Luke and Astrid

Ven ven at
Sun Jul 9 21:01:07 EDT 2000

On Thu, 6 Jul 2000 Irina  wrote

Jessie wrote
> > > I always thought Astrid's wistfulness was because what happened between
> > > Siegfried and Brunnhilde was something which matched her own dreams,
> > > somehow; the idea that love and the demands of love could be so beautiful
> > > as to make any amount of unhappiness worthwhile.
> That's something that's also passed my mind. What Astrid needs is
> someone who makes her feel worthwhile, which she doesn't get in the
> household she lives in - there's a whole culture of making other
> people feel worthless there. I get a feeling that Astrid is there
> more or less by mistake: she may even have married Ronald because she
> thought that she could change him, or his situation.

I must admit I don't quite get the idea that Astrid is thinking about 
the Brunnhilde story.. From the text there is no direct connection.  
Astrid  has obviously pieced together something of what is going 
on but she isn't told what David found out at the Hall of Fun nor 
does he explain where he eventually found the hammer. Its David 
who sees Brunnhilde and is stricken by her sadness. And its David 
who equates Astrid's expression with that of the lady in the flames 
(p174). In that he resolves to comfort her and she accepts this I 
think they can help each other to have a sense of worth. I've always 
imagined that once Astrid starts to work for a living she'll find she 's 
better at it than she expected and do quite well for herself (how 
about manageress of Miss Ashbury's?). In my original Astrid post 
(re Astrid 2 jun) this part of the outcome was what I referred to as 
the rewards of mixing with Gods. The downside for David is the 
effect on him of Brunhilde's sadness. In my interpretaion things are 
more complex for Astrid. I do see it as a sort of karmic comeback 
for how she has lived so far -- a loveless marriage with financial 
security as opposed to passion with no security at all. Hmm I'm 
wondering if the Frys (the fertility gods that is) had anything to do 
with this, they did say "what shall we do with this one?) on p 118.

> When we first meet Luke, he indeed seems to be in his mid-teens, but
> at the end of the book he has matured considerably, and I'd give him
> an apparent age of twenty at least. Astrid would be, what,
> thirty-five? Does it say anywhere? And she's only had the wrong man
> until now, so I can imagine that the age difference is not important
> to her as long as the man is the right one (or at least *a* right
> one).
> > However Aunt Dot refers to him as "that charming and 
> > nicely spoken child." p72. 

>Aunt Dot seems to be the type of old woman who calls everybody 
under > thirty a child :-)  

Quite likely. What I meant was that Dot probably sees all teenage 
boys as yobs so Luke would take care to appear younger.

Philip's post brought to mind what I think of as the fundamental 
Loki problem, his likeableness versus his wickedness, something 8 
days conveys very well. Its hard not to like the trickster who takes 
on the Giants with Thor, then he has to spoil things by getting 
Baldur killed and refusing to be sorry!. I find myself making 
excuses, "the earlier myths are more authentic", "Who liked boring 
Baldur anyway" (forgive the childish note, I really fell for Loki when I 
was around 8) "he was only speaking his mind, no need for that 
nasty lip-sewing." etc. Actually  he's the template of the kind of 
man one ought to know better than to fall for -- the bastard formerly 
known as the cad.:-)     

> I can see where people are coming from, as regards a relationship between Luke
> and Astrid.  I had never read that into the ending before - I'll have to read it
> again soon!

Always well worth it...
> I said
> >> Here's a by the way, my friend and Dwj fan Sarah bought a copy of
> >> Power of Three for 39p in a Bridlington junkshop. I said I'd post it
> >> and make people jealous.
> >and Irina wrote 
> > The Puffin one with the proper picture on the cover? I have a copy,
> > fortunately, but it's the ugly new one. Yes, I'm jealous :-)
> then Philip said
> Proper picture?  I'm afraid I still think of the one on the hardback as the
> proper picture (gloat, gloat!), but I agree the early Puffin had a much better
> picture than the one I saw in a 2nd-hand bookshop a year or two ago.
Its the one with a surprised looking boy on the cover, pub1987ish, 
and apparently never read. 
To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at

More information about the Dwj mailing list