{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3394", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3394, "subject": "the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "messages": 13, "voices": 5, "first": "2002-08-03T17:45:23+00:00", "last": "2002-08-08T20:22:50+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2002-08-03T17:45:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Roy quoted me and wrote:\nThis might be something, because it would mean that Weer loses Olivia,\nchases after Lois-as-Olivia, sees the photo of Doris-as-Olivia, and then,\nin the end of the book, finally hears Olivia's voice again (bringing\nclosure to this thread)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not to nit-pick, and I know we covered this before, but there was no photo\nof Doris. As I read it, the two sepia photos depict a total of three people.\nOne is the girlie picture of Candy, alone, that Charlie mentioned in the\nletter. She is the \"tramp\" Miss Hadow refers to, who looks like Carole\nLombard and has an old-fashioned hairdo. The other photo is of two men; one\nof them very tall (who is probably Tom Lavine), and a much shorter man\n(possibly J. T. Smart)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "(Oh good, my message got through after all!)\n\nUgh, right -- no photo of Doris, just one of Candy (graphic description of\nanother one of Candy), and the one with the two guys. Where Candy is\nsupposedly the half-sister to Doris. So Weer's interest in Doris is not\nfrom his actually seeing Doris.\n\nIn dealing with the Three Visitors of President Weer, is the \"A Christmas\nCarol\" model of past, present, and future ghosts still okay? (Note the\nCharles Dickens link to Charlie Turner's letter, too.) Where Bill Batton\nis the ghost of the Present (factory, maybe \"freak-factory\"), Charlie\nTurner is the ghost of the Past (carny), and Mrs. Porter is the ghost of\nthe Future (grave)?\n\nDimly I recall going over all this, but still I persist in wondering. Odd\nthat the sepia picture has Smart on it . . . putting aside the \"novelty\nphoto\" notion that the sepia is artificial, Smart is dead at the point Weer\nsees the picture, so it has emphasis on the Past. (It also has a weird\nconnotation of afterlife as carny . . . would that be heaven or hell?)\nAssuming the sepia is natural, the photo was taken years ago when Smart was\nconnected with the carnies . . . but the photo might suggest a stronger\nbond than merely the secret \"freak-maker\" pharmacist -- he seems like one\nof the \"family.\" But maybe not.\n\nAnyway, if Charlie Turner is the ghost of the Past, then he may have a\ntimewarping quality around him which causes the apparant time paradoxes in\nmuch of our thinking on Doris. If Weer intuits that in talking with\nCharlie he is somehow seeing into the past of Julius T. Smart (as it\nhappens rather than as completed action), then what does he see\n(figuratively speaking) in Doris?\n\nAnd is Sherry another avatar of Olivia (a small-town Auntie Mame), or is\nshe something different (the real Lolita)?\n\nUh-oh, I'm caught in an image whirlpool again . . .\n\n=Statues and characters=\nVenus of Milo and armless Cleopatra the Seal Girl (aka Janet, mother of\nCharlie)\nMarble-ized cuckholded husband in the Arabian Nights and Mr. Tilly\nChina Napoleon and Julius Smart\n\nBack to Janet Turner. We know a surprising amount about her family. Is\nTurner her married name? Her brother, with wife and farm, does he live\naround Cassionsville? (I know we've wondered about that one before, but if\nTurner is her married name, then gee, she could be related to the Lorns or\nthe Greens. Or even somehow to the Weers?)\n\n=mantis=\n\n\nSirius Fiction\nbooklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley\n29 copies of \"Snake's-hands\" until OP!\nhttp://www.siriusfiction.com/" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-08-04T08:16:59+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "mantis wrote:\nUgh, right -- no photo of Doris, just one of Candy (graphic description of\nanother one of Candy), and the one with the two guys. Where Candy is\nsupposedly the half-sister to Doris. So Weer's interest in Doris is not\nfrom his actually seeing Doris." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ah, yes. I had forgotten that the mysterious Mr. Mason was the father of\nCandy and Arline, as well as Doris. That's another strike against the idea\nthat Weer was the father of Doris. So far as we know, Weer never married at\nall, much less twice. It would also make him the father of Candy, which puts\nanother ugly twist on the girlie picture Charlie sent him. But then, why\ndoes Charlie write: \"Anyway, if you have any comments on the picture you\nwould like to make, go ahead and make them to me and I will pass them along\nto Candy; she will be glad to hear from you.\"? Why should Candy be glad to\nhear from Weer? Who is he to her? Surely not her father!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dimly I recall going over all this, but still I persist in wondering. Odd\nthat the sepia picture has Smart on it . . ." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I said only that it was \"possibly\" Smart. Against that idea is the near\ncertainty that the tall man with thick glasses is Tom Lavine. Tom's\nconstitution is such that, as Charlie writes, he \"won't live long\". If the\nsepia is natural, the picture taken decades ago, how likely is it that Tom\nwould still be alive to pay court to Doris at a time when Weer was about\nfifty? Charlie referred to Tom as a \"kid\". Weer was president for only about\n15 years before he died, not enough time for the photos to have faded and\nturned brown on the day he showed them to Miss Hadow. If the sepia was\nfaked, the pictures still shouldn't have faded in 15 years. In other words,\nit would be pretty hard for Tom Lavine to have been a contemporary of both\nSmart and Doris." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Back to Janet Turner. We know a surprising amount about her family. Is\nTurner her married name? Her brother, with wife and farm, does he live\naround Cassionsville? (I know we've wondered about that one before, but if\nTurner is her married name, then gee, she could be related to the Lorns or\nthe Greens. Or even somehow to the Weers?)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We are given no hint as to who Charlie's father might be, but Turner must be\nJanet's maiden name; Smart notes that she wears no wedding band (142). The\nsurviving brother inherited the family farm, but the only hint as to its\nlocation is Janet's accent (or lack of one), which Smart thinks \"might be\nfrom Ohio or maybe Pennsylvania\" (139).\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2002-08-04T16:25:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy wrote:\nAh, yes. I had forgotten that the mysterious Mr. Mason was the father of\nCandy and Arline, as well as Doris. That's another strike against the idea\nthat Weer was the father of Doris. So far as we know, Weer never married at\nall, much less twice. It would also make him the father of Candy, which puts\nanother ugly twist on the girlie picture Charlie sent him. But then, why\ndoes Charlie write: \"Anyway, if you have any comments on the picture you\nwould like to make, go ahead and make them to me and I will pass them along\nto Candy; she will be glad to hear from you.\"? Why should Candy be glad to\nhear from Weer? Who is he to her? Surely not her father!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well right, there is the question of what Charlie's motives are and whether\nCharlie and Weer are on the same page, as it were. As we've discussed\nbefore, it sure seems like Charlie is setting up some sort of scam to get\nmoney out of Weer, but when Weer seems to go for it, suddenly Charlie has\nto fold the project up and disappear again. What spooked the scam?\n\n\"Mason\" has ties to the stoney fate of Mr. Tilly, as we've said before.\nThe story of Tilly, while Southern Gothic in tone, seems at root to be a\ntale from the Arabian Nights involving a cheating wife and her semi-statue\nhusband.\n\nMr. Tilly + Mrs. Tilly\n |\n Rodney\n\nJanet + Mr. X\n |\n Charlie Turner\n\nMr. Mason + Mrs. Mason\n /\\\n Candy Arline\n\nMr. Mason + other woman\n |\n Doris\n\n\nUh oh, style whirlpool . . .\n\nAs Men are from Mars and Women are from Venus, in PEACE do two threads\nresolve into two separate groups?\n\nARABIAN NIGHTS crops up in the \"ben Yahya and the Marid\" (an \"in the style\nof\" tale about Weer, Smart, Olivia, and the factory), in the Tilly story (a\nreal one in disguise, about Tilly, Mrs. Tilly, Janet, and Charlie by\nSmart), in the unexpected presence of the Persian room of the mansion.\n\nEuropean fairy tales (specifically Grimms?) show up in \"The Princess and\nher Three Suitors\" (another \"in the style of,\" tale about Olivia) and the\nfate of Doris (a disguised version of Cinderella).\n\nThe Arabian tales presented seem to involve inheritance from non-relatives.\n\nThe fairy tales here (and maybe the others in PEACE, I don't know) involve\ncourtship.\n\nThings get very murky with Tilly and the carnies. Surely we have discussed\nin the past the possibility that Charlie is the son of Tilly and Janet? He\nmay be \"Rodney\" (i.e., there is no other son, it is a lie that the son\ndied), he may be Rodney's half-brother.\n\nThen the rather intense way that, the night after telling Margaret Lorn the\nstory of Tilly on their fateful picnic, Weer dreams of the story, and sees\nwalking statues, and deals with the dog-boy . . . who comes between Weer\nand Margaret (146).\n\nThe linkage of Weer to Charlie Turner might only be a product of the fact\nthat Weer inherited from Smart who inherited from Tilly, and Tilly created\nfreaks for the carnies. Or there might be buried bloodlines involved." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Dimly I recall going over all this, but still I persist in wondering. Odd\nthat the sepia picture has Smart on it . . ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I said only that it was \"possibly\" Smart. Against that idea is the near\ncertainty that the tall man with thick glasses is Tom Lavine. Tom's\nconstitution is such that, as Charlie writes, he \"won't live long\". If the\nsepia is natural, the picture taken decades ago, how likely is it that Tom\nwould still be alive to pay court to Doris at a time when Weer was about\nfifty? Charlie referred to Tom as a \"kid\". Weer was president for only about\n15 years before he died, not enough time for the photos to have faded and\nturned brown on the day he showed them to Miss Hadow. If the sepia was\nfaked, the pictures still shouldn't have faded in 15 years. In other words,\nit would be pretty hard for Tom Lavine to have been a contemporary of both\nSmart and Doris." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Right, but to resolve the time paradoxes (and also examine \"Doris <> Den's\ndaughter\") I'm playing with the idea that Charlie is, in effect, a time\ntraveller from the past, ala Ghost of Carnies Past. (The other view I'm\ntoying with would be Smart in Carny Hell -- the photo is real time, like\nPickman's model [Lovecraft story], showing Smart [hello Den, wish you were\nhere ] and the devil's Candy.) Charlie time-traveler might age as he\ngoes into his future and grow young as he returns to his past (Wolfe has\nplayed with this side-effect of time travel); if so, then items he carries\nmay also age, thus a fresh photo becomes sepia photo (this would be exactly\nlike Thyme in EMPIRES OF FOLIAGE AND FLOWER).\n\nAgain, I'm saying that Charlie is providing a \"window to the past\" just\nlike the ghost of Christmas past does for Scrooge." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Back to Janet Turner. We know a surprising amount about her family. Is\nTurner her married name? Her brother, with wife and farm, does he live\naround Cassionsville? (I know we've wondered about that one before, but if\nTurner is her married name, then gee, she could be related to the Lorns or\nthe Greens. Or even somehow to the Weers?)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We are given no hint as to who Charlie's father might be, but Turner must be\nJanet's maiden name; Smart notes that she wears no wedding band (142). The\nsurviving brother inherited the family farm, but the only hint as to its\nlocation is Janet's accent (or lack of one), which Smart thinks \"might be\nfrom Ohio or maybe Pennsylvania\" (139)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yes, and we have reason to believe that Cassionsville is in Ohio, home\nstate of Quantrill (194).\n\n=mantis=\n\n\nSirius Fiction\nbooklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley\n29 copies of \"Snake's-hands\" until OP!\nhttp://www.siriusfiction.com/" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Borski", "address": "rborski at charter.net" }, "date": "2002-08-04T17:53:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Dog-determined Roy has written:\n\n--Ah, yes. I had forgotten that the mysterious Mr. Mason was the father of\nCandy and Arline, as well as Doris. That's another strike against the idea\nthat Weer was the father of Doris. So far as we know, Weer never married at\nall, much less twice. It would also make him the father of Candy, which puts\nanother ugly twist on the girlie picture Charlie sent him. But then, why\ndoes Charlie write: \"Anyway, if you have any comments on the picture you\nwould like to make, go ahead and make them to me and I will pass them along\nto Candy; she will be glad to hear from you.\"? Why should Candy be glad to\nhear from Weer? Who is he to her? Surely not her father!--\n\nBut does the mysterious Mr. Mason even exist? As Charlie writes to Den\n\"[Doris] was a kid that belonged to Mr. Mason (whoever he was--I myself\nnever laid eyes on him and there were quite a few people around the lot that\nwould have given you nine to five that there never was one.\"\n\nThis to me suggests the strong plausibility that the notion of a \"Mister\nMason\"--at least in Doris's case--is a nom de convenience. Mrs. Mason needs\nto explain where Doris has come from--she may have been or is being paid to\nbe her ward, and \"Mister Mason\" may have placed her in the carnival to rid\nhimself of the illegitimate child who may be a major embarassment for\nhim--especially if he's on-track to be a major town figure. (There's also\nthe potential of statutory rape charges if someone like Sherry Gold is\ninvolved.)\n\nCharlie also notes that \"Mr. M.\" must have been quite a ladies' man. But\nwhile lifetime bachelor Den Weer may not have bedded Margie Lorn, surely\nSherry Gold and Lois Arbuthnot were not his only sexual conquests--a virgin\nwell into his forties if indeed so.\n\nNote too that \"M\" upside down is \"W.\"\n\nIn other words I'll take that 9-to-5 bet.\n\nRobert Borski" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-08-04T21:22:07+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Robert B. wrote:\nBut does the mysterious Mr. Mason even exist? As Charlie writes to Den\n\"[Doris] was a kid that belonged to Mr. Mason (whoever he was--I myself\nnever laid eyes on him and there were quite a few people around the lot\nthat\nwould have given you nine to five that there never was one.\"\n\nThis to me suggests the strong plausibility that the notion of a \"Mister\nMason\"--at least in Doris's case--is a nom de convenience. Mrs. Mason needs\nto explain where Doris has come from--she may have been or is being paid to\nbe her ward, and \"Mister Mason\" may have placed her in the carnival to rid\nhimself of the illegitimate child who may be a major embarassment for\nhim--especially if he's on-track to be a major town figure. (There's also\nthe potential of statutory rape charges if someone like Sherry Gold is\ninvolved.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whoever the real Mr. Mason may have been (Tilly or Smart or Weer or Other),\nthe cover-story in Charlie's letter is that Mr. M. has just died. Even if\nthat's a lie, and ignoring the problem of Doris being at least ten years too\nold to be the daughter of Den and Sherry, _where has she been for the last\nfifteen years or so since birth_?\n\nTilly had been dead for forty years before Charlie showed up at the plant.\nSmart had recently died (but not, I think, recently enough to have been the\ndeparted father Doris claimed), but surely he could have provided better for\na child (where had he kept her all that time?), and who was the mother? The\ndifficulties of Den being the father are even greater than for Smart.\nTimeline problems aside, Doris's mother is said to have been dead for some\ntime before her father. If Sherry was that mother, then her death should\nhave precipitated Weer's stroke. Weer had _not_ had a stroke before\nCharlie's visit. Besides, where had mother and child been living before\nSherry's death? With Weer? I don't think so. More importantly, with whom had\nDoris been living during the time between her mother's death and the \"death\"\nof her \"father\"? Weer certainly wasn't dead. What circumstance caused him to\nsuddenly farm out his daughter to the circus? Adam has already addressed the\nimprobability of Weer doing such a thing.\n\nThen there is the problem of Mrs. Mason. Why should she, ostensibly the\njilted woman, feel a moral obligation (if she felt one) to finish raising\nanother woman's daughter? What hold did Weer (if he was Mr. M.) have on her?\nMoney? Not according to Charlie's account, and her niggardly treatment of\nDoris seems to affirm that. If Charlie's account of Doris's story is true,\nand if Weer was Mason, why had he been sending support money all those years\nto Mrs. M. for Candy and Arline? Was he their father, too? More to the\npoint; why did he _stop_ sending money, as Charlie's account indicates, when\nhe should have been sending even more money to support Doris? He was very\nrich and very much alive. It just doesn't add up. Weer could have quietly\narranged to have any bastard child sent to a girls' school in Switzerland,\nor something, if her presence was inconvenient.\n\nAlso, Mrs. M.'s hostility toward Doris is too great to be accounted for just\nby money concerns. The mere presence of Doris seems to be a personal affront\nto her. Not letting her get enough to eat, even when someone else pays for\nit, and tearing up her new clothes, that someone else bought, aren't about\nmoney. It seems to me that Mrs. M.'s animosity is misdirected to Doris\nbecause she can't get at Mr. M., probably because he's dead. If Weer was Mr.\nMason, he was alive, and all she had to do to get even with him was threaten\nto expose him in his home town.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Borski", "address": "rborski at charter.net" }, "date": "2002-08-05T19:19:48+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Barker Roy again, from that Texas grab-joint of his:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whoever the real Mr. Mason may have been (Tilly or Smart or Weer or\nOther),\nthe cover-story in Charlie's letter is that Mr. M. has just died. Even if\nthat's a lie, and ignoring the problem of Doris being at least ten years\ntoo\nold to be the daughter of Den and Sherry, _where has she been for the last\nfifteen years or so since birth_?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Hattiesburg, Mississippi--or somewhere around there. At least according to\nCharlie that's where the carnival is playing when Doris joins the show.\nPerhaps she's been in an orphanage there--very often the typical repository\nfor unwanted children--at least until she's too old to be considered\nadoptable, given the boot, and forced to find work. (I know you're old\nenough, Roy, to remember a time when children born out of wedlock were a\nsource of great shame, embarassment, and scandal--not like today--and when a\nwoman began to show she was said to have gone off visit distant\nrelatives--frequently a euphemism for a home for unwed mothers. This, in\nfact, is how my father entered the world.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Also, Mrs. M.'s hostility toward Doris is too great to be accounted for\njust\nby money concerns. The mere presence of Doris seems to be a personal\naffront\nto her. Not letting her get enough to eat, even when someone else pays for\nit, and tearing up her new clothes, that someone else bought, aren't about\nmoney. It seems to me that Mrs. M.'s animosity is misdirected to Doris\nbecause she can't get at Mr. M., probably because he's dead. If Weer was\nMr.\nMason, he was alive, and all she had to do to get even with him was\nthreaten\nto expose him in his home town." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You're attempting to apply real-world logic here to what is essentially a\nmodern retelling by Gene Wolfe of Perrault's \"Cinderilla.\" Wicked\nstepmothers are a staple of such tales--as is Mrs. Mason here. Wolfe\ncleverly adds enough details to make you wonder who \"Mr. Mason\" might be or\nwhether the tale is even real or simply part of Charlie Turner's Dickensian\nsensibility imagination run amok--just as you wonder whether Julius T. Smart\nis really apothecary Tilly, and if so the horde of questions this raises.\n(How has young son Rodney died? Who or what moves the curtains in Tilly's\nhouse? Why does Julius never mention being married before?) Perhaps it\ndoesn't even matter because in the tale of \"The Alchemist\", it's the\nparallels that count--Smart is an alchemist too whose hardened heart costs\nhim a wife. Indeed, as mantis has shown in a series of posts, all of the\nlittle stories in PEACE have some further relevance to the larger account.\nI'm therefore curious as to what you (or Adam S.) believe the overall\nsignificance of Doris's sad history is to either the novel or the life of\nDen Weer. Does it have any relevance--typological, symbolic--or is it just\nsimply tossed into the mix for sheer entertainment value, making it alone\nthe dog-that-wagged-its-own-tale?\n\nRobert Borski" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-08-06T02:32:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 8/4/02 3:16 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nI said only that it was \"possibly\" Smart. Against that idea is the near\ncertainty that the tall man with thick glasses is Tom Lavine. Tom's\nconstitution is such that, as Charlie writes, he \"won't live long\". If the\nsepia is natural, the picture taken decades ago, how likely is it that Tom\nwould still be alive to pay court to Doris at a time when Weer was about\nfifty? Charlie referred to Tom as a \"kid\". Weer was president for only about\n15 years before he died, not enough time for the photos to have faded and\nturned brown on the day he showed them to Miss Hadow. If the sepia was\nfaked, the pictures still shouldn't have faded in 15 years. In other words,\nit would be pretty hard for Tom Lavine to have been a contemporary of both\nSmart and Doris." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In fact, Charlie says that Tom is eighteen. So if the letter is factual,\nand the picture is indeed of Tom, it must have been taken around the time\nthe letter was written, which is inconsistent with the \"faded sepia\" color,\nas you argue. So either the letter is a fiction, or the picture is not of\nTom, or some sort of weird time-slippage thing is going on, as mantis\nsuggests. And why does Charlie not mention the second picture in his\nletter?\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Borski", "address": "rborski at charter.net" }, "date": "2002-08-07T06:25:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam S. pondering:\n\n\"And why does Charlie not mention the second picture in his letter?\"\n\nNot sure if you think we don't know what is in the second photo, Adam, or\nsimply that Charlie Turner never mentions its contents.\n\nThe first one, obviously, is of stripper Candy. Says Charlie: \"The other\ngirls in the show all consider this a pretty modest picture because as you\nhave probably already seen, she is wearing a G-string and pasties, which is\nas far as they are allowed to strip in Sunday School towns where our patch\ncan't fix the cops much.\"\n\nSecretary Hadow looks at the photo and says, \"Well, the woman is an obvious\ntramp, though I must say her face reminds me of Carole Lombard's--do you\nremember her?\" [The heyday of Lombard's file career was from 1934-1942; she\ndied in a 1942 aircrash.]\n\nThen, though neither she, Den, nor Wolfe say anything, she looks at the\nsecond photo, saying, \"The tall man--well, what can you say about him? He's\nterribly tall. I don't think that other man with him is really very tall,\nbut still that other man must be--oh, I don't know. Six foot ten? Perhaps\nmore.\"\n\n(Why would Candy, attired so scantily, have a picture taken with the two\nmen, anyway? As Charlie notes, \"Candy had pictures of _herself_ taken\" and\nthey appear to be self-promotional glossies or souvenirs--possibly for sale\nto lonely horny men.)\n\nDen asks Miss H. if she believes the pictures are of living people and she\nuses the plural in refuting this idea: \"Well, for one thing, the pictures\njust look old.\" She then first describes the clothes of the two men since\nthey are in the uppermost picture, the one she has just looked at; then she\nshuffles the pictures (again, without comment) so that Candy's is again on\ntop and describes her as having \"an old-fashioned kind of hairdo.\"\n\nThe dated aspect of clothing and hairdo, plus the sepia tone of the\npictures, suggests to me that both pictures are from a much earlier\ntime--and clearly predate the Golden Year, when supposedly the encounter\nwith Charlie Turner takes place. Moreover, the second male figure in the\nphoto is described as being not \"really very tall,\" implying rather he is\nsimply tall. Roy has suggested that this mystery figure may be Julius Smart,\nbut Julius Smart is so small he has to buy boy's shoes for his tiny feet,\nwhereas Den, as we know from his medical checkup, is 6 feet tall. (President\nSmart is also described as wearing old-fashioned clothes: \"He wore a vest,\nand a gold chain across the front of it during that period when it seemed\nthe vest had vanished never to return.\" Compare this to what the tall\nman--Tom Lavine--in the sepia-tinged photo is wearing: \"He's even wearing a\nvest with a watch chain across the front.\" But are his clothes contemporary\nor hand-me-downs from a long-ago era?) The fact that Miss Hadow does not\nrecognize photo-bound Den further indicates some passage of time--as anyone\nwho's been to a high school reunion or two knows, some people look exactly\nthe same as they did when they were younger, while others morph into\nsomething else altogether. Den lies when he says he's never met either\nfigure in the photographs--i.e., Candy and Tom--perhaps not wishing to be\ntainted by association with \"the obvious tramp.\" But he's also never met the\nthird figure in the photographs--since it's impossible to meet yourself. And\nif the second picture is a snapshot of Tom and Den--taken after the latter\npossibly checks out the carnival as potential home for his illegitimate\nchild, or after having trysted with part-time hooker Candy--this might\nexplain why Charlie sent it to him.\n\nRobert Borski" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-08-07T16:58:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Robert B. writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The dated aspect of clothing and hairdo, plus the sepia tone of the\npictures, suggests to me that both pictures are from a much earlier\ntime--and clearly predate the Golden Year, when supposedly the encounter\nwith Charlie Turner takes place." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "A quibble: the Golden Year is the year Den met Lois and Sherry, when he was\nabout 45, and before he became president. His meeting with Charlie took\nplace a few years later, after he was president." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Moreover, the second male figure in the\nphoto is described as being not \"really very tall,\" implying rather he is\nsimply tall. Roy has suggested that this mystery figure may be Julius\nSmart,\nbut Julius Smart is so small he has to buy boy's shoes for his tiny feet,\nwhereas Den, as we know from his medical checkup, is 6 feet tall." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Smart isn't all that small; he's \"just under average height\" (114). Miss\nHadow underestimates Tom's true height (7' 6\") by eight inches, mostly\nbecause the other man is so much shorter--two feet shorter, if he's Smart;\nshe's not used to seeing such relative disparity. Another possibility, if\nSmart is the shorter man, is that the photo is a few years older than the\none of Candy, and that Tom hadn't reached his full height yet.\n\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And\nif the second picture is a snapshot of Tom and Den--taken after the latter\npossibly checks out the carnival as potential home for his illegitimate\nchild, or after having trysted with part-time hooker Candy--this might\nexplain why Charlie sent it to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Either I'm seriously misreading you, or this last sentence of this paragraph\ncontradicts the first (quoted above). If \"both pictures are from a much\nearlier time--and clearly predate the Golden Year\", and if the two men are\nTom and Den, then you have Den looking for a home for a teenage daughter he\nbegot on a 16 year old Sherry he hasn't even met yet!\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "StoneOx17", "address": "stoneox17 at aol.com" }, "date": "2002-08-08T11:41:01+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In a message dated 8/4/2002 7:58:02 PM Eastern Daylight Time, mantis writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "\"Mason\" has ties to the stoney fate of Mr. Tilly, as we've said before.\nThe story of Tilly, while Southern Gothic in tone, seems at root to be a\ntale from the Arabian Nights involving a cheating wife and her semi-statue\nhusband." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's another connection nobody seems to have mentioned yet. In the \nArabian Nights story, the marid Naranj (corresponding to Julius) earned his \nliving not only by turning roots into sherbet, but also by turning stones \ninto kine, and making Ben Yahya (corresponding to Den) slaughter and sell \nthem. While Julius probably isn't able to turn stones into kine, Mr. Tilly \n(and Julius if, as I now believe, he took over the carnie practice) certainly \ncould have turned kine to stone. \n\n- Stone Ox" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-08-08T13:38:37+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 8/7/02 1:25 AM, Robert Borski at rborski at charter.net wrote:\nAdam S. pondering:\n\n\"And why does Charlie not mention the second picture in his letter?\"\n\nNot sure if you think we don't know what is in the second photo, Adam, or\nsimply that Charlie Turner never mentions its contents." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip]\n\nNo, it is clear that there are two photos. I am just questioning why\nCharlie only mentions sending one photo." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The dated aspect of clothing and hairdo, plus the sepia tone of the\npictures, suggests to me that both pictures are from a much earlier\ntime" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed; but then, as I asked in an earlier post, how can the tall man in the\nphoto be Tom?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And\nif the second picture is a snapshot of Tom and Den--taken after the latter\npossibly checks out the carnival as potential home for his illegitimate\nchild, or after having trysted with part-time hooker Candy--this might\nexplain why Charlie sent it to him." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Since there is *no* evidence for the second man in the photo being Den, I'll\njust say that the idea of Den caring enough about his supposed daughter to\n\"check out\" the carnival, and then deciding that the carnival is a suitable\nplace for her, is even more implausible then the rest of your theory. And\nif the picture is of Tom, that would itself explain Charlie sending it; but\nneither would explain Charlie not mentioning having sent it.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Borski", "address": "rborski at charter.net" }, "date": "2002-08-08T18:32:35+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy responding to me again:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "A quibble: the Golden Year is the year Den met Lois and Sherry, when he\nwas\nabout 45, and before he became president. His meeting with Charlie took\nplace a few years later, after he was president." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I was going by the timeline in the Peace Indexicon, where under the Golden\nYear, six events are listed, including the following: \"Charlie Turner, the\ndog man, arrives unexpectedly.\"" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "And if the second picture is a snapshot of Tom and Den--taken after the\nlatter\npossibly checks out the carnival as potential home for his illegitimate\nchild, or after having trysted with part-time hooker Candy--this might\nexplain why Charlie sent it to him." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Either I'm seriously misreading you, or this last sentence of this\nparagraph\ncontradicts the first (quoted above). If \"both pictures are from a much\nearlier time--and clearly predate the Golden Year\", and if the two men are\nTom and Den, then you have Den looking for a home for a teenage daughter\nhe\nbegot on a 16 year old Sherry he hasn't even met yet!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "No, you have it right exactly. Because as I've been attempting to\ndemonstrate all along it is not possible to construct a hard and true\nchronological ordering of the events in PEACE. There are just too many\ncontradictions and mutually-exclusive events.\n\nExample 1: If the mystery man in the second photo is J. Smart as you\nsuggest, when was it taken? At the same time as the Candy photo? (Both are\nsepia toned and depict old-fashioned styles of dress and coiffure.) If at\ndiffering times, why do each still depict similar antequated fashion\nsensibilities--and why now, all of a sudden, has Charlie sent the much older\nphoto of Smart and young Tom to Den? Also, if the mystery man is Smart, why\ndoes Den claim he's never met him? Similarly, why doesn't Miss Hadow\nrecognize Smart?\n\nCounter-example 1: If the mystery man in the second photo is D. Weer, why is\nthe giant wearing the old-fashioned vest and watch, which dates from a much\nearlier time period? (Is he modeling himself on fashion guru J. Smart as a\ntribute to his creator? Or can he only afford rummage sale bargains, there\nnot being a whole lot of money in being a sideshow freak?) Why doesn't Miss\nHadow recognize Weer or Weer admit that he is the man in the photo and\ntherefore knows the giant? (I've suggested one solution.)\n\nExample 2: the Birkhead anomaly.\n\nExample 3: Once again, I cite the scene where Den has sex with Sherry Gold.\nSixteen-year old Sherry shows up at Weer's door and Den invites her in. Says\nDen to the girl: \"Excuse me for not rising. I have suffered a stroke\nresulting in partial paralysis of my leg.\" Kind-hearted Sherry, though\nnervous (as Wolfe tells us), responds, \"That's all right.\"\n\nBut how can this be? Den's stroke is years in the future--long after he has\nsex with Sherry Gold. It's clearly impossible--and yet there it is, right on\nthe page before us. Possible solutions include: 1) post-stroke Den is\nlooking back to the encounter and re-imagining it from the perspective of\nhis current present, complete with revisionist dialogue; 2) Den, adrift in a\nmaze of memories, is conflating events, as confused or disoriented as anyone\nwho's suffered a stroke, or in the twilight of their life has vivid\nrecollections of their childhood, but can't remember what they had to eat\nyesterday.\n\nUnfortunately, either solution presents difficulties with placing this or\nany other event within a real-time continuum--thereby making all proofs\nrequiring a strict chronology invalid.\n\nTime, in PEACE, is a river that runs everywhere.\n\nRobert Borski" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-08-08T20:22:50+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) the dog-boy of Carnies Past", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 8/5/02 2:19 PM, Robert Borski at rborski at charter.net wrote:\nYou're attempting to apply real-world logic here to what is essentially a\nmodern retelling by Gene Wolfe of Perrault's \"Cinderilla.\"" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't buy this line of reasoning. Wolfe's characters don't stop behaving\nrealistically just because they're in retellings of older tales (as most of\nhis characters seem to be). Either Doris's story is true, in which case the\npeople in it must have act for plausible motives; or it is Charlie's\ninvention, in which case there's no reason to think Doris even exists, let\nalone is Weer's daughter. (I'm speaking in general here, not in reference\nto Roy Lackey's point; there are more convincing reasons why Doris can't be\nWeer's daughter.)" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I'm therefore curious as to what you (or Adam S.) believe the overall\nsignificance of Doris's sad history is to either the novel or the life of\nDen Weer. Does it have any relevance--typological, symbolic--or is it just\nsimply tossed into the mix for sheer entertainment value, making it alone\nthe dog-that-wagged-its-own-tale?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, Doris's tale is essentially Cinderella with an unhappy ending. And\nWeer is himself a sort of Cinderella. Abandoned by his parents, he is taken\nunder the wing of a \"fairy godmother\" (Olivia), who enables him to meet his\n\"prince\" (Smart). And whatever the relationship between Smart and Weer was,\nWeer does end up inheriting Smart's \"kingdom.\" In Doris's tale, the\n\"godmother's\" well-intentioned intervention leads to disaster; Weer's life,\ntoo, has not turned out happily, and the analogy suggests that Olivia may\nhave been, in part at least, the unintentional cause of this.\n\nBut these are just tentative ideas; I don't claim to understand the book.\n\n--Adam" } ] } ] }