I found the first half of this book really intriguing!  Upon reading the first few pages, I was unsure of how/when the relationship between the squatter and the Don would be established, or if there would even be one. In these first few pages, we see the word “squatter” appear various times, and its meaning is heavily focused on.  For example, Mr. Darell says, “I am still poor, all I have earned is the name ‘Squatter’. That pretty name (which I hate because you despise it) is what I have earned” (5). His wife replies: “That’s exactly it. We aren’t squatters. We are ‘settlers’. We take up land that belongs to us, American citizens, by paying the government price for it.” (5).  This was the first comparison of the two that I noticed, but I soon realized that these two would be compared throughout the first half of the novel. For example, on page 55 the narrator describes an anticipated future encounter between Clarence and Mercedes: “what would she think of him, believing him a “squatter”, one who came to take land that did not belong to him?” (55).  It’s interesting here that the narrator is putting this thought in our heads, before it’s even happened. I’ve noticed that that the narrator’s voice in this novel is very evident and impactful, and at times it seems that we can clearly see the author’s voice through the narration. Is what the narrator says true? Is Clarence taking something that doesn’t belong to him (like Mercedes)? The romantic aspect of this novel is very interesting, but also quite typical; for example, these two lovers must navigate through obstacles, in this case, specifically political and economical obstacles.  

I noticed very soon into the novel that the law plays an extremely important role; it’s almost as if the law is the most powerful “character” in this novel – it is referenced by the characters numerous times as it seems to influence their thoughts and actions, and their understanding of how processes (like the purchasing land) in their community are meant to be carried out. The law is viewed by the characters as holding the every answer as to what is right and wrong, for example: “This is what I call business / and all inside of the law.  That is the beauty of it – all perfectly lawful” (27). The narrator then describes a land deal and says: “All would be done ‘according to the law’, and in this easy way, more land was taken from its legitimate owner” (27). It’s interesting here that again we hear the narrator’s voice; she describes the process as “easy”. Later on the same page, there is another reference to a “lawful” appropriation, and the word “lawful” is in italics. Interestingly, the narrator often puts words relating to the law in quotations or italics, as if she is drawing specific attention to it, perhaps to question it.  We also clearly see the narrator’s voice in the following sentence: “Now only tears flowed; silent tears of helpless discouragement; of a presentiment of impeding desolation” (27). Here the narrator is claiming that although now there is no bloodshed due to land issues, there still remains tears. In my opinion, the author’s voice is clearly expressed here, as if she is expressing a strong personal connection. 

The chapter titles also caught my attention; they are so simple and direct, yet they serve as a perfect summaries of the chapters, even with just a few words.