In the very first paragraph of the book she says, “ A dog-it was a dog I saw for certain. Or thought I saw”. And then again on page 34 in the first paragraph Delores also says,” And, yes, it was then that I saw the dog, the second dog, the one I maybe only thought I saw.” I find it to be somewhat daffy that she is having such a hard time deciding whether she saw a dog or not. To me, even though it was a very traumatic time in her life, it seems like she should remember what she saw. She shows even more whackiness on the second page in the second paragraph when she says, “... or even an optical illusion, which, to be absolutely truthful, now seems likeliest”. Any normal, smart person would know that an optical illusion is not very reasonable, which is just another reason why Dolores Driscoll is possibly more than just a bit
In the very first paragraph of the book she says, “ A dog-it was a dog I saw for certain. Or thought I saw”. And then again on page 34 in the first paragraph Delores also says,” And, yes, it was then that I saw the dog, the second dog, the one I maybe only thought I saw.” I find it to be somewhat daffy that she is having such a hard time deciding whether she saw a dog or not. To me, even though it was a very traumatic time in her life, it seems like she should remember what she saw. She shows even more whackiness on the second page in the second paragraph when she says, “... or even an optical illusion, which, to be absolutely truthful, now seems likeliest”. Any normal, smart person would know that an optical illusion is not very reasonable, which is just another reason why Dolores Driscoll is possibly more than just a bit