The problem with saying that the story is set in the mid-19th century is that it doesn’t fit with other aspects of the story. For example, if the MC’s grandfather was in the 1.5th wave of settlers, and considering that the first wave was in the mid 17th century, how is it that in the span of 50-60 years we’ve advanced two whole centuries? As well as that at the end of the demo (for my MC) you’re sent out to the unexplored areas of the continent, but again how is it that in the mid-19th century the continent hasn’t been mapped out or explored? Then there’s already all of what I mentioned previously that fits better in the 18th century - the supremacy of the metropole and the nobility (to such a degree as is seen), the fact that (if I remember correctly) the story says there is only one university, etc etc [see previous post].
When I talk about the writing being distinctly 21st century I used what I wrote afterwards as examples, but here are some expansions on that so that you better understand, whilst addressing the other points:
A major example of the sort of rudeness I mentioned before is when the MC is at his little get together with his grandfather when Lazaro, who was invited, takes the stage with his teen twin, then proceeds to insult the MCs grandfather and his title, then the MC gets physically dragged over to Lazaro who then asks about his willingness to kill. Firstly, Lazaro and his teenage twin would always have to defer to the authority of seniority and family, something common in the 19th century, and would most likely come with a senior family member, especially if one of them is still in their teenage years. Secondly, they were invited by the host to the event, to then go and insult the host, in front of a crowd of people some of which the host is trying to partner with the MC, is one of the gravest insults someone can receive, even today imagine inviting someone to talk at your birthday then they insult you wholeheartedly in front of your friends and your partner. Thirdly, Lazaro insults the title of your grandfather, something nobles, and later upper class gentlemen, have dueled to the death because of as late as WW1. Fourth, to get dragged over somewhere to someone else by a person you have never even seen before would be unacceptable by today’s standards, then, and fifth, you get asked questions which were not those acceptable in public discourse by someone who just insulted the most senior member of your family, as well as insulting their title. This is what I mean when I said “the tone of those speaking has little formality or pleasantry, often being rude or odd by our standards and unacceptable by 18th century standards”.
Prior to the 21st century there were very specific rules an individual of the nobility, aristocracy, or in general the upper classes had to live by. Paramount of them was how formal and polite they and their interactions were supposed to be. Again and again we see some non-aristocratic or landed individual casually address the MC, a member of the nobility. The nobility does not associate with commoners, the nobility must always be referred to by their correct title, the nobility were always taught, and sure, of their superiority above the common rabble, and they would not tolerate anything else - they were superior to almost everyone and they acted in such a manner, their treatment of servants, maids, and other such individuals as akin to furniture exemplifies this.
There’s more but this is already a very long message.
The reason why apartments are out of place is because they only really became a thing in the mid 19th century and were quite literally homes for the lowest of the low. If the setting is the mid 19th century then it makes more sense, but then again you run into many other problems with setting and time.
Racism throughout time, and in different places, has changed significantly. For example the Germans in the 19th century talked about a superior German culture, inferior Eastern culture and that the African peoples had no culture, whilst in Britain and America racism was based on perceived scientific facts, and earlier still racism was a mixture of all sorts of perceived justifications. In the story there’s a lot of talk about ‘enslaving’ the ‘Wilderfolk’ and that these people need to be repressed/deserve it etc. This is a more modern sort of trend in this thought, as prior to the 20th century racism manifested in a more paternalistic manner, for example there would be talk about needing to guide a perceived inferior race, uplift them to civilisation, make them human by teaching them - this was the justification and attitude of the US government in regards to Native Americans for example, which fits into your colonial story.
I should talk a bit about the “Wilderfolk” as well. If these are the half-human half-animal hybrids that are mentioned in the story then I would strongly encourage you to change this completely. If you’re trying to tell a story about racism and then make those subjected to said racism some half-human half-animal species you run into a world of trouble. Scientific racism in our world is based on false premises and is in no way true, but in the world of this story it would be legitimate as the Wilderfolk are quite literally half-animal, they are biologically different to humans in such an incredible manner that one could apply science to delineate between man and Wilderfolk and use it as a justification for repression. Having half-animal creatures be the analogue of the slaves of US history is an absolutely terrible idea.
The American Revolution comparison is made because you parallel the colony of your story and the Thirteen Colonies/USA, so it’s unavoidable - this is a comparison that will always be made because of the parallelism you use. I also say it because it isn’t really shown why there is opposition, or even how much there is, and if it has always been this way how has so much time passed without any trouble.
You say that “If you even “deviate” slightly from the “Natural Order” then you are indiscriminately killed, jailed, or sent into forced exile by the secret police”, but how come we quite literally have a noble be roundly insulted almost directly after that page because they didn’t reform enough, all this being in an open gathering no less, and we learn that one of the places the MC can go to study is known for radical activity? It doesn’t really make sense, and the story doesn’t show this repression.
I know this is long, but I was questioned about what I wrote, so I replied. There’s probably more that could be said but this is already enough to bring my point across.
Edit: The reason I go on so much about time and date of the setting is explained in my previous post. The setting clashes with the writing, leading to problems in tone, immersion, atmosphere, story, continuity, etc etc. This is explaining in response to those questions why the story appears to be set in a certain time frame, and outside of this time frame the story doesn’t work, yet at the same time the language and writing is centuries apart from both what the story suggests and what the author has said.
