# PEACE: the sepia photo *The Urth list — 3 messages, 2 voices, 03 Aug 2002* > 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. --- ### Adam Stephanides *03 Aug 2002, 19:07* I'd always assumed that the photo of the woman was the photo of Candy that Charlie says he is sending, but looking over the passage again, I have my doubts. Weer shows the photos to Miss Hadow, whom he does not know, implicitly asking for her reaction. The photo Charlie described showed Candy in a G-string and pasties. Is it likely that Weer would have shown such a photo to a middle-aged woman he didn't know? And when Miss Hadow sees the photo, she says "Well, the woman is an obvious tramp." If the photo had shown Candy nearly nude, this response would be like being shown a photo of Chief Sitting Bull in full regalia and being asked to comment, and responding "Well, he's an Indian." Miss Hadow goes on to say "The woman has--you know--an old-fashioned kind of hairdo, and she's the kind that gets killed by some man, or gets drunk and wrecks her car." This sounds like a film noir femme fatale (the movie connection again!), not like a stripper. Given the problematic nature of Part Five, it's possible that Weer never in fact showed the photos to Miss Hadow and that the entire encounter is his fabrication. But even if that's the case, he would presumably have made himself and Miss Hadow behave realistically. --Adam --- ### Roy C. Lackey *05 Aug 2002, 02:42 · follows Adam Stephanides* Adam Stephanides expressed doubt that Candy was the woman Miss Hadow saw in the photo, and added: > Given the problematic nature of Part Five, it's possible that Weer never in > fact showed the photos to Miss Hadow and that the entire encounter is his > fabrication. But even if that's the case, he would presumably have made > himself and Miss Hadow behave realistically. I don't see how the text can allow for anyone other than Candy to be the woman in the photo. But another oddity is Weer's response to Hadow's comments. Hadow really only makes remarks about the attire and general appearance of the woman and the tall man. The shorter man is not remarked upon except for his relative height. She concludes her comments with: "'I don't mean to be offensive, Mr. Weer. Is she someone you know?'" He answers: "'No. I've never met either of these people.'" That sort of answers her question, but note the use of "either" rather than "any". Is he saying that he's never met the woman or the tall man she commented on, but that the use of "either" implies that he _has_ met the other, shorter man? Hadow makes no further comments about the pictures. Is that just because she is afraid to, or does she, like Weer, recognize the other man? As secretary to a senior plant officer, she has probably been at the plant for some time and knows the late Smart by sight. (Besides, Smart's picture is on the wall of Weer's office.) -Roy --- ### Adam Stephanides *07 Aug 2002, 14:16 · follows Roy C. Lackey* > on 8/4/02 9:42 PM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote: > Adam Stephanides expressed doubt that Candy was the woman Miss Hadow saw in > the photo To be precise, I was only doubting that the photo Miss Hadow saw was the one Charlie described. > I don't see how the text can allow for anyone other than Candy to be the > woman in the photo. Indeed, the photo Charlie says he put in the letter is certainly of Candy. But my suspicion is that the photo he describes is the one Weer shows to Miss Hadow. That is, either 1) Charlie said in the letter he was going to enclose one photo, but instead placed two different photos in the letter for some reason; or 2) The photos Weer showed to Hadow were never in the real letter at all; they appear only in Weer's reconstruction of the incident. This would also mean that the conversation with Miss Hadow never really took place either, at least not as described in the book. This latter is my preference. Another thing: if the photo is indeed of Candy in a G-string and pasties, then for the reasons you give in your earlier post, it should not be "faded sepia," since Candy has only been stripping for two years. > Hadow makes no further comments about the pictures. Is > that just because she is afraid to, or does she, like Weer, recognize the > other man? As secretary to a senior plant officer, she has probably been at > the plant for some time and knows the late Smart by sight. (Besides, Smart's > picture is on the wall of Weer's office.) If Hoadow knows Smart by sight, then the second man in the photo is unlikely to be Smart. If Hadow had recognized him as Smart, she would not have referred to him as "that other man with him," or been unsure about his height. --Adam ---