Book discussion: Fire and Hemlock, Parts Three and Four (and Coda)
Here is the second of two discussion posts for Fire and Hemlock, by Diana Wynne Jones. This post is currently public, so that anyone interested can read and join in the discussion, but if any of my f-listers would prefer that I f-lock the post instead, let me know and I will do that
( Read more... )
Yes! I have another whole set of questions about how the making-things-up works and how the "reality" they create is or isn't like what Tom and Polly imagine, which I will happily raise if no one else does. ;)
There's a sort of urgency to some of the questions you're asking, because there are some doubts in me that to some of them there are no good answers, no subtle but sure clues, and I'm not wild about that. So the book would go down in my estimation if I start thinking too hard and then decide there was no thoughtful answer to the riddles. ;)
Yeah, I suspected that there may not be an obvious answer within the story to some of these questions, either. But I'm also notorious for missing details or not picking up on hints -- especially on a first read-through -- so I thought it was worth throwing all this out there for discussion in case other people saw things that I didn't.
I've been thinking about this point over the last few days, actually. I have a strong sense that in a mystery novel, if some character solves the mystery on the basis of information that the reader never sees before the reveal, the author isn't playing fair. But how true is this in other genres? I'd personally prefer it if DWJ did salt her book with at least hints that could let the reader understand how her universe worked, but is that anything more than individual taste? It may be a legitimate choice for DWJ to leave some things mysterious; maybe she just doesn't care how some of the technical details play out, or maybe she actually likes the idea of readers constructing their own theories about how things worked.
But this question is interesting on a meta-level, too, given Tom's insistence, on Polly's first visit to London, that she think through how the Tom Lynn / Thomas Piper / Tan Coul magic works -- even when Polly wants to wave her hands and skip over the details. ;) (And I'm not even sure that Tom knows at this point quite how much it will actually matter, but as I said above, the mechanics of Nowhere is a whole 'nother comment thread. ;P )
Reply
But this question is interesting on a meta-level, too, given Tom's insistence, on Polly's first visit to London, that she think through how the Tom Lynn / Thomas Piper / Tan Coul magic works
I get the feeling - which may of course change if/when I read the book again - that there are enough clues in the book for the readers to construct perfectly plausible theories and reasonable answers about how the magic works, but not clues that make us certain if our theory is the only correct one.
On a meta-level I think Tom's insistence that Polly figures out how the magic works can be seen this way too. First Polly makes the story, then she figures out the details of why and how - not the other way around. A subtle suggestion that we as readers use what we learn in the story to figure out our version of the details?
Reply
I think that's a good way to look at it.
A subtle suggestion that we as readers use what we learn in the story to figure out our version of the details?
Could very well be!
Reply
Both excellent points and very calming, thanks. ;)
Reply
Leave a comment