having chosen to kill a man and does not want to take responsibility for the action. His difficulty describing the murder explicitly highlights his lingering youth, developing themes of The Difficulty of Growing Up and Masculinity, Violence, and Personhood.

Even greater ambiguity surrounds the antagonist himself. His relationship to the man Pepé killed is unclear, as are his motives (e.g., a personal vendetta versus legal or semilegal authority). Steinbeck never even allows him to come into view, so he could conceivably be an entire group of men. He is clearly the antagonist, and his relentless pursuit of someone so young reveals a level of cruelty. However, he is otherwise anonymous and mysterious. This keeps the narrative’s focus squarely on Pepé and his ordeal in the wilderness, of which the antagonist becomes a part. In terms of narrative function, he is not so much a person as a force akin to predation, dehydration, or infection.