i should be taking some notes on the text anyways, so why not post them here?
i've read the first ten chapters so far, and i find that the narrative is split. the sections of pure narration seem to have deeper philosophical interpretations, while the narrative seems to be attempting a strict historical interpretation. this may come off as campy at times, but i don't doubt it's intended historicity and am willing to keep an open mind about it's accuracy. i suspect that it may be exaggerated to assert crude stereotypes, but broadly accurate nonetheless.
i guess that there's two kinds of stereotypes. there's ones that are developed maliciously for some external gain (like slavery), and then there's ones that are arrived at through careful empirical observation. now, it's important to realize that humans are individuals and may not perfectly, or at all, reflect the trends. but, acknowledging that humans are not to be defined in aggregate does not rob the aggregate data of value as crude representation. when you're writing fiction, i guess you need to make the choice between whether you're writing a complex, multifaceted novel that attempts to explore all viewpoints or are focusing in a specific viewpoint and narrating it strictly from that perspective. it's important that the broad literature reflect a level of diversity in viewpoints, yes. but, that actually implies that singular viewpoints should be considered.
so, you have to look at the stereotypes in the novel as being a singular expression of data that was arrived at in aggregate. as such, it may be an exaggerated representation of an underlying reality. so, i both trust the intended historicity and am confident in it's accuracy.
i'm just feeling that it needs more pure narration in order to remain compelling. it is not the historical accuracy of the day-to-day lives of these people that truly interests me, but an analysis of the causes of their struggles. i appreciate the attempt to make me understand the world through their eyes, but i feel it's only useful in building empathy for an analysis of the problem, and i feel that has already been established. so, i hope it picks up in analysis for the middle section.
