![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
fembuckOn pg. 362 of WWBC, Rachel is mixing a spell that goes like this:
"Wine to give life, dust to give substance, ivy to bind, and holly to be sure nothing bad came in on the souls of the dead."
The ingredients of ivy and holly, when this book has two major characters named after the ingredients just really captured my attention, and now I can't get the idea out of my head that somehow Holly will be a key part of saving Ivy's soul.
Wine to give life, wine could equal blood here which goes give life and is linked to aura sharing. Dust I'm not so sure about, but it makes me think of Jenks. Ivy to bind, of course makes me think of Ivy and then with the wine/blood thing, it makes me think of binding process. Maybe love is a major component and Rachel will have to be bound to Ivy to save her soul, only maybe it will bind them equally together so that there's no icky imbalance of power. And then of course, Holly's ability (that whole being able to transfer an aura back into a person thing) will able to make the aura stick in some way. I mean, a whole thing was even made about how Remus is able to hold Holly because of this gift, and all book Rachel is bitching about not being able to hold/touch Ivy.
I would actually love it if this were the case, because it would mean that Ivy kind of selflessly giving her wish up to someone else so that they could find love, comes back in a beautiful karmic circle and allows her to keep her soul which will allow her to finally love and be loved in return.
It's probably a throw away line that means nothing, especially since it's part of a spell to get Mr. Darcy back (and it's only Book 7), but I finally had a thought about this book that didn't involve rage, so I thought I would share it!
P.S. The pictures for my other two Hollows rants should be up and working again by tomorrow or Tuesday!
Also, because I just remember this thought I'd had earlier ... is there any reason, Ivy didn't just wish to be able to keep her soul after her first death? I mean, I know that it wouldn't have helped vampires everywhere, but since the idea of losing her soul tortures her so much, why not just wish to keep it. Maybe this was addressed, but I don't remember.
"Wine to give life, dust to give substance, ivy to bind, and holly to be sure nothing bad came in on the souls of the dead."
The ingredients of ivy and holly, when this book has two major characters named after the ingredients just really captured my attention, and now I can't get the idea out of my head that somehow Holly will be a key part of saving Ivy's soul.
Wine to give life, wine could equal blood here which goes give life and is linked to aura sharing. Dust I'm not so sure about, but it makes me think of Jenks. Ivy to bind, of course makes me think of Ivy and then with the wine/blood thing, it makes me think of binding process. Maybe love is a major component and Rachel will have to be bound to Ivy to save her soul, only maybe it will bind them equally together so that there's no icky imbalance of power. And then of course, Holly's ability (that whole being able to transfer an aura back into a person thing) will able to make the aura stick in some way. I mean, a whole thing was even made about how Remus is able to hold Holly because of this gift, and all book Rachel is bitching about not being able to hold/touch Ivy.
I would actually love it if this were the case, because it would mean that Ivy kind of selflessly giving her wish up to someone else so that they could find love, comes back in a beautiful karmic circle and allows her to keep her soul which will allow her to finally love and be loved in return.
It's probably a throw away line that means nothing, especially since it's part of a spell to get Mr. Darcy back (and it's only Book 7), but I finally had a thought about this book that didn't involve rage, so I thought I would share it!
P.S. The pictures for my other two Hollows rants should be up and working again by tomorrow or Tuesday!
Also, because I just remember this thought I'd had earlier ... is there any reason, Ivy didn't just wish to be able to keep her soul after her first death? I mean, I know that it wouldn't have helped vampires everywhere, but since the idea of losing her soul tortures her so much, why not just wish to keep it. Maybe this was addressed, but I don't remember.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:15 am (UTC)I hope Pierce does something really stupid with Al that Rachel ditches him entirely.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:27 am (UTC)This! Ivy is so much fun when Cock Block isn't heaping constant angst on her.
"Will there be news vans and screaming? ... Count me in."
"My mother always said I came from heaven." I died laughing at his. Oh, Ivy.
"You're a fun date. People look at you." LOL!
I hope Pierce does something really stupid with Al that Rachel ditches him entirely.
He probably will. Al's constant, "He's gonna kill you" isn't exactly subtle hinting. Pierce is gonna end up being a douche, I just wish he would hurry up about. He is too annoying. I just want him to shut up all the time. At least Marshall was just boring (although, Marshall kind of cracked me up in his break up scene with Rachel. He was just like "Damn, woman. Damn. I tried, but Damn. Goddamn! Bye")
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:30 am (UTC)Of course Ivy would be like, "Wow, man. You have no staying power. Do you know how much I've gone through for her? Pansy."
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:45 am (UTC)I know, right. Of course, you know Ivy has more staying power than Marshall in every way. She is a masterpiece after all. But yeah, whenever a "I Went Through X For Rachel Morgan" competition starts up, nobody would ever be able to beat Rachel.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:47 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:52 am (UTC)BWAH! So true. He'd probably need to take Matalina out back to the garden to make a few more babies, cause you know Ivy's list is only going to continue growing.
no subject
Date: 2009-03-30 01:53 am (UTC)