I dislike stories where exceptional talent suddenly breaks out (like Joey Bettany. Writing is very much a sideline, to be done occasionally, until she leaves school. Certainly not "the breath of life" to her!). But Rachel *doesn't* suddenly develop acting talent. Remember in the play (Wind in the Willows) in Folkestone, where she was Ratty, but Hilary was only a Wild Wood-er? The teachers there must have seen talent in her then. I suspect that she was excellent in the play at the end because she felt at home in the part. A sequel to Wintle's Wonders might have shown Rachel having less success in other roles, because they didn't suit her as well. This isn't meant to be argumentative, Nicky - it's just that I've been re-reading the book, and I noticed the early evidence of her talent. Allison [EMAIL PROTECTED]
--- nicky smith <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I only read Wintle's Wonders as an adult and liked > it up until the last chapter > when Rachel suddenly becomes a fabulous dramatic > actress. Which I hated because > it seemed as if NS had spent the whole book saying > that artistic talent wasn't > everything and there were many different sorts of > achievement (and kudos to her > for letting Hilary do musical comedy. I'm sure Lorna > Hill would have been > horrified) and then in the last chapter she says > that really Rachel has the > most important talent of all. I wanted her to be > like Petrova or Myra and good > at something else or just be a nice person with no > particular talents. But if > I'd been a child, maybe I would have gone with the > fantasy more. -- ________________________________________ Girlsown mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] For self-administration and access to archives see http://home.it.net.au/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/girlsown For FAQs see http://www.club-web.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/girlsown/faq-0.htm
