First and foremost, your title bar still says "Part I: A Stranger at the Burrow Gates". I don't know if you knew that or not, but I know I tend to miss blatant stuff like that all the time so better safe than sorry.
This burrow was well-built. Orpek could tell purely because he wasn’t covered in a layer of dust from the ceiling.
He stood, quiet eyes sweeping the walls of the burrow’s main hall as he shrugged on his belt.
This may be something that was in the first part too, but I'm noticing it now and it's a bit confusing. Assuming Orpek is talking about the individual home he's in, why is it also called a burrow? As far as I could tell, the village-locale is called a burrow (e.g. "A Stranger at the Burrow's Gate"), so why are the houses also called burrows? I know they're also literally burrows, but it's a tad confusing as a reader and it makes me wonder why a society wouldn't use different names because I know if I was a mouse I'd be pretty annoyed by it. But then again, I'm a choleric little man, so who knows.
they knew funerals better than we knew births.
This happens a few times in this section where it suddenly shifts to first person. Who is this? Who's speaking? I want to say it's Anhol, but we've already gotten "his" statements in it, so who is this? Unless this is a "question for future parts" of course. But then that raises the question, if this isn't Orpek (which I'm assuming it's not for a multitude of reasons), why do the speak like an outsider yet are a part of the crowd (using "they" to refer to the mice of the burrow)? It's established in the first part that outsiders coming in isn't exactly a common thing, so why not make note of the new speaker at some point if they're an outsider?
On to your questions:
1. I'd say so. Not much to say here, I think it's held in reverence.
2. I never got that impression / vibe from it, so I'd say no. I actually kind of like the more burdened take on a knight errant thing he's got going. Like at one point he may have been Quixotic, but has had to face the harshness of the world. Presumptuous on my part, but it's what I'm seeing in it at the moment.
3. No it really isn't all that consistent, but that's not an issue I'd say. As you said, he's distraught, he's grieving over the death of someone he clearly cares about. Of course he isn't going to be the aloof narrator he was in the first, not entirely. But this does bring up a critique I have: why does he care so much? We've gotten brief glimpses into what Efishti meant to him, but it's still a bit lean on their relationship. I'd like to know more to justify Anhol's sorrow. Doesn't have to be in this piece, but I'd like to see it happen at some point. If the death of Efishti is a part of Anhol's hero's journey wheel, then significance has to be there.
4. I don't think it's too long. Felt easy to read and digest in one sitting.
Keep up the good work, good luck!
