To hell with Princeton. This "honorary degree" issue is beginning to give me a headache where I sit down! I have been captivated by Cather's use of language from the beginning. First paragraph "While the train flashed through never-ending miles of ripe wheat, by country towns and bright-flowered pastures and oak groves wilting in the sun, ..." "Ripe wheat", "never-ending miles" and "oak groves wilting". The imagery is captivating and creates a personal pathos for a land I have never seen. The panoramic view of the land defines its purpose. Hope is why the immigrants came. The land, so vividly painted by Cather's word choice, is really the main character in the story. Cather contrasts this hope to the harsh reality of existence that pervades the everyday life of the individuals. Cather seems to embrace this contrast with her eloquent style of depicting the details of daily living. She observes detail directly. Fourth chapter, end of 4th paragraph "It must have been the scarcity of detail in that tawny landscape that made detail so precious". I'm thinking that Eddie is thinking "mom, that's just rhetoric" (on my part). I love the book! And have from the beginning. I think there is some literary symbolism in Peter and Pavel's story. However, I will never be able to think of Peter and Pavel again without thinking of "which sister sj would have thrown to the wolves". A classic comment, classic. (I didn't say classy, I said classic). Anyway, we all know which one he would have thrown-all of them!