I found it very interesting that the characters focus so heavily on the law as being (without a doubt) the point of reference, yet there are times throughout the novel where a different attitude towards the law is exposed.  For example, on page 224, Mr. Darrell is conversing with Gasbang about who has seen a certain record.  Gasbang states that he himself has seen the entry that was made by the notary.  Darrell then replies: “Well the notary lies, that’s all.”  There is more dialogue between the two and some others, and then Darrell states: “Then the Don lied, and I’ll tell him so.”  This exchange made me think about the role that lies/accusing someone of lying play in this novel.  On the same page (224), Mathews asks Darrell: “Are you sure that Mr. Clarence did not buy the land unbeknownst to you?”  Here, (ironically) Darrell becomes super offended by this comment – he is shocked that somebody would think that his own son would put his father in a position like that, yet he himself (Darrell) had just previously made a comment about how he was ready to confront the Don and accuse him of lying.  He previously accused the notary of lying as well.  This then made me think about the role family plays – it seems to me that Darrell thinks that because Clarence is his son, he would never lie to him or put him in an uncomfortable position; however, with the Don and the notary, he actually accuses them of lying without hesitation.

I noted various times Clarence blaming his father for problems with his relationship with Mercedes.  For example: “… because my father has lowered me.  I am not the same Clarence I was two days ago.  You cannot feel proud of me now.” (261).  It’s interesting here that Clarence admits his father has “lowered him” or let him down; however, Mr. Darrell doesn’t believe that his son could ever do something to him that would “lower him”.  It’s also interesting that Clarence himself admits that he is not the same as he was 2 days ago; he clearly then begins to question himself and his worthiness, and even suggests that he is unreasonable and that he should go.  This scene (where him and Mercedes discuss marriage) was super dramatic, but it was Clarence who made it dramatic.  Mercedes seemed to be the voice of reason here, while Clarence acted very insecure and confused.  Here, we see the theme of blame quite clearly: Clarence blames his father for lowering him, which in turn supposedly (according to Clarence) leads to Mercedes no longer being proud of him.  Clarence, very dramatically, continues to blame his father on the next page: “She must naturally hesitate to marry the son of a man who can act and has acted as my father did.  I cannot blame her.  I ought to respect her for it. / Farewell, happiness for me.” (262).  

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. 

Welcome to UBC Blogs. This is your first post. Edit or delete it, then start blogging!

I’m Cynthia and I’m a third year student studying Spanish and Psychology.  I am from North Vancouver, and still live there with my parents and two younger sisters.  Over the break I rediscovered my passion for reading, and so I am really looking forward to this class!  All the books seem super interesting.