The creativity is good, but the routine is too obvious. It is also amazing that female writers and characters can be in the same dimension. Everything the writer is supposed to be able to manipulate the character - including Harold's thoughts, consciousness, decisions, actions, such as his interest in the baker's first meeting, is the result of the author's description. But some details are contradictory. If you can control your thoughts, how can the characters have a sense of self-help and resistance? When the character decides to stay in the apartment and not come out, the author also designs a forced demolition plot to force him to come out. Wouldn't it be enough to simply describe "he suddenly wanted to go out again"? This also proves that the author can only partially control the characters, and the characters can still have autonomy, which seems to conflict with the image of God in the whole author. I really don't understand. It would be better to change the plot in the book written by a female writer to take care of Harold, the person with the same name in reality, and the story that happened in the book will also happen to Harold. The question that the second half wants to ask is something like "Are you saving a cat or a painting when the museum is on fire." The female writer finally gave up the chance to finish a great work and spared Harold. But to be honest, I didn't see any greatness and poetry in the ending that she planned to design "the hero was killed by a bus trying to save people". Exposing the absurd is not about inserting a coincidence (a watch).
View more about Stranger Than Fiction reviews
