Book discussion: Fire and Hemlock, Parts Three and Four (and Coda)

[shimotsuki]

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

Comments

[huldrejenta]

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

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?

[shimotsuki]

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.

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!