Critiquing the Reading Assignment

Reading the (3) three papers on "The Absolute truth of a Part-time Indian", I decided to write about the first paper.

In reading the paper, a couple of times. I don't think enough information, especially information directly relating to Alexi was given in the paper since there was the continued reference to,        and comparison of struggles he had in his own life. Unless I missed that in the book. There was also references in the paper to other books and characters that we, the reader, had very little knowledge of such as, who is Victor and what is "Smoke Signals"? Later it became slightly clearer as the paper went on, but I feel it would have been better for the reader to have that information when it was brought up. Like when he first mentioned Victor and Thomas and let us know they were characters in his other book. As I said, it did become clear later but in its current place I was wondering who? And what? But that being said, I think Paper #l had good information was written in a way that for the most part had a flow that was easy to follow and most statements, metaphoric and actual were followed by substantiating evidence or examples and a lot of clear references to pages in the book itself.

Now, personally I didn't get the "Stupid Horse" parity to Arnold's life, but in reading how the writer made that comparison it could  be an exceptable one. I think the author mentioned lots of areas that described the story with many examples and did a good job of comparing Arnold's life to anyone's who is dealing with the struggles of growing up in a difficult situation and knowing there could be more to life than what is immediately in front of them. All they have to do is want it bad enough. Having dreams visualized in his drawing wasn't enough. He had to leave. Which was also clearly stated in the paper.

Myron