Page 1 of 1

The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 12 Jan 2015, 22:27
by Scott
The following is a discussion question from the publisher for the January 2015 book of the month, "The Snow Child" by Eowyn Ivey. Please do not read this topic until you have finished the book because this topic may contain spoilers.

Jack and Mabel's only child is stillborn. How does this affect Mabel's relationship with Faina?

To me, sometimes Mabel came off as desperate. Her relationship with the Faina reminded me of the way the cliche overly attached girlfriend acts towards her flaky crush. :shock: What do you think?

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 13 Jan 2015, 07:53
by gali
Being a mother, I could understand Mabel and relate to her. She did sometimes came off as desperate, but it was understandable.

lol an amusing comparison. I didn't think she was that bad... :D

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 13 Jan 2015, 10:30
by Fran
LOL ... without doubt there is a desperation in Mabel and this makes her overprotective of Faina. She is scared, as any parent of a still born child would be, and cannot even contemplate having to face the pain of losing a second child.
I can see what you mean, Scott, in that Mabel almost kills Faina becasuse she so desperately want her safe and her over protectiveness could easily have driven Faina away.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 14 Jan 2015, 20:35
by HoneyB
Mabel was heartbroken and still depressed over the death of her first/only child. She was very fearful of having to repeat that process with Faina. Once Faina became tangible to Jack and Mabel, Mabel was desperate to keep her. She wasn't a replacement, but Faina was able to heal something in both Jack and Mable.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 04 Feb 2015, 20:45
by Lilapo9
I feel that Mabel's first child being a stillborn reflects the fact that Mabel was so young. She really wasn't ready for the whole motherhood experience. I feel that was shown when she couldn't even face the burial of the child. By the time Faina came along she had matured to the point where she could be motherly. It was interesting to watch how she formed the attachment to Faina and how that attachment in itself helped her to grow through the rest of the grieving cycle so that she could move on. It was also interesting to see her reaction towards the end of the story when her acceptance of the situation and Faina's passing occurred. She had reached a point of acceptance.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 06 Feb 2015, 23:00
by Jenie
Faina was a recovering pill that Mabel got addicted to. It was very painful for Mabel to have a still born child. It left her devasted and thereby leading to her desperately clinging to Faina. Faina filled the void that was left in Mabel's heart from the first child- maybe not completely, but she soothed it. I thought Mabel loved Faina to the point that she was obsessed with her. She imagined her child in Faina.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 12 Feb 2015, 12:07
by SharisseEM
Faina is like hope to Mabel. Having already lost one child the way she did, Faina's presence is hope for the distraught Mabel. In an attempt to protect that shred of hope, Mabel became overprotective which was both good and bad. Good because it showed her love for Faina but bad because well...Faina could have left to escape her.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 21 Feb 2015, 14:47
by Heather
It was obvious that losing their own child affected Mabel greatly. It's why they moved to the Alaskan wilderness; so they wouldn't have to be around the knowing looks and watch other people enjoy their children. So, when she got another chance, as I think she saw it, with Faina, she was desperate to hold on.

Re: The first child vs. Faina?

Posted: 04 Jul 2016, 18:19
by Taylor Razzani
I agree that the loss of her first child made Mabel want to control what happened to Faina, she just wanted her to be safe but she did come off as controlling and desperate at times. But when Faina grew older it seems like Mabel let go of a lot of that and was able to play more of a supporting role.