: Re: Polly and Nina (Fire and Hemlock, was Hexwood

Hallie O'Donovan hallieod at indigo.ie
Thu Feb 7 16:06:10 EST 2002


>  > >Ivy's appearance was something I'd never really
>>  >thougth about. My
>>  >mental image is the later, dressing-gowned, Ivy,
>>  >to seed. The
>>  >resemblance of their names has been remarked on
>>  >before, realising
>>  >that Ivy was originally a good looking, elegantly
>>  >groomed woman,
>>  >gives some plausibilty to the idea that that Ivy
>>  >was a
>>  >descendant of the Leroys. It also ties in nicely
>>  >the way that
>>  >Laurel was able to get at Ivy so well.
>and Hallie replied
>>  Oh, surely Laurel wasn't the *only* nicely groomed
>woman in the town? :)
>>  I think I'm just resistant to your interesting
>theory, Ven, as I dislike
>>  Laurel (and her real-life type) so.
>  Unfortunately, she doesn't seem to
>>  need blood ties to be able to get at people, does
>she?  Of course, you
>>  could say that everyone we see her getting at IS
>related, so I've no
>>  evidence to back up my quibble.
>its a perfectly good quibble. However what I forgot to
>say is that this theory also depends on the assumption
>that Polly got her looks from Ivy and we already
>accept the Polly is a similar type to Laurel idea.
>Don't we (unsure who "we " is at this point!).

Yup.  I should have seen that straight off.  But.  I've been thinking 
about this quite a bit and couldn't figure out why I just didn't like 
it.  Finally the word "sterile" came into my head with regard to 
Laurel, and that did it.  Whatever about the possibility of Faerie 
breeding with humans, which I'm not even sure I buy (in F&H that is), 
I just cannot see Laurel having children - certainly not with 
inferior humans.  Yes, she married Tom, but that was all about 
getting his life, right?

I'm not trying to suggest that I think your idea is wrong, just that 
it doesn't work for me.  Mind you, someone will now point out 
something in the book which backs up the exact opposite.

>Lots snipped where me and Nat discuss Nina then Hallie
>>  Hmmm again.  I'd tend to agree with vulgar - or at
>least I think I
>>  would.  Brash anyway.
>Brash I would agree with. It sounds less judgemental
>to me than vulgar. I suspect that my Mum would have
>said Nina looked common --- if she'd forgotten that
>it's common to say "common".

Lol.  I'd pretty much equate common with vulgar (and both with tacky, 
which my Southern (US) grandmother used a lot), so maybe that's why I 
didn't see vulgar as too harsh to describe Nina.


To unsubscribe, email dwj-request at suberic.net with the body "unsubscribe".
Visit the archives at http://suberic.net/dwj/list/

More information about the Dwj mailing list