Reader's Journal: Story of an African Farm (2: 1-7)
The point of view is kind of strange/off-setting. Sometimes it’s like a third person (omniscient), sometimes it’s third person (but you don’t know what everyone’s thinking), and then it goes to different characters’ fist person point of view. You really just don’t know who’s talking. Transitions between points of view are practically non-existent, too.
I really like the repetition (3x) whenever Waldo is thinking, or whenever he’s around. I don’t really know yet the significance of it, but it adds a lot to his character, and helps you understand his thought processes. And it’s not overdone. It will be interesting to see if it changes as the book develops.
I like how Schreiner shows, more than tells. She lets you know so many small, defining details about the characters/plot/etc. by just throwing in information really nonchalantly. Instead of explaining the extent to which someone is angry/happy/etc., she throws in a phrase (not even a whole sentence, sometimes) about an action they do, from which the reader can get the feel for what’s going on.
The characters are pretty well developed and complex, except Bonaparte. he’s just way unrealistically evil. There’s nothing about him that you like once you get to see his true character. He has no redeeming qualities, and you just hate him, without even having to make a decision that you don’t like him; you have no choice but to want him gone. Even Conrad dealt with evil in a better way. You can hate characters in HOD, but even Kurtz isn’t unquestionably evil. When you have to decide from a character’s actions and thoughts (a realistic, balanced character), it means more because you’re assigning value to a person’s character, and people (usually) can differ. It evokes more insightful analyzation.
I really like the repetition (3x) whenever Waldo is thinking, or whenever he’s around. I don’t really know yet the significance of it, but it adds a lot to his character, and helps you understand his thought processes. And it’s not overdone. It will be interesting to see if it changes as the book develops.
I like how Schreiner shows, more than tells. She lets you know so many small, defining details about the characters/plot/etc. by just throwing in information really nonchalantly. Instead of explaining the extent to which someone is angry/happy/etc., she throws in a phrase (not even a whole sentence, sometimes) about an action they do, from which the reader can get the feel for what’s going on.
The characters are pretty well developed and complex, except Bonaparte. he’s just way unrealistically evil. There’s nothing about him that you like once you get to see his true character. He has no redeeming qualities, and you just hate him, without even having to make a decision that you don’t like him; you have no choice but to want him gone. Even Conrad dealt with evil in a better way. You can hate characters in HOD, but even Kurtz isn’t unquestionably evil. When you have to decide from a character’s actions and thoughts (a realistic, balanced character), it means more because you’re assigning value to a person’s character, and people (usually) can differ. It evokes more insightful analyzation.