I had a lot of fun reading Fire and Hemlock, and if you like DWJ, don’t miss it. I won’t review it, but I’d like to make a reading guide that will allow me to remember how things work. The mechanics are not simple, but the book doesn’t need the exposure of its guts to be enjoyed. Except perhaps for the ending. That bit is confusing.
For DWJ's thoughts on her book, read her essay on heroics in Fire & Hemlock. I rehash lots of what she says there.
Let’s start with the underlying myths: 1) Tam Lin and Thomas the Rhymer, 2)Hero and Leander, and 3) Cupid and Psyche.
Those three myths give how the plot should be read on the emotional level. It is a story of a female Hero in a personal relationship. Tam Lin gives the basic plot: a previous attachment to the Queen of the Fairies, solved by holding on to true love.
Cupid and Psyche suggest that the Hero will commit a fault. Like in the myth, it’s spying (unlike in Tam Lin, where holding on too much is encouraged), and must afterwards seek her beloved. It introduces the theme of the seeker. Tom has Cupid’s attributes (think the bow from the cello and his deficient eyesight) and shows Laurel as Venus, the powerful source of his gifts. It’s also important to understand that, like Cupid’s allegory of profane and divine love, Polly’s journey is that of locating in herself the heroic bits and living up to their standard. That’s essentially why she can never withdraw what she says at the end, despite a priori being free from Laurel’s influence. It would mean the failure of her heroic journey.
The story of Hero and Leander gives the rhythm of Tom and Polly’s relationship: they meet time and time again but are each time separated, and it suggests that he must go to hell at the end, and that she’ll follow him there. One is reminded of the myth of Orpheus, another musician, who must seek his beloved in Hades, and loses her due to lack of patience. But the timing is off: he’s the musician, but she’s the seeker, and the fault is earlier in the plot and thus was already committed when the lovers are in hell. It's completely different to go to hell for your sins than to stay there, being previously innocent. Here, her betrayal frees him. Orpheus doesn’t give plot points, but we recognize the common theme.
The structure and tone are from 1)The Odyssey, 2) TS Eliot’s Four Quartets, 3)1001 Nights.
The Odyssey gives its structure as heroic travel told in flashbacks. It also goes back to the hell theme- Odysseus must go to Hades after leaving Circe, the witch-goddess who murdered her husband. Of course, Laurel is a witch goddess who murders husbands.
TS Eliot is the underlying music that is either turned up or down when DWJ needs it. It gives the garden, the pond, the string quartet, and the final wordplay. It also gives the literal key to the resolution and the general obsession with the passage of time. It's the most obvious source of the tone.
Lastly, 1001 nights introduces the idea of storytelling as lifesaving mean, the blur between reality and imagination (of which Eliot says “human kind/ Cannot bear much reality.”), and the idea that the female character is fated to save the male character. That appears also in Tam Lin. It's so problematic that you better throw in the weight of as many myths as possible to make it more palatable.
By now it should be obvious that Fire & Hemlock strongly relies on trinities. First, the trinity of the setting, based on the permutations of “here” and “now” from the vases. It may seem complicated, but I think this is what DWJ wanted to talk about: imagination, story telling, story weaving.
- The “here-now”, where Tom is an adult cellist and Polly is a child who reads books and has friends.
- The “nowhere”, where Lauren rules and where the train leads. It’s clearly reminiscent of hell, including the persephonic episode where Polly refuses to eat and drink.
- The “where now?”, inhabited by Hero, Tan Could, Tan Audel, Tan Hanivar and Tan Thare, the giant, the ironmonger, and everything they imagine together.
Each setting is build in with the others like interlocking spirals.
There are also triunvirates of characters. The one of the “here-now” is deceptively important. Fire and Hemlock is, unlike many fantasies, a book of personal relationships. The characterizations of Polly’s friends is given much attention. We have Nina (the dumb one), Polly at the center, and Fiona (the clever one). We also have the trinity of ages: Granny (wisdom), Ivy (couch potato) and Polly (the seeker)
Ivy is the "here-now" Laurel. They are similar in Laurel’s mistrust of imagination- Tom is punished with having what he imagines become true and come back to bite him. That's how he becomes True Thomas; unlike Thomas the Rhymer, who was true without threats. Laurel confuses facts and fiction at will. It’s also what Ivy does. Again, the blur between reality and imagination is a major theme. Polly's father and his partner, who have outed imagination from their life, serve that purpose too. And of course, their names also bind them together: Laurel is the latin name of the bay leaf.
The triad Laurel/Ivy/Polly has the interest of not only evoking the old idea of maiden/mature woman/crone, but of being very close to a particular celebrated triple goddess, that composed of Persephone, Demeter and Hekate. The parallels are obvious: Persephone travels between worlds, Demeter is perpetually abandoned, Hekate is the goddess of witchcraft. Despite her rigged gifts, Laurel does keep her bargains, and that’s why Polly starts opportunely to remember her "where now?" life. Her pact with Laurel was to forget, but she was to be left alone, and Laurel can’t keep her part because of Seb and Leroy.
And so, Laurel is the queen of the fairies, Venus, Circe, Calypso, Hades, Hekate, all of whom similar archetypes. But who is Polly? Diana filled her book with so much subtext that the main character must constantly switch roles. And hence the name Polly, “many”. She is the crucible for all of DWJ's intertextual plays. Tom? Cupid, Tam Lin, but I'd argue he's mainly Thomas the Rhymer, as the name says.
Thomas the Rhymer shares many plot points. The queen of the fairies in the ballad shows him the way to three lands (heaven, hell and home), the theme of eating in hell is revisited, as is the ability to return home from fairyland, and truth is essential to be able to walk one of those roads. Thomas was a prophet; and that's one reason why Tom always seems to know so much more than Polly.
And boom! One way to understand the ending is right there: (1) Like Thomas the Rhymer, who is given the choice between prophecy and the harp, Thomas must be true to walk the way back home. That implies giving up the cello, giving up imagination (the horse, a common metaphor), and also giving up Polly (he must be true to Laurel too in order to fulfill his contract).
And so we have come to the ending. There's one interpreation above, but don't worry, there's many more. This is also how it can be understood:
(2). As the literal illustration of Eliot.
“To arrive where you are, to get from where you are not,
You must go by a way wherein there is no ecstasy.
In order to arrive at what you do not know
You must go by a way which is the way of ignorance.
In order to possess what you do not possess
You must go by the way of dispossession.[...]
And where you are is where you are not.”
She’s in nowhere: she must apply the poem and do the opposite of what she should do, that’s to say, holding on. But that, in the novel, is based on the knowledge of the internal logic of another work (the Quartets) and is too unsatisfying an ending for a story with emotional resonance. I understand that bit of the Quarters as a meditation on change and how it integrates in time: it's as surprised as any mathematician by our ability to go from 0 to 1 and to be in 0 until we are in 1. Although great poetry, I don't think that it can really be applied to Fire and Hemlock, because it goes in any case from 1 to 0 and because we are at the climax of the novel, where a reflection on change (a theme that is present, of course, in the measure that it is a YA novel, but not really dominant) would blend badly with the heroic background. Myths never change; Ulysses, Cupid, even Psyche, learn but don't change. So I do think that DWJ took the chance to use the poem as a literal guide, but only as an in-joke.
Let’s look at it a bit more, using now a narrative key and not a literary one:
(3) We see just what we already knew: that Laurel rigs her games. The same way that she inverted her gift to Thomas, she builds a duel based on weakness. The less you have, the more you win. Thomas doesn’t understand it in time (though Ann does) and Polly must strip him of what he has. That works within the walls of the novel, but is less interesting in itself. Unless maybe we think that he does gather his inner strength once he has abandoned the props, and, as the epigraph to Eliot says,
“The way upward and the way downward are the same.”
That is a moral way to understand the ending. Do I think it's the one we should chose? Honestly, no. I don't think DWJ is as big on fables as she is on myths. I think we should seek the key to our ending in a way that it resolves the problem between blurring reality and imagination and Polly's heroic journey, both of which stand at the heart of the novel. Change and inner strenght do not. And I don't find in the book any clue to Tom gathering his inner strenght once Polly betrays him: he just goes and wins.
(4) Or we can stick to following the lines of the narration, but blame the fact that he sinks not on the duel itself but on his original gift from Laurel, that always turns what he summons against him. Read that way, Tom's lucky not to have brought Polly on his behalf, because Leroy might have called on Laurel herself. But I'm not sure how to interpret the rules of the duel in that light. Why set rules at all? It seems redundant.
(5) Another way to see it would be with the pond as an allegory of imagination: the cello, Laurel's gift (personified in the horse) and Polly bring Tom closer to it, but if he disappears in there he can never come back to the "here now" (artist's descent into madness, etc.) I find I like this interpretation because I think it correlates nicely with real life and with the themes of the novel: Tom's struggles and strength must be focused on his job (music), his relationship (Polly), and his hobbies (storytelling), but if he goes in them to deep he loses his foothold on reality. That's a real problem directly deriving from his strenghts; hence the rules of the duel. His gift goes against him because it is a gift from a goddess, never one to make the person that receives it less special or less genius-y.
The ways I find to understand the ending are not entirely integrable but they don't need to be. And it could be interesting to seek a different way of understanding the ending for every set of rules: the ones of the where-now, the nowhere and the here-now, but that's a job for another day.
And do Tom and Polly end up together, despite the fact that she has to keep meaning what she said? Sure. It just means that she has to keep loving Tom enough to let him go, or she’ll lose him. It’s the same curse under which any sane relationship operates.
You see, I like the ballad of Tam Lin. Janet is awesome. But it is the story of a woman pregnant by a married man (unhappily married to the Queen of the Fairies, but still) holding on to him despite him being horrible to her (he turns into monsters. Uuuh.). That accounts for the fact that the Queen gets the ominous last words in the Ballad: there can never be a happy ending in store for Janet and Tam Lin on those premises. That’s also why Tam Lin is such a handy ballad to invert.
DWJ knows that, and she introduces a prop: the Fairy King. In other words, the Queen cheated too! Leroy is the way out for Tom because he hurt him, both textually in the duel and in the context of the ballad. If he hadn’t, Tom couldn’t be a moral hero and Polly couldn’t operate the crucial change from holding on to letting go. And Tom is a moral hero; that’s the meaning of him saying “I did my best” at the end, and the interest of the character of Leslie, who has no morals and serves as a counterpoint.
And how exactly does Polly rejects Tom? She tells him the exact truth; and that’s important, because their relationship previously had been based on fusing reality and imagination. DWJ has already said with Ivy and Laurel that that won’t work. At the end of the book, they leave the “nowhere” and the “here now?” and start to live in reality. That’s why book-reading fades away from the narration when Polly grows into adulthood.
And thus Diana says: storytime is over, the book is ending and we have to go back to real life; keep your facts straight, and go beyond holding on to not clinging. But she never goes so far as to write that down; she hardly ever writes anything important explicitly. That frequently makes it seem like she abuses of deus ex machina, even when she doesn't, but it helps understanding her stories on a more intuitive level. I do think that Fire & Hemlock is satisfactorily ended.