Two for writing, three for nature references, would like to round up on principle that more books should celebrate experiencing the outdoors but the story was written a little too wrong for that from my perspective. Here's why:

At first I expected this to end in tragedy. A tiny orphan girl had to run over a mile one way to a forest to bring help to her "brother" in the thunder and rain. The helper whined the whole way about miserable orphans and don't be scared of the rain even those the girl expressed no fear. Is this normal for Russian literature? Seems so so far, by the handful of short stories and one novel I've read: embrace misery. Onward, she had welts on the back of her neck while the cobbler who helped the brother said it was probably a certain type of fly. Then she almost passed out while the boy was excited marching along and asking questions about the world and the cobbler was more than happy to disseminate knowledge--both overlook the girl's condition, and she ruminates about how she can't stop because she has no one.

That is why I thought the story was only "okay." Turns out the title is more true to the plot than how easy it was to misread hints in the story. It also could've been written in a way to better emphasize the "point" of the story. I say "point" in quotes because the story continues to be interpreted by the little girl who suffers physically and is ignored. It seems to be besides the point to be in love with nature and all the fascinating details of natural history, as would be the interpretation of the day in the country by the older boy or the cobbler. ( )