Subject: (urth) Free Live Free

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 2000 22:57:50 +0000

(Spoilers)

I just read this book again, and once again enjoyed it.  I think it's one
of Wolfe's most fun books.

I was wondering if the Quadrumvirate's temptations can be mapped to the
seven deadly sins.  Candy's is obviously Gluttony and Barnes's is Lust,
but what about the other two?  Stubb and Serpentina might both be
Pride.  Or maybe Stubb is Pride and Serpentina is Covetousness, if you
think of her coveting power.  Interesting, for a group that is
down-on-their-luck, none of them seems particularly slothful.  Stubb is so
diligent and competent, I had a hard time believing he couldn't find a
good job, his height notwithstanding.

I counted four mentions of The Wizard of Oz - Two by Candy, and two that
actually mention the musical The Wiz.

The timeline at the end in my edition was a big help, but I'm still left
trying to puzzle out Whitten/Free's timeline from his own perspective.  
Can anyone fill in the stuff I haven't figured out?

Whitten joins the Army
May 1942 Whitten briefly disappears when his future self comes back early.
Aug 1942 Whitten goes to High Country and goes to the future 1952
 (preumably the 1952 Whitten disappears when this happens? Is this
 ever mentioned?)
Whitten returns to May 42, waits til Aug to make his report
Whitten makes a few more trips into the future
[is it at this point he goes back to 1803?]
1982 Whitten buys the Magic Carpet (has he been living all that time
 or did he jump to 1982?)
1983 Whitten disappears when Free appears, and reappears after Kip 
 kills Free.
1983 Whitten kidnaps the quadrumvirate
Whitten briefly disappears while the quad are talking to Free
 in the cockpit of High Country
Whitten reappears and uses Ben Free's device to "desert" 
 (is this where he goes to 1803?)
An older Whitten comes back to 1983 and talks to the quad. in the 
 cockpit of High Country (and then he goes where/when?)
Whitten reappars a few days earlier as Ben Free and lives with 
 the quad in his house until it is torn down.
Free disappears (goes somewhere in the device? Where/When?)
Free comes back a day later, and is killed by Kip.

-Rostrum

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Peter Westlake <peter at harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:16:34 +0000

At 22:57 2000-01-25 -0500, Michael wrote:
>seven deadly sins.

Nice idea, but there are only four of them, and most temptations
are covered by the seven.

>The timeline at the end in my edition was a big help, 

Not fair! Not fair! *My* copy hasn't got a timeline!

but I'm still left

> (preumably the 1952 Whitten disappears when this happens? Is this

No, but he makes several trips into the future, so it would
be easy for him to be away over that period.

>[is it at this point he goes back to 1803?]

I don't think so; see below.

>1983 Whitten disappears when Free appears, and reappears after Kip 

Now this is the bit I didn't understand. How does he reappear?
He would have to, really, in order to do all the stuff below.
But I thought Wolfean time travel involved a kind of "short
circuit", a folding back, with the combined traveller being
the only one left. You go back in time, "absorb" your former
self, and carry on from there. It never occurred to me that
reappearing was allowed. So, do the four also reappear? The
big jet that they all hear during their temptations is, I always
assumed, their ride home, though I don't see why such a big plane
would be needed or even sensible. They don't disappear then,
so either this isn't them landing, or it's different because we
are still on the "first" iteration round the timelines.

> (is this where he goes to 1803?)

Isn't it *after* he talks to them?

> cockpit of High Country (and then he goes where/when?)

I think this is where he goes back to 1803, though I didn't
notice the date - where was that mentioned? He stays there
a long time, and grows old. Is that what he meant by it
being too late to return?
 
>Free comes back a day later, and is killed by Kip.

And another question: at the end, Ozzie and Little Ozzie arrive
at the house (from where? did Ozzie land, go and find Little Ozzie,
and come back? It sounded as though he had been away for longer
when the witch greeted him, though I could be wrong) and go in
through the back door. This is the other gizmo, of course, and
evidently it is still working, just as it was when Free swept a
load of rubbish into an un-wintry garden; the house is ruined
and empty, but they go in to find everyone there and the kitchen
usable. So, to what time do they travel, and with what effect?

SBear, who has reason to believe that there is an imported copy of
_On Blue's Waters_ wrapped in birthday paper somewhere in his house
:-) :-)

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 11:09:46 +0000

> are covered by the seven.

What I meant was, can we choose one of the seven that names each of the
four's "main" temptation?  I think Stubb is pride, but you could make a
case for anger.   I'm not sure about the witch.

> Not fair! Not fair! *My* copy hasn't got a timeline!

Would it be "fair use" for me to post it to the mailing list?  Did we
discuss this before?

> be easy for him to be away over that period.

I don't understand what you mean.  I'm saying that when the 1940s Whitten
goes to the future, 1952, then the 10-years-older 1952 Whitten ought to
disappear (forever? until the 1940s Whitten goes back to his own time?)

> reappearing was allowed. 

I agree that this seems to be how Whitten explains it, but Kip's motive
for shooting Free was that "she must have known she would never get her
father back as long as I--Free--refused to go back" (from Chapter
59).  So she must have expected her father to reappear.

But this would imply that if someone goes back in time, absorbs his former
self, then dies, then the former self would reappear.  X lives? (where X
is the number of times you've re-doubled yourself?)

Also, as I mentioned above, what happens when you go forward in time?  Do
you "absorb" your future self?  Maybe there's only an absorption when an
older self goes back to the time of a younger self.

> Isn't it *after* he talks to them?

I messed that part up (but not the way you think) here's excerpts from the
timeline:

Friday, Jan 14, 1983 - Free comes back to his house, Whitten disappears.
Thu, Jan 20, 1983 - Kip kidnaps Free (he didn't escape the demolition via 
the time machine, Kip nabbed him)
Fri, Jan 21, 1983 - Kip and Free search the basement, Kip kills Free, 
Whitten reappears in his office
Sat, Jan 22, 1983 - The man in the duffle coat (Whitten as Kip knows
him) vanishes and the quad talk to Whitten ("Free") in High Country.
Mon, Jan 24, 1983 - the man in the duffle coat deserts, using Free's
hidden device 

So the younger Whitten, Kip's dad "deserts", not the older version we meet
in High Country.  But does Kip's dad go to 1803?  The older version in
High Country says of his still older, future self, "I think he must have
gone to some other time, although I have no idea what that time might
be.  To the Lewis and Clark expedition, I hope." (end of ch. 59).  So
where/when does Kip's dad go?

> usable. So, to what time do they travel, and with what effect?

My take on this scene is that, after they talk to Free in the cockpit,
Stubb, Candy, and Serpentina immediately go back in time via the High
Country's device.  Stubb decides to go back down in the shuttle airplane,
gets his son, then takes him to Free's house to use that device to go back
in time to whatever point the other three have gone back to.  Evidence:
the other three all immediately say yes to Free's offer, but Stubb says
"Swee'pea--" (Popeye's little kid).

So presumably, they go back and fold in to their earlier selves, and the
original lives they lived (everything we read) are gone except in their
own memories.

-Rostrum

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:54:57 +0000

>actually mention the musical The Wiz.

	The four  main characters are from the Wizard. Ben Free is the Wizard.
Glinda (note spelling) is also the name of one of the good witches. It's
been years since I read it, but I do recall that the father and son (Barnes
and Kip?) are Dorothy and Toto. The others can be seen as needing courage,
brains, and heart. Of course, it's all transposed, as in Niven's Ringworld,
but it's definitely there. Also, I suspect that the narrative follows
Wizard of Oz to a degree, with the madhouse scene equivalent to the visit
to the Wizard, the journey to High Frontier as the visit to the west (?),
etc. 
	Since I've not read this in years, someone else will have to correct the
errors in the above paragraph; but I've given enough to go on.
	As for the Deadly Sins: this looks very much right-on to me, even though
putting seven together with four will complicate matters a bit. It's very
Wolfean in concept, and prima facie looks right.
	Of course, this is one of Wolfe's "American" stories, with Been Free as
the old America before socialism (like it or not, Wolfe is pretty
libertarian). Thus, to use the Wizard of Oz as a scaffold is entirely
appropriate. The characters are living in "fallen America" and search for
"true America," and the story goes from there. I need to re-read this, of
course, because since they only find an empty airplane (old America), the
question is: What is the REAL thing they are looking for? Well, we know
Wolfe will answer: Christianity. But how is that presented? I don't recall.
	Oh, the original English publication does not have the timeline, but the
American edition(s) do. I don't have every single printing, so I cannot be
more specific. As I dimly recall, Wolfe was persuaded to include the
timeline by the publishers, who thought it was needed. I'd say: Take it cum
grano salis (with a grain of salt). Since Wolfe originally intended the
timeline as a puzzle for the reader, I doubt if he completely solved it in
his appendix -- that would be very UN-Wolfean!!

Nutria

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 10:58:44 +0000

Dadgummit. I always forget something.
	The Quadrumvirate alludes to the Triumvirate that took over in Rome after
the collapse of the decadent Old Roman Republic. That's also part of
Wolfe's "American" story. The collapse of America into licentiousness and
tyranny will eventuate in some new order. Ben Free "prepares" his new
"triumvirate" for this purpose.

Nutria

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:13:13 +0000

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Jim Jordan wrote:
> brains, and heart. 

>From all the mentions of the movie, Wolfe obviously had it in mind.  I can
see Free as the wizard, but I can't make the other characters fit.  None
of the charcters seem particularly lacking in courage, brains, or heart.  
Their faults seem more moral: Stubb is vain, worried about his height,
proud, always trying to prove himself.  Candy lacks self-control regarding
food (she acts bravely, cleverly, and has a heart (of gold?)).  You might
say the witch needs more heart, but it seems her real turning point is
where she realizes that her pursuit of power has been misguided:

 "Wealth and power we have already too much of--we suffocate.  Longer
life? We outstay the lion and elephant.  Hardly a day passes that we do
not meet some man or woman who should be dead, who has outlasted his own
time by decades...As for healing, it is not we who require it but the
world, which requires to be cured of us.  Serenity would indeed be a
benefit, but we do not seek it; if we did we might find it required us to
abandon wealth and power, and we love them too much.  No, what we require
from whatever Powers may be entitled to give it is some indication of how
far we may go...we do not know what is permitted to us, and that ignorance
paralyzes thos3 who might otherwise refrain, while the worst of us kill
every living thing and ruin all they reach." (from Chapter 47).

Maybe it's just a general four-on-a-quest allusion to Oz.

-Rostrum

---

From: Peter Westlake <peter at harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 17:31:10 +0000

>case for anger.   I'm not sure about the witch.

Me either, and because of that and Stubb I don't think there's
much in this, despite Candy and Ozzie being so clear-cut.

>> >The timeline at the end in my edition was a big help, 
...
>Would it be "fair use" for me to post it to the mailing list? 

I hope so :-)

>disappear (forever? until the 1940s Whitten goes back to his own time?)

In your list you have:

    Whitten returns to May 42, waits til Aug to make his report
==> Whitten makes a few more trips into the future
    [is it at this point he goes back to 1803?]
    1982 Whitten buys the Magic Carpet

I'm suggesting that in 1952, Whitten makes one of those trips
into the future, leaving before the arrival of his younger
self and returning after his younger self has gone back to
the 1940s. His younger self is the only one present in those
particular days of 1952.

>is the number of times you've re-doubled yourself?)

(!) The whole theory is rather unsatisfactory, I've always thought.
You only need this kind of time travel, where you can only be in
one place at a time, if you believe in the soul. Duplication of
souls is a theologically tricky area. Is it Malrubius who explains
to Severian near the end of BotNS, about aquastors and writing?
The bit where Severian comes to understand why the witches ran
away and Hildegrin got caught in the metaphysical blast, or whatever.

>older self goes back to the time of a younger self.

We never actually see this, do we? And it's easily avoidable.
Good question, though. Why does the composite appear in the
location of the time traveller? Has to appear somewhere, I suppose.

>where/when does Kip's dad go?

I see what you mean. And I see why I didn't remember 1803, which
presumably is the date of Lewis and Clark.

>[s/Stubb/Barnes to avoid confusion]
>Country's device.  [Barnes] decides to go back down in the shuttle airplane,
>the other three all immediately say yes to Free's offer, but [Barnes] says

Interesting idea. So Barnes goes back in the present to find Little Ozzie,
who was last seen in the care of Sandy Duck. Why are they "ragged" when
they get back to the house? I've been assuming that the jet they all see
was another shuttle, marking the point to which they travel back. Then
the raggedness is accounted for, because both Ozzies are in something
of a mess at that stage. Hmm... thinking about it, if he really was on
that jet, Barnes would have to get to the club from the airport. He would
arrive too late.

So I'm still confused. Why is the big jet in the story at all?
It serves to synchronize the separate story threads, but that
hardly seems necessary. This is Wolfe, so there *must* be a
reason for it.

>original lives they lived (everything we read) are gone except in their

That's what I always assumed. The reappearing business doesn't really
affect this, since their original lives only run up to late Jan 1983.
If the older and improved versions live through that date, the originals
never get a chance to pop up again.

How far back do you think they do go, anyway? Is the absorption process
sufficiently magical to take two fat adult Candys and combine them into
a slim one, and likewise to make two short Stubbs into a tall one? Or
would they have to go back far enough to grow up slimmer (Candy) or grow
taller (Stubb)? I think that would be too literal (Stubb's height in
particular; he would have to have a different genetic makeup!), so they
don't necessarily have to go far. As I say, I always assumed the folding
back point was when the jet appears in the sky, but you've cast that into
doubt and me into confusion!

SBear.

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 12:28:56 +0000

At 12:13 PM 1/26/00 -0500, you wrote:
>where she realizes that her pursuit of power has been misguided.

	I recall being struck by and convinced of this paradigm when I read the
book, but I just can't recall enough at the moment to argue the point. If
my aging longterm memory is serving me, I think I was thinking that each
character has a kind of perverted form of the virtue that is "lacking."
I.e., that Stubbs (maybe) has a courage of the wrong sort; Candy has a
heart of the wrong sort; the witch has a mind of the wrong sort. They are
each out of balance in a certain direction. (Recall how Wolfe uses the
mind, emotion, will paradigm in "The God and His Man.")  They don't
perceive that they lack the better form of these virtues -- that's for the
reader to perceive -- thus providing a more sophisticated variant on the Oz
scenario. That's off the top of my head and based on memories that have
mostly flown away. Maybe it'll be of help to those currently reading the book.
	(There are just too many Wolfe books to re-read!!!)

Nutria

---

From: William H. Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Wed, 26 Jan 2000 23:32:07 +0000

Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net> wrote:
>Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu> wrote:

I have fairly recently (re)read the first 14 Oz books (as all regular
long-term readers of this list know only too well) and I have read FLF at
least three times although not very recently (partly because I just plain
enjoy it and partly to try to pin down the time travel stuff). I have read
several times in this list and elsewhere that FLF is a "retelling" of the
story of the Wizard of Oz but I have always felt that this was wrong
(unless you are going to define retelling in such a vague way as to allow
FLF to be a retelling of virtually every other book you care to name as
well -- Free is Captain Ahab, Free is the Mad Hatter, etc.).

I am still far from convinced that there is much merit to this theory, but
Jim Jordan's explanation of the version of the FLF=WOZ theory that he is
familiar with (I don't know if this is THE theory or if there are different
versions) is the first time I don't feel I can dismiss it out of hand.
Since I am the self-proclaimed Oz expert on this list (although there are
others on this list at least as knowledgeable as I--you know who you are,
alga), I'll have to try to re-read FLF with this in mind.

You know, if Jim Jordan is right, then Ozzie Barnes somehow embodies both
Dorothy Gale and Popeye the Sailor simultaneously. It does seem like
something Wolfe might do, doesn't it?

William Ansley

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 10:23:23 +0000

> something Wolfe might do, doesn't it?

Except they're operating on different levels.  Ozzie calls himself Popeye
(because he has an eye that pops), humming the "strong to the finish"
song, calling his son "Swee' pea".  There's no sign that he thinks of
himself as Dorothy, though.

-Rostrum

---

From: Jim Jordan <jbjordan at gnt.net>
Date: Thu, 27 Jan 2000 12:59:33 +0000

>alga), I'll have to try to re-read FLF with this in mind.

	What set me to thinking was the name Glinda with an eye, as well as the
other allusions. When I cast my mind back over the book, the Oz connection
seemed right. I'd already seen that Ringworld was an Oz rework, so I was
open to the thought. Also Oz figures in other Wolfe stories. It would only
be the first book, and probably with the film's changes also in the
background. Of course, with Wolfe you also have political and religious
themes interacting as well, and other allusions. But it sure looked like
the Wizard of Oz was providing a big input, and to a considerable degree, a
structural one as well. Consider that the arrival at the four at the house
at the beginning is a journey to Oz, for instance. 
	As for whose theory this is, it's mine. Others may have caught the same
thing, but I don't recall any discussion of this here, so I can speak only
for myself. (Though there is a year's worth of posts I haven't read yet.
I've been out of pocket.)
	Well, I'll be interested in your thinking after you re-read FLF (if you
can find the time). I'm sure we all will. You're the expert!
	And since you're the expert, what do you think of the economic
interpretation of the first book, that the road is the "cross of gold," the
fake-emerald city (seen through green eyeglasses) is greenbacks, etc.
Sounds quite plausible to me. (I didn't see anything in FLF that indicates
Wolfe is familiar with, or accepts, this reading, though.)

Nutria

---

From: Michael Straight <straight at email.unc.edu>
Date: Fri, 28 Jan 2000 11:59:47 +0000

On Wed, 26 Jan 2000, Peter Westlake wrote:

> souls is a theologically tricky area. 

While I can understand thinking of it this way, it doesn't seem to be
necessarily the only solution.  If you can have the same soul at this
place at 4:00 and at this place at 5:00 without worriying about it having
split into two different souls, why can't you have the same soul at this
place at 4:00 and at that place at 4:00?

-Rostrum