Subject: (urth) sepia man as Tilly?

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 19:27:41 +0000

Here is something I wanted to mention before.

The photo of the giant and the man: as an advertisement (goes well with the
photo of Candy as an advertisement; perhaps fits well with the "commerce
documentary" of section 5 of PEACE) it makes sense that the "normal" man
beside the giant actually be rather small, yet still in normal proportions,
to visually over-state the actual height of the giant.

And since we know Smart was small-ish, this is another nice point in favor
of the normal sepia man as Julius Smart.

OTOH, why wouldn't he be recognized?  Robert Borski has pointed out the
social decorum involved whereby the secretary might avoid mentioning it,
and Weer being opaque as usual takes care of his side.

But what if the normal sepia man really is a man that neither one has ever
seen--what if he is Tilly?

Again, if Charlie is acting as the ghost of the past, then he is showing us
something about a previous owner/manager (I forget, but doesn't the ghost
show Scroog the wonderful Christmas parties put on by Marley?).  Well, that
would work for both Smart and Tilly.  Yet the arrival of Charlie initially
validates the story told by Smart about Tilly, nearly like a character
stepping out of a book; and Tilly is the invisible one (I mean, we even
question whether he exists or is just a mask for Smart!) whereas Weer saw
the courtship, the wedding, and even lived in the house with Smart.

So what does it do, having the sepia man as Tilly?  It might point to
another offspring, another heir to the factory, if Doris is Tilly's
daughter.  Because Tilly's condition of being "stoned" <g> links to
"Mason," and Tilly had close ties to the carnies, and so on.

Roy, remind me about the Tilly subsection of the timeline.  Tilly died in
1922 or so?  Wife "died" when?

Is 1920 a good benchmark for natural sepia, for the clothing, for the
Lombard reference?

Eek!  Since what I'm saying here is that Doris's story somehow "fills in
the blanks" to Smart's story of Tilly, then what are the blanks: the wife,
the son, etc.  What if somehow lovely Candy is the one who ends up in the
aquarium tank?

Just a creepy thought.

Anyway, back to the photos.  Adam Stephanides (iirc) wondered why Charlie
would not mention the second photo.  Weeeellll . . . if it =was= a
blackmail thing (which would fit with my sense of Charlie running some kind
of scam), and the photo shows Weer and the giant (or any other kind of
blackmail evidence), then Charlie doesn't need to say anything -- in fact
he =shouldn't= say anything.  The artifact speaks for itself, or the
attempt is off-target (Weer is unaffected) and Charlie cannot be implicated
in a blackmail attempt (since he makes no mention).

=mantis=

--

---

From: Robert Borski <rborski at charter.net>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 21:37:41 +0000

mantis having speculated:

"But what if the normal sepia man really is a man that neither one has ever
seen--what if he is Tilly?"

I rather like this idea, and I believe StoneOx alluded to it earlier, though
not with the same amplification you provided.

It explains why Miss Hadow does not recognize the two men, as well as Den's
admission that he's never met them. Also the antiquated fashion sense of the
giant.

The three relatives of Tilly's who want Smart to take over the pharmacy may
be Mrs. Mason, Candy, and Arline (though the latter two must be very young),
and the giant in the photo is not Tom Lavine but "little" Rodney (the bed
may be a childhood keepsake or else he simply grew out of it fast). Tilly
probably never married "Mrs. Mason" so therefore her two children are
illegitimate. (This would explain why the carnies don't believe there's a
real Mr. Mason. ) But as for Tilly being the father of Doris by yet another
relationship/marriage, I find this less credible. According to the timeline,
Tilly dies somewhere around 1924, which would make Doris about 39 when
Charlie Turner shows up. It also makes the ages of Candy and Arline--if
they're Tilly's daughters--probably even older--another glitch in the
theory.

And still to be answered is why Charlie Turner sends a 40 year old photo of
Tilly and giant to D. Weer, as well as why the photo of Candy looks
similarly aged.

But overall I think the sepia man = Tilly answers more questions than it
raises.

Robert Borski

--

---

From: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Date: Fri, 09 Aug 2002 22:24:52 +0000

Robert Borski wrote:
>may be a childhood keepsake or else he simply grew out of it fast).

Yes, this was my other creepy thought: that the three relatives of Tilly
might be hereby revealed.

I had not quite made the Rodney-as-giant connection, but that is possible,
too, in which case, though, Doris is not "of Tilly" but a prospective bride
of Tilly's heir (not "hair," if Charlie is really Rodney, which I've often
wondered), and we might expect the focus of the story to have been on the
giant rather than on Doris.

> Tilly

Both of these timeline paradoxes are "solved" if Charlie is a time-traveler
from the past, like the ghost of Christmas past in "A Christmas Carol."  In
PEACE terms, this =may= mean that Charlie Turner died and really is a
ghost, and his visit of Weer is an example of a haunting from the past (as
opposed to a haunting from the future), but I'm not going that far, yet,
I'm just looking at Charlie as being a time-traveler who does =not= know
the history of things, he has to go back to the past, live through events,
and then move to the future to report what happened.

Now as to why the ghost of carnies past would visit Weer on the same day
that he is visited by the spirit of factory present and the lady of future
grave-trees, well that is a puzzler, unless it is exactly that pattern
derived from "A Christmas Carol."

I've got to find a copy of "A Christmas Carol" if I'm going to keep going
on like this.   Maybe there's one online?

=mantis=

Sirius Fiction
booklets on Gene Wolfe, John Crowley
29 copies of "Snake's-hands" until OP!
http://www.siriusfiction.com/

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 06:49:56 +0000

>1922 or so?  Wife "died" when?

Close enough. And his wife "passed on a number of years ago". (120) Probably
during The Great War.

>Is 1920 a good benchmark for natural sepia, for the clothing, for the

Not for Lombard; as Robert has pointed out, her heyday was the 1930s.

>and then move to the future to report what happened.

There's a problem with that. In "real-time" Charlie's visit/letter happened
in the early 1960s. If Charlie is a time-traveling ghost of the past, then I
presume he also has no knowledge of the future? In that case, how to account
for his contemporary reference to television? (221)

BTW, I haven't forgotten Robert's (or your earlier) quite valid query about
my take on the relevance of Doris's story to Weer or to the book--I just
don't have a good answer. I even dug out a 1729 translation of "Cinderilla",
taken from Perrault's collection. The parallels of Doris to Cinderella are
obvious, but so are the differences. I can't decide if that is important, or
if Wolfe just ignores the "facts" and recasts the story to suit his purpose,
as he did with the Sidhe story.

-Roy

--

---

From: Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net>
Date: Sat, 10 Aug 2002 07:26:14 +0000

>seen--what if he is Tilly?

It just occurred to me why this can't be--probably, maybe.

"He was one of the tallest men I ever saw, I guess, but most of the time he
stood like he didn't have any chest at all, all hollowed out there, so he
didn't look much taller than the average." (117) Even slouched, Tilly was
above average height.

-Roy

--

---

From: Adam Stephanides <adamsteph at earthlink.net>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 00:30:02 +0000

> didn't look much taller than the average." (117) Even slouched, Tilly was

But we don't know that the other man isn't above average height.  All Miss
Hadow says about him is that he isn't "really very tall," which still allows
for him to be taller than average.

> Is 1920 a good benchmark for natural sepia, for the clothing, for the

All Miss Hadow says is that the girl's face reminds her of Carole Lombard,
not the clothes or hairstyle; so the Lombard reference doesn't help to date
the photo.

--Adam

--

---

From: StoneOx17 <stoneox17 at aol.com>
Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2002 13:26:47 +0000

Hello,

There's a simple explanation for the second man in Tom's photo.  I think the 
photograph, like Candy's, is a publicity photograph.  What do you do to make 
a publicity photograph of a giant?  You have to establish scale, so you take 
a fairly short, normal-looking, man and pose the giant next to him.  However, 
you want to keep the focus of the photograph on the giant, so you pose them 
together, maybe shaking hands, so that the second man has his back to the 
viewer, is off-center, and is wearing less noteworthy clothing (possibly a 
plain suit).  This explains why Miss Hadow only described the giant and why 
Weer said "either" and not "any" in "I've never met either of these people."

This explanation leaves several questions, one being why Tom is wearing the 
same clothing as Julius.  I think this has to be significant and that Wolfe 
is establishing some link between Julius and Tom.  Maybe Julius is 
responsible for Tom's height (people who have followed my postings will 
realize this is my favorite explanation), or maybe Tom's role in the 
Cinderella story relates to Julius in some way.  

-Stone Ox

--