There seems to be pairs in all the relationships and a deterioration in a few of the relationships. Husband-wife, father-son(ish), mother-son, water-earth, two moons (created out of a hateful situation), inside-outside, and probably more. Especially the inside-outside. This is a world of boundaries but no rules for them. The bear won’t approach his land, the water was her area (as I understand it), but yet he can enter the wood or fish the river. The rules of birth are playing within some norms. For example a miscarriage. However, gestation periods are unknown or weird. What constitutes a child is weird. Time flows not like our time flows and conventional physics do not either. So what’s the point I am trying to make? I find it interesting that the context of the characters and their motivations change when barriers are crossed. When a character goes from outside to inside, in the woods, across the mountains, or even threshold of time. More so the discussion in the book about how things were before the bear or how their marriage has changed and that relevancy. The idea that memory is a physical thing can also apply to the physical changes in time. Consider the growth of the Foundling (which is natural even in our world) or the constant change of the house. As the book progresses the description of the interior of the house changes. The house becomes larger or smaller or changes style depending on the context in which the events are unfolding (whether they are positive or negative, which means really negative or sort of negative). But especially the birth of things. Notice the function of the fetus. The idea of birth being a positive thing and among the transition of birth/abortion(?) it is gobbled up to be not a child of want but a negative manifestation. Interestingly enough the reasons given for this. He ate it so it wouldn’t die yet it is once again internalized. The actions are grossly miss guided paternalism. Later on when there seems to be an increased savagery in his character as the bear seems to be deteriating I was drawn back to that paternalism and once again thought of the famed protection of a mother bear. This coupling of reasoning and behavior I found the most interesting thus far.