[gmw]

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...] Because as soon as Mr. Frost was introduced, I thought, Oh no, he can't be Jack, can he? Surely Gaiman isn't going there. And then, lo and behold. Also, the other Jacks came later, I believe, and weren't immediately recognizable--I never heard of Jack Ketch, for example.

It's not Gaiman's fault your education is lacking. More seriously, I figured the name Mr Frost was used to make it absolutely clear to the reader who this man was. There was never meant to be a question of whether it was a Jack, you were supposed to know and see what poor Scarlet was letting herself in for.

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...]So the family was in their sights for generations, but somehow they couldn't manage to wipe out the line a few hundred years back? It all came down to this one family--and yet Jack couldn't kill the baby FIRST, when he was the primary target and the primary threat?

My earlier point was that they didn't know the baby was the primary threat; it could have been the other child; it may even have been an as yet unborn child. I see absolutely no reason for an information download from the Jacks (beyond the small one we did in fact get over the ghoul grave) explaining all the details of why things worked out exactly as they did.

Fairytales don't have to explain where the magic mirror came from or how it knows who is the fairest in the land.

Originally Posted by Catlady

My issue is that Gaiman doesn't deal with any of this philosphical terrain. He just ignores it. I'm easy; I just want some kind of acknowledgment that the author sees the problem--say a paragraph or two about previous thwarted attempts to wipe out the line, or this specific family. That he didn't do it makes me infer that he didn't see the problem himself, and/or that he didn't respect the reader enough to create a plausible scenario to solve the problem.

I see it the other way: he respected the reader enough to be able to deal with this themselves; to not need every detail spelled out. And none of the past attempts or investigations mattered to this story; they are a given or this story would not exist.

Originally Posted by Catlady

[...]And there's still no plausible reason for the triple homicide and missing child to have been hushed up. In terms of the story, so what if Scarlett's newspaper search had turned up headlines splashed on the front pages? [...]

Yes, I agree the secrecy seems redundant, although it may be that the Jacks simply prefer it that way. But I don't see that it matters.

Originally Posted by Victoria

[...] I absolutely agree that Bod using Scarlett as bait like that was completely out of character. It just didn’t fit! Maybe a bit of lazy writing there? Gaiman could have found a better way to handle things, and should have involved Scarlett in the planning. She was treated like a thing instead of a partner and friend.

Here I must quote Bod himself: ‘It wasn’t like that.’

At least not consciously. We might argue whether the Bod had this in his mind unconsciously (even Bod may be wondering that), but the hiding place was chosen as what seemed the best and most secret place in the graveyard.

The lead up to hiding Scarlett went:

‘Who are you talking to?’ asked Scarlett, staring at Bod as if he had gone mad.
Caius Pompeius said, ‘Inside the hill?’
Bod thought. ‘Yes. Good call. Scarlett, do you remember the place where we found the Indigo Man?’
‘Kind of. A dark place. I remember there wasn’t anything to be scared of.’
‘I’m taking you up there.’

This doesn't sound like Bod making plans to use Scarlett as bait.