g. It might not have been in Palcys interest to develop his character any more than that since she was simply trying to shock the world with the social climate of South Africa. However, she neglects the personal in focusing on the social. The book portrays Ben as a person who is much easier to relate to than the movie Ben. In the novel, Ben is presented with more problems than he seems to face in the film. He has many more personal issues, he places the weight of many of the others who have been harmed on his own shoulders, and there is much more despair upon realizing that he cannot accomplish as much as he originally thought he could. Yet he continues to fight. This is much due to the influence that Professor Bruwer and Melanie have on him. It forces the reader to think, If this man, with all his obstacles, could continue then so can I. And the way to do it is by following the guidelines set up by these two characters.Phil Bruwers first appearance in the novel makes one think of nature, which is just what he represents- that which is real. He is working in his garden, he is dirty, his hair uncombed- nothing like the clean, suited men working for the law. He is man is his most basic form. The professor does not get caught up in politics. He sees politics as the abstract, and according to him, it only leaves a whole nation running after the Idea (Brink 187). He says that it becomes all System and no God, and that the only way to escape that is to stick with what is real, with what is flesh and bone and earth. The only time that Palcy seems to touch upon this is with the lawyer, Mr. McKenzie. When Ben first meets him in the film, Mr. McKenzie makes a reference to his plants- similar to that which begins Bens conversation with the professor in the novel.Phil Bruwer keeps Ben grounded, so to speak. He warns Ben against the trap that Ben comes dangerously close to falling into. Bens ego plays a major role in his motivation...
