{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3395", "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": 3395, "subject": "PEACE: the sepia photo", "messages": 3, "voices": 2, "first": "2002-08-03T19:07:52+00:00", "last": "2002-08-07T14:16:30+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-08-03T19:07:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) PEACE: the sepia photo", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'd always assumed that the photo of the woman was the photo of Candy that\nCharlie says he is sending, but looking over the passage again, I have my\ndoubts. Weer shows the photos to Miss Hadow, whom he does not know,\nimplicitly asking for her reaction. The photo Charlie described showed\nCandy in a G-string and pasties. Is it likely that Weer would have shown\nsuch a photo to a middle-aged woman he didn't know? And when Miss Hadow\nsees the photo, she says \"Well, the woman is an obvious tramp.\" If the\nphoto had shown Candy nearly nude, this response would be like being shown a\nphoto of Chief Sitting Bull in full regalia and being asked to comment, and\nresponding \"Well, he's an Indian.\" Miss Hadow goes on to say \"The woman\nhas--you know--an old-fashioned kind of hairdo, and she's the kind that gets\nkilled by some man, or gets drunk and wrecks her car.\" This sounds like a\nfilm noir femme fatale (the movie connection again!), not like a stripper.\n\nGiven the problematic nature of Part Five, it's possible that Weer never in\nfact showed the photos to Miss Hadow and that the entire encounter is his\nfabrication. But even if that's the case, he would presumably have made\nhimself and Miss Hadow behave realistically.\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-08-05T02:42:07+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: the sepia photo", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam Stephanides expressed doubt that Candy was the woman Miss Hadow saw in\nthe photo, and added:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Given the problematic nature of Part Five, it's possible that Weer never in\nfact showed the photos to Miss Hadow and that the entire encounter is his\nfabrication. But even if that's the case, he would presumably have made\nhimself and Miss Hadow behave realistically." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I don't see how the text can allow for anyone other than Candy to be the\nwoman in the photo. But another oddity is Weer's response to Hadow's\ncomments. Hadow really only makes remarks about the attire and general\nappearance of the woman and the tall man. The shorter man is not remarked\nupon except for his relative height. She concludes her comments with: \"'I\ndon't mean to be offensive, Mr. Weer. Is she someone you know?'\" He answers:\n\"'No. I've never met either of these people.'\"\n\nThat sort of answers her question, but note the use of \"either\" rather than\n\"any\". Is he saying that he's never met the woman or the tall man she\ncommented on, but that the use of \"either\" implies that he _has_ met the\nother, shorter man? Hadow makes no further comments about the pictures. Is\nthat just because she is afraid to, or does she, like Weer, recognize the\nother man? As secretary to a senior plant officer, she has probably been at\nthe plant for some time and knows the late Smart by sight. (Besides, Smart's\npicture is on the wall of Weer's office.)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-08-07T14:16:30+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: the sepia photo", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 8/4/02 9:42 PM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nAdam Stephanides expressed doubt that Candy was the woman Miss Hadow saw in\nthe photo" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "To be precise, I was only doubting that the photo Miss Hadow saw was the one\nCharlie described." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I don't see how the text can allow for anyone other than Candy to be the\nwoman in the photo." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Indeed, the photo Charlie says he put in the letter is certainly of Candy.\nBut my suspicion is that the photo he describes is the one Weer shows to\nMiss Hadow. That is, either\n1) Charlie said in the letter he was going to enclose one photo, but instead\nplaced two different photos in the letter for some reason; or\n2) The photos Weer showed to Hadow were never in the real letter at all;\nthey appear only in Weer's reconstruction of the incident. This would also\nmean that the conversation with Miss Hadow never really took place either,\nat least not as described in the book. This latter is my preference.\n\nAnother thing: if the photo is indeed of Candy in a G-string and pasties,\nthen for the reasons you give in your earlier post, it should not be \"faded\nsepia,\" since Candy has only been stripping for two years." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Hadow makes no further comments about the pictures. Is\nthat just because she is afraid to, or does she, like Weer, recognize the\nother man? As secretary to a senior plant officer, she has probably been at\nthe plant for some time and knows the late Smart by sight. (Besides, Smart's\npicture is on the wall of Weer's office.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Hoadow knows Smart by sight, then the second man in the photo is unlikely\nto be Smart. If Hadow had recognized him as Smart, she would not have\nreferred to him as \"that other man with him,\" or been unsure about his\nheight.\n\n--Adam" } ] } ] }