Susan’s answer to “What happened to the Sea of Flames stone at the end of the book? Was it still in the sea?” > Likes and Comments

93 likes · 
Comments Showing 1-8 of 8 (8 new)    post a comment »
dateUp arrow    newest »

message 1: by Vicki (new)

Vicki Peterson I believe that the diamond wasn't the true treasure/fortune in the story.


message 2: by Michelle (new)

Michelle I really like what you said--I agree that it represents waste. It brought hardship on those who wanted it for the power it might bring them, yet it is ultimately not worth the cost. Very like the Germans in WWII.


message 3: by Carol (new)

Carol Yes, good insight about waste and futility. And it is certainly true that the diamond wasn't the story's treasure at all.


message 4: by O. (new)

O. Jennings Yes, I like your point. I'm reminded of the line repeated twice in the book that goes something like "Who would throw three Eiffel Towers into the sea?" which is comparable to the senseless devestation of war.


message 5: by Natalie (new)

Natalie Ah. This has just made me enjoy the book a little bit more :) thanks


message 6: by Makayla (new)

Makayla G. Thanks. I've never thought of this before.


message 7: by LCD (new)

LCD I think we could only assume that Werner realized the background story of the sea of flame and throw it away, pré serving the only real treasure: the house Marie Laure’s father made, which may adds to a natural connection and understanding that Werner has for Marie Laurie


message 8: by Micah (new)

Micah I agree and to add to your thought, I think it represents all the things we worry about and shouldn't. We worry about money and are greedy. We believe in superstition and probably shouldn't.


back to top