
Jess decides to go up the hill in order to search the source of the river. During the way up she thinks a lot about Grandpa, his past, his future and his "now" and asks herself why he never wanted to talk about those things that happened in his life and those who will happen one time. Also, she is taken by the wonderful nature around her and her thoughts, the nice sounds and images that grow up in front of her eyes. At ca. 15.00 she begins to think about returning to the cottage. But her will to find the source and maybe also to find something that explains some of her anxieties with Grandpa makes her to go further up.
In unexpected suddenness the river becomes a waterfall. Jess is really surprised about that and in some way the feeling of being observed by someone comes back to her. She looks around and then he sees a tin hardly visible boy. He stands at the lip of the waterfall in the current of water. And the water reflects the light of the sun directly to her eyes. She becomes dazzled and has to look away. When she sees back, there is no boy anymore and she decides to go back to the cottage.
My thoughts while reading:
There rose up a lot of things in my mind about this boy when I read the chapter. I asked myself whether is it possible that Grandpa also saw this "River Boy" and that it is this boy who is actually the boy in his picture. Normally I would say yes because there are a lot of details that would justify this spec: The waterfall and the barely invisible boy at the cover of the novel, that the painting of Grandpa is called "River Boy" and of course the fact that yet in Grandpa's painting there's no visible boy. However it could be that Grandpa doesn't know this boy because there's the problem of the age: How is it possible that the boy is a boy for more than 60 years?
Nevertheless I think that this boy will play a certain role in the plotline of the novel. Perhaps he will become one of the main actors of the novel. I'll see.
1 comment:
just a few words on language and grammar:
- to make sb. do sth. (ch.7)
- wrong use of the expression "in time" (ch. 8); the way in which you use it does not make sense
C. Kühne
Post a Comment