Susan’s comment > Likes and Comments
1 like · Like
I'll start by saying that I did not care for thos book. Your comment about the three women being the same one was an interesting one. It's the first time I've seen someone point this out. While I hated this book, I loved your interpretation of it and I wonder how it would have affectd my take on this book had I read it with that in mind.
Yes!! The three women were indeed 'incarnations' of one another. But I don't really understand how he gained a new perspective of the events that occurred in his childhood. All he did was recount them, with the understanding of what had been lost and what not in the process. I didn't find the images fascinating either. The backcountry could have been amazingly brought to life, but it hardly was. But then again, this is my opinion and yours can be every bit contrary to mine. Have an amazing day.
Ever since seeing the comment of the three women being one, I've been curious as to where that was explained in the book. How did I miss that or was I just supposed to make the connection. I was forcing myself to read ths after a certain point so I could have easily missed something aong the way. Can someone please explain?
This was not explained anywhere in the book as such. However, this topic has garnered plenty of interest on all online forums. Even though this is not specified anywhere, there are hints in the story that can help us infer this connection. When the protagonist initially approaches the Hempstock family, Lettie volunteers to go alone and send the flea back to where it came from. Contrary to what would generally be expected from the elders of a household, Lettie's demand was not countered or refuted by anyone. In the entire story, the only difference between the three women was that of their powers, with Old Mrs. Hempstock having the most power/experience among the three. In various instances, the protagonist also points out that Lettie appeared to have been of the same age for ever. As I am sure you could make out yourself, Lettie always knew what to do in every situation. They were also similar in the way they carried themselves around the household. Hope this helped. I am sure there are plenty of other people who can do a better job of explaining this to you.
Thanks for the explanation Sampark. It explains it but also brings up other questions about the middle woman. I really wanted to like this book but it just made no sense to me.
As you must have gathered from my post, you are not alone. It did not make sense to me either and from the looks of it, many others found it to be a mess too.
There was a point where he mentioned that the crone was gone but wasn't really gone and a point where he was in the ocean back at the beginning of time where he realized the women were one in the same. I can't pin point it better since I read it a few months ago from a library book and returned it. Also Licha sometimes modern attempts at mythology are hard puzzles to put together without knowing the final picture before you begin. Sometimes it is only with repeated readings that all the pieces seem to fit together seamlessly. I do not pretend to know all the pieces of this book but the book made me think all the way through and these discussions have added to my understanding and appreciation.
Thanks Susan. I do have to say that I was Reading a lot of it without focusing once I lost interest but it seems like the three women being one would be something major. Thanks for trying to explain.
And thus we find the gist of your discontent. Gaiman almost always uses deities as his basis for characters. In this case you have the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden...
When I read it, it was obvious to me Gaiman was using the Maiden, Mother, Crone archetypes for these characters. But anyone who isn't familiar with them would certainly have difficulty understanding much of this book. One of the things I liked about the book is it doesn't talk down to the reader and doesn't spell everything out for you. But if you don't have a certain background to start, it would be tough to read it and like it, I imagine.
back to top
date
newest »
newest »
message 1:
by
Licha
(new)
Jan 03, 2015 04:51PM
I'll start by saying that I did not care for thos book. Your comment about the three women being the same one was an interesting one. It's the first time I've seen someone point this out. While I hated this book, I loved your interpretation of it and I wonder how it would have affectd my take on this book had I read it with that in mind.
reply
|
flag
Yes!! The three women were indeed 'incarnations' of one another. But I don't really understand how he gained a new perspective of the events that occurred in his childhood. All he did was recount them, with the understanding of what had been lost and what not in the process. I didn't find the images fascinating either. The backcountry could have been amazingly brought to life, but it hardly was. But then again, this is my opinion and yours can be every bit contrary to mine. Have an amazing day.
Ever since seeing the comment of the three women being one, I've been curious as to where that was explained in the book. How did I miss that or was I just supposed to make the connection. I was forcing myself to read ths after a certain point so I could have easily missed something aong the way. Can someone please explain?
This was not explained anywhere in the book as such. However, this topic has garnered plenty of interest on all online forums. Even though this is not specified anywhere, there are hints in the story that can help us infer this connection. When the protagonist initially approaches the Hempstock family, Lettie volunteers to go alone and send the flea back to where it came from. Contrary to what would generally be expected from the elders of a household, Lettie's demand was not countered or refuted by anyone. In the entire story, the only difference between the three women was that of their powers, with Old Mrs. Hempstock having the most power/experience among the three. In various instances, the protagonist also points out that Lettie appeared to have been of the same age for ever. As I am sure you could make out yourself, Lettie always knew what to do in every situation. They were also similar in the way they carried themselves around the household. Hope this helped. I am sure there are plenty of other people who can do a better job of explaining this to you.
Thanks for the explanation Sampark. It explains it but also brings up other questions about the middle woman. I really wanted to like this book but it just made no sense to me.
As you must have gathered from my post, you are not alone. It did not make sense to me either and from the looks of it, many others found it to be a mess too.
There was a point where he mentioned that the crone was gone but wasn't really gone and a point where he was in the ocean back at the beginning of time where he realized the women were one in the same. I can't pin point it better since I read it a few months ago from a library book and returned it. Also Licha sometimes modern attempts at mythology are hard puzzles to put together without knowing the final picture before you begin. Sometimes it is only with repeated readings that all the pieces seem to fit together seamlessly. I do not pretend to know all the pieces of this book but the book made me think all the way through and these discussions have added to my understanding and appreciation.
Thanks Susan. I do have to say that I was Reading a lot of it without focusing once I lost interest but it seems like the three women being one would be something major. Thanks for trying to explain.
And thus we find the gist of your discontent. Gaiman almost always uses deities as his basis for characters. In this case you have the Maiden, the Mother, and the Crone. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maiden...
When I read it, it was obvious to me Gaiman was using the Maiden, Mother, Crone archetypes for these characters. But anyone who isn't familiar with them would certainly have difficulty understanding much of this book. One of the things I liked about the book is it doesn't talk down to the reader and doesn't spell everything out for you. But if you don't have a certain background to start, it would be tough to read it and like it, I imagine.
