Sarmiento's writing style doesn't particularly light my board, but I enjoy how he shows all of the psychology behind Facundo, as well as behind the dictator's mind in general. Examining him from all angles gives a much greater perspective of a Sociopath's mind. He went into great detail about the man, how he enjoys gambling, but rigs his games so that if anyone beats him, they're severly punished (i.e. being hurt or murdered).
Though I like how Sarmiento intends to fully depict the other side of his argument, his descriptions of Facundo still seem so one-sided, as though he's just sort of making everything up about him as he goes along. I'd like to know how this book impacted its readers at the time and how they responded to it. Was it truly revolutionary? He just sounds like a guy with opinions, sometimes uninformed ones, attempting to display his rage and disgust for South America and its political regimes. There's nothing particularly wrong with that, but I'd like to know how much he researched and how much of this is truly what Facundo's like. Sarmiento doesn't show Facundo's vulnerable side or at least a complete three hundred sixty degree look at who a dictator, or a psychopath, really is, and how they come to be. He mentions hobbies and what he does, as if this is a tale of a man who came to power, but in the context of an old western or something.
Maybe he couldn't have made the character too blatantly paralleling who he was based off of, otherwise he'd be discovered almost instantly. I'm not sure, but I'd like to know more about who Sarmiento is and what kind of impact he had on society during his time.