After reading this thread yesterday, then listening to this part in Half Share this morning (for the 51st time, it seems
), I had some very interesting thoughts...
1) the Shaman wasn't really "selling" the whelkies. He was just there in the market with them...
2) When Brill found the Heron she wanted, she couldn't buy it... Ish had to buy it for her. That reinforces the idea that a welkie had to be given to maintain its power.
3) When Ish was selecting the whelkies, he did it randomly, just letting his hand pick up the ones he wanted. And each time, he picked one up, the Shaman smiled and approved his choice.
4) When Pip went back to find them, the Shaman was gone... it seems Ish and Brill were the only ones who bought any.
So... I think the Shaman knew Pip would make sure those whelkies got to the people who needed them... And that was why Pip's whelkie had such a dark purple heart!
Excellent summary. I had gone over the summary in my head too, but it's good to see it written here.
I do agree that the Shaman did not advertise his whelkies, but he did sell them. In the end he accepted money for them and did not give them freely without monetary reward to any passing needing or facilitating person. If a whelkie would find its owner by itself, the Shaman could just have occupied the stand and trust that the people that came and take whelkies away would be facilitators in the path of the whelkie.
Your second point is what made me think that 'bought' and not given whelkies could be less significant. Of course this would maybe only hold for whelkies bought for ownership and not whelkies bought as gifts. I don't know... confusing !
I do certainly think that Ish has a stronger connection to the Shaman rites than some other people in the books. As you say in your last comment Ish' (that's who you meant I figure, not Pip) whelkie is a strong one to go with a strong person. But to say that Brill and Ish were the only ones buying is too much of an uncertainty to support in my opinion. There is too much unaccounted time that we have no clue about.
btw... it feels quite odd to be dissecting motives in a book, and the meaning behind the prose with the author "listening" in!
In my English courses, I always wondered if the author really meant all the things the "experts" attributed to their works.
So, Prof. Lowell, what is your opinion on the dissection of your great literary works?
I expressed this exact sentiment on the website when the idea of founding a forum was coined. Still a bit weird to express my own throughts and risk having them butchered by the Board Boss and Book Boss himself. Be gentle, Nate !