{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3484", "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": 3484, "subject": "PEACE: Smart", "messages": 13, "voices": 7, "first": "2002-10-14T04:37:20+00:00", "last": "2002-10-21T05:17:27+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-10-14T04:37:20+00:00", "subject": "(urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We know even less about Julius Smart than we know about Weer, for all his\nbeing a \"symbolic\" figure and \"the central character of this book\". I want\nto address two facts related to him that seem to be antithetical.\n\nWe are told that for 25 years, since the death of Olivia, that Smart did not\nspeak to his nephew, Weer. We are not told why. Despite this estrangement,\nwhen Julius died, Weer inherited the company. Again, why? It would seem that\nthe fact of, or circumstances surrounding, Olivia's death triggered the\nalienation. If the former, it raises (A) questions about their relationship\nwhile she was alive; if the latter, what were (B) those circumstances\nregarding her death that would cause Julius to want to have no more to do\nwith him?\n\n(A) Weer lived with his aunt and Julius for two years after their marriage,\nin his aunt's house, and was living there for almost an equal length of time\nbefore the marriage, the entire time they were courting. Smart was, de\nfacto, a father surrogate for Weer, from the age of ten or eleven to\nthirteen. He was about fifteen years older than his nephew. Weer returned to\nhis parent's house, just down the alley from his aunt's house, when they\ncame back from Europe. Weer was either in high school or college when his\naunt died, which is cause for a digression.\n\nIt is usually assumed that the choice not to speak was Smart's. The dates of\nOlivia's death and when the juice plant was built may be relevant. Weer\nstates that Smart was already making money while Olivia was still alive and\nhe was still living with them, but the source of the income isn't given. It\nalmost has to be from the drugstore, because Blaine's account of his own and\nhis bank's fortunes implies that it wasn't until a few years after the start\nof the Depression that a local market for potatoes was created by the\nplant's operations. The plant had to have existed by 1935, because Weer\naccepted a job there while he was still in college. The fact that Olivia\nnamed the juice product implies that it had been invented, certainly, and\npossibly that it was in production before her death. In any event, this\nwould seem to place both her death and the plant's founding sometime in the\nearly Thirties.\n\nThat Weer continued to live with his aunt for two years after her marriage\nmeans that he was about eleven when they married, which places the year as\n1925. If the assumptions in the preceding paragraph are correct, then Olivia\nlived for 6-8 years after marriage. Whatever strain, if any, that Weer's\npresence for the first two years put on the marriage should have ended when\nhe went back to his parents. Did it? He states that his parents remained\nforever strangers to him after abandoning him for several years. Did he\ncling to the stability that had been afforded to him by his aunt, whether or\nnot Julius was amenable, and despite the fact that he resented the changes\nthat Julius brought to his life? Did Julius resent the boy, only tolerating\nhim for his wife's sake?\n\n(B) And then there's the question of Olivia's infidelities. How could Weer,\na boy, be aware that she was having sex with both Peacock and Macafee, and\nJulius not be? When Weer wrote that \"--when she was Mrs. Smart--repent three\nor four times a year of her casual connection with Professor Peacock and her\noccasional nights with Mr. Macafee\", did he mean that he was present when\nshe confessed to Julius? (And where was young Den those nights?) To whom\nelse would such an even token confession be meaningful? Which brings me back\nto the circumstances of her death. Was it an accident? Not likely. We know\nonly from Wolfe's say so that Peacock was the culprit; the text gives no\nhint. Why did he do it? Jealousy? Of Macafee? I don't see the relevance; she\nwas married anyway. Or was that the reason, that Julius was jealous, and\nPeacock was his friend, who would kill for him? Or was jealousy the pretext\nand the real reason money? Would Olivia's death bring Smart some money (he\nsold her house to the city), money he needed to start up the plant? Was that\nnailed-down letter from Peacock to Smart (which would/should not have been\non either Weer's real or replica desk) relevant?\n\nWhat if that letter, which Weer obviously has knowledge of, implicated Smart\nin Olivia's death, whether before or after the fact? (Perhaps Peacock was\nblackmailing Smart, or threatened to, or Smart feared he would. Perhaps,\nalso, Smart's pharmaceutical skills were used to silence Peacock, who \"died\nonly a few years afterward of a complicated series of disorders said to have\nbeen aggravated by hypertension\". Shades of the Tilly tale.) What if Weer\nhad read that letter? What if the choice not to speak to one another after\nthe funeral was Weer's? That he despised Julius, but with his father's\nwealth being sapped by the Depression, he took advantage of the situation to\nmake Julius an offer he couldn't refuse? In a Faustian twist, Weer agreed to\na fixed term of silent service--say twenty-five years--at the end of which\nJulius would hand over the company to him and fade away--maybe to join the\ncircus or live on the beach in Florida. Smart would have accumulated a\nhandsome personal fortune by then, enough to live out his days in comfort.\nSmart would have only been in his early sixties when Weer took over his\ncompany. People just assume that Smart had to die in order for Weer to gain\ncontrol of the company, and that he did die. But the text doesn't ever say\nthat Smart died, or even hint at it. And during those twenty-five years Weer\nwould be guaranteed a living wage.\n\nThis scenario might also explain the \"what went wrong\" angle. Weer wouldn't\ninherit his father's estate \"between the ages of twenty and thirty\" as he,\nand perhaps Margaret, had rather optimistically and unrealistically planned.\nBut he _would_ inherit his uncle's wealth between the ages of forty and\nfifty. Either he felt he was unable to tell Margaret of his scheme, because\nshe might rat on him, or he did tell her and she was unable or unwilling to\nwait that long.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Bratt Ian", "address": "ian.bratt at colorado.edu" }, "date": "2002-10-14T05:05:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sun, 13 Oct 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nWe are told that for 25 years, since the death of Olivia, that Smart did not\nspeak to his nephew, Weer. We are not told why. Despite this estrangement,\nwhen Julius died, Weer inherited the company. Again, why?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I had always thought that Weer gaining control of the company was\ncompletely independent of his connection to Smart. When Smart died (or\nretired) Weer had been at the company the longest and was the best man for\nthe job. Is there any evidence that disproves this? It has been a while\nsince I read PEACE.\n\n-ian" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-10-14T05:31:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Ian quoted and wrote:\nWe are told that for 25 years, since the death of Olivia, that Smart did\nnot\nspeak to his nephew, Weer. We are not told why. Despite this\nestrangement,\nwhen Julius died, Weer inherited the company. Again, why?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I had always thought that Weer gaining control of the company was\ncompletely independent of his connection to Smart. When Smart died (or\nretired) Weer had been at the company the longest and was the best man for\nthe job. Is there any evidence that disproves this? It has been a while\nsince I read PEACE." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The plant existed before Weer went to work there, so whether or not he was\nthe longest-tenured employee, after Smart, I couldn't say. But in any event,\nsuccession to ownership of a business by seniority of employment is unheard\nof, at least by me. And Weer was hardly the best qualified employee; by his\nown account he was \"an unimportant employee of the corporation he [Smart]\nhad founded\". (148)\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Michael Andre-Driussi", "address": "mantis at siriusfiction.com" }, "date": "2002-10-14T23:26:23+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Roy C. Lackey's post on Smart. Again, that delightful feeling of seeing\nsomeone else write what I was on the verge of writing a week ago!\n\nSo good, we are thinking along the same lines!\n\nHowever, I argued with myself before so now I'll give you the same.\n\nFirst I would like to express my sense of the \"EZ reading,\" which Roy first\nbrought to my attention (though I was the one who named it). I was\nbuilding a timeline on the assumption that 1) Weer had been the responsible\nprankster in the coldhouse prank, and 2) Weer was lying about the date when\nit happened to obscure his role. I had arrived at this position from\ntalking (perhaps too much) with others about PEACE -- it was not an\nindividualistic reading, and the new trick was to try and build a timeline\naround it.\n\nRoy's attitude at the time seemed to be this: First, trust the text.\n\nWell anyway, enough of that for now.\n\nI, too, wondered at the possibility of a murder for hire at the bottom of\nthe \"nailed letter.\" And I went through the same permutations that Roy\nwent through (some or maybe most I've seen other people try in informal\nsettings such as this). There is a potential there, but I begin to\ndisbelieve it myself.\n\nAs for Smart's behavior towards Weer. In order for a \"sundering\" at the\nfuneral, there would have to be a \"togetherness\" beforehand, and while the\ntwo fellows were living under the same roof, even though they have a\nquasi-father/son relationship (or maybe make that \"especially because they\nhave a quasi-father/son relationship\"), they might not be such pals at all.\nIn contrast to the chummy antics of the other suitors, iirc we have no\nindication of the same with Smart and Weer. So, even if there were no\nother weirdness, the woman Olivia is the lynchpin that holds them in\nproximity: once she is gone, they might well drift apart. They don't go\nfishing together; they do not talk about books together; etc.\n\nAh, but there is other weirdness! Weer sees Olivia in the bathtub; Weer\nknows about Olivia's confessions of adultry (I imagine that she told Weer\nin some offhand manner ala Auntie Mame); Weer himself is a manslaughtering\nlittle weirdo who becomes a quasi-stepson during his teenage years\n(challenging period). Smart suffers having this spy in his life, this kid\nwho knows all the dirty laundry since he functions as his wife's confessor,\nand after the tragedy of losing his wife, Smart throws himself into his\nwork, where he was always most comfortable anyway.\n\nSo the simplest solution would appear to be that Smart and Weer had nothing\nto say to each other, and that Weer inherited because Smart had no other\nfamily and Weer is related by the marriage to Olivia. (Or as Wolfe said to\nDamien Broderick, something like: Weer inherited from grumpy old Smart.)\n\n(Nevermind how the coldhouse prank may have had an effect on anything.)\n\nThe letter from Peacock might be a confession that Peacock ran down Olivia\n(if we assume that it was a hit and run and nobody was ever charged).\n\nThe other thing about Smart that I've been mulling over again is how he\nequates to Napoleon, and what this means to the larger text. There is the\nbiography that they all read; there is the statue Olivia buys for Smart;\nSmart's child-like size points to Napoleon's small stature; even Smart's\npossible earlier marriage (to \"Mrs. Tilly\") might point to Napoleon's\nmarital scenario (Josephine and then Marie Louise) . . . and thus the\nstrange anecdote about Napoleon's hand, which Weer alludes to, a tidbit\nwhich our dedicated fellow readers have =not= been able to find in the\nbiography itself, may relate directly to Smart himself rather than Napoleon.\n\nI really should read PEACE again, soon.\n\n=mantis=" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-10-15T05:57:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "mantis writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Roy C. Lackey's post on Smart. Again, that delightful feeling of seeing\nsomeone else write what I was on the verge of writing a week ago!" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That sort of thing has happened to me far too often on this list; someone\nbeating me to the punch, but \"delightful\" is not the word I would choose to\ndescribe my reaction. I still can't believe that, back during the\nLITTLE, BIG discussion, you used that Jefferson Airplane line from \"White\nRabbit\" to deflect some question to alga. I was gonna use that!" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In contrast to the chummy antics of the other suitors, iirc we have no\nindication of the same with Smart and Weer. So, even if there were no\nother weirdness, the woman Olivia is the lynchpin that holds them in\nproximity: once she is gone, they might well drift apart. They don't go\nfishing together; they do not talk about books together; etc." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We agree, I think, that Weer and Smart were never pals, even when Olivia was\nalive. But to literally not speak to one another after her death betokens\nhard feelings on behalf of at least one party. Living in the same block as\nthey did, in a small town, such an abrupt rift would call attention to\nitself, as it almost surely did. Whether intentional or not, such a rift\nwould have to have extended to the entire Weer family; though unstated in\nthe text, I doubt that Smart was on speaking terms with any of the Weers." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "So the simplest solution would appear to be that Smart and Weer had nothing\nto say to each other, and that Weer inherited because Smart had no other\nfamily and Weer is related by the marriage to Olivia. (Or as Wolfe said to\nDamien Broderick, something like: Weer inherited from grumpy old Smart.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "But Smart _did_ have other family, some of them blood kin. All those\n\"relations\" he had helping him look for a job after college; his \"various\naunts, you know, and cousins and in-laws\" (115-16) They can't _all_ be dead.\nAnd Wolfe's comment doesn't address _why_ Weer inherited." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The other thing about Smart that I've been mulling over again is how he\nequates to Napoleon, and what this means to the larger text. There is the\nbiography that they all read; there is the statue Olivia buys for Smart;\nSmart's child-like size points to Napoleon's small stature; even Smart's\npossible earlier marriage (to \"Mrs. Tilly\") might point to Napoleon's\nmarital scenario (Josephine and then Marie Louise) . . . and thus the\nstrange anecdote about Napoleon's hand, which Weer alludes to, a tidbit\nwhich our dedicated fellow readers have =not= been able to find in the\nbiography itself, may relate directly to Smart himself rather than\nNapoleon." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You meant, it was Smart who bought the Dresden figure for Olivia. I didn't\nknow that no one had found the hand reference in Ludwig's bio. Strange.\nMaybe it has something to do with one of Smart's shoulders being \"noticeably\nlarger than the other\". In depictions of Napoleon, is the shoulder\ncorresponding to the hand in his waistcoat elevated higher than the other,\nmaking it look bigger? Anyone know?\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mark Millman", "address": "millman at heimdallr.dyndns.org" }, "date": "2002-10-15T08:39:29+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nYou meant, it was Smart who bought the\nDresden figure for Olivia. I didn't\nknow that no one had found the hand\nreference in Ludwig's bio. Strange.\nMaybe it has something to do with one\nof Smart's shoulders being \"noticeably\nlarger than the other\". In depictions\nof Napoleon, is the shoulder corres-\nponding to the hand in his waistcoat\nelevated higher than the other, making\nit look bigger? Anyone know?\n\n-Roy" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Regrettably, I don't know about the size of\nNapoleon's shoulders; I certainly don't re-\ncall anything unusual from the pictures I've\nseen, but that doesn't mean much.\n\nWhat struck me when you mentioned this is\nthe fact that contemporary descriptions of\nRichard III describe him as having one\nshoulder that was higher than the other\n(the source for Shakespeare's propagandist-\nically exaggerated \"Crookback Dick\"), and\nhis portraits confirm this. I don't recall\nwhether he was of unusually short stature,\nbut he certainly stood in the shadow of his\nelder brother, Edward IV, during Edward's\nlifetime.\n\nMark Millman" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "StoneOx17", "address": "stoneox17 at aol.com" }, "date": "2002-10-15T13:41:38+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In a very interesting post, Roy C. Lackey writes:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "We are told that for 25 years, since the death of Olivia, that Smart did not\npeak to his nephew, Weer. We are not told why. Despite this estrangement,\nwhen Julius died, Weer inherited the company. Again, why? " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Good questions. I note that Weer's comment about not speaking to Julius\nfor 25 years was not addressed to the reader, but to Aaron Gold, which,\nat least by my rules for interpretation, means he might be lying (possibly \nto avoid mentioning the coldhouse prank). Weer and Julius certainly weren't \nbuddies, though -- Weer does tell us directly that the only occasions from\nwhich he remembers Julius well after the funeral were laboratory inspections." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Which brings me back\nto the circumstances of [Olivia's] death. Was it an accident? Not likely. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "We " }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "know only from Wolfe's say so that Peacock was the culprit; the text gives \nno hint." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There are a few things I think are hints. It's revealed that Peacock owned a\ncar. He doesn't show up at the funeral, and Weer assumes that he isn't \ngrieving (thus revealing that Weer, at least, suspected that it was murder). \nFinally, in the Chinese garden dream, the earthenware troll under the \nbridge possibly resembles Aunt Olivia's ceramic garden gnomes. And \nin the princess fairy tale, the suitor representing Peacock is the youngest \nson of the king of the gnomes. However, if Wolfe hadn't confirmed it, I \nsuspect I wouldn't be convinced." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Was that\nnailed-down letter from Peacock to Smart (which would/should not have \nbeen on either Weer's real or replica desk) relevant?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What if that letter, which Weer obviously has knowledge of, implicated Smart\nin Olivia's death, whether before or after the fact? (Perhaps Peacock was\nblackmailing Smart, or threatened to, or Smart feared he would. " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "It was on the President's desk, so I presumed that Weer saw it when he\nwent through Julius's files after he inherited the company, and that Julius\nreceived it when he was President, thus probably after Olivia's death. \nThis means Weer couldn't have seen it before Aunt Olivia's funeral (and \nhow would he have gotten his hands on Julius's private mail anyway?),\nso I don't see that it could be Weer's grounds for suspicion at the funeral." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps,\nalso, Smart's pharmaceutical skills were used to silence Peacock, who \"died\nonly a few years afterward of a complicated series of disorders said to have\nbeen aggravated by hypertension\". " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Alternatively, he could have died from medical disorders brought on by guilt." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What if the choice not to speak to one another after\nthe funeral was Weer's? That he despised Julius, but with his father's\nwealth being sapped by the Depression, he took advantage of the \nsituation to make Julius an offer he couldn't refuse? In a Faustian twist, \nWeer agreed to a fixed term of silent service--say twenty-five years--at \nthe end of which Julius would hand over the company to him and fade \naway--maybe to join the circus or live on the beach in Florida. Smart \nwould have accumulated a handsome personal fortune by then, enough \nto live out his days in comfort. Smart would have only been in his early\nsixties when Weer took over his company. \nPeople just assume that Smart had to die in order for Weer to gain\ncontrol of the company, and that he did die. But the text doesn't ever say\nthat Smart died, or even hint at it. And during those twenty-five years Weer\nwould be guaranteed a living wage." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I like the idea that Weer doesn't speak to Julius because he suspects\ncomplicity in Aunt Olivia's death. I don't know that I believe that Weer\nwould have voiced his suspicions at this point, as I don't see how he could\nhave any proof, so I don't buy a Faustian pact at this point. Maybe after\nthe coldhouse incident. \n\nI also think (for reasons connected with the Doris story, which I'll put in \nmy \nnext posting), that Smart had to be dead by the time Charles Turner spoke \nwith Weer, which means it is very likely that Weer inherited when Smart \ndied. But alternatively, the terms of the pact could have been that Weer\ninherited from Smart (which he would likely have done anyway, if he was \nSmart's closest living relative).\n\n-- Stone Ox" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "StoneOx17", "address": "stoneox17 at aol.com" }, "date": "2002-10-15T19:50:59+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Tue, 15 Oct 2002, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nYou meant, it was Smart who bought the\nDresden figure for Olivia. I didn't\nknow that no one had found the hand\nreference in Ludwig's bio. Strange.\nMaybe it has something to do with one\nof Smart's shoulders being \"noticeably\nlarger than the other\". In depictions\nof Napoleon, is the shoulder corres-\nponding to the hand in his waistcoat\nelevated higher than the other, making\nit look bigger? Anyone know?\n\n-Roy" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There's another possible reason for one\nof Smart's shoulders to be higher than the\nother. Mr. Tilly seems to have killed his\ndogs, wife, and son with side effects of\nthe \"medicines\" he was testing on them.\nIf he was trying out his new \"hunchback \nmedicine\" on his assistant before he died,\nthis could account for Smart's shoulders.\n\nIt seems like this should have taken more\nthan five days, but I've argued before that\npart of Smart's story of Mr. Tilly may be a \nlie (note that Smart is described as having \na long nose) and that Mr. Tilly was really\npoisoned by Smart. " }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Stone Ox\n\n\n-- " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-10-18T13:17:36+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 10/14/02 4:37 AM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nWhat if that letter, which Weer obviously has knowledge of, implicated Smart\nin Olivia's death, whether before or after the fact?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "What if Weer\nhad read that letter? What if the choice not to speak to one another after\nthe funeral was Weer's? That he despised Julius, but with his father's\nwealth being sapped by the Depression, he took advantage of the situation to\nmake Julius an offer he couldn't refuse? In a Faustian twist, Weer agreed to\na fixed term of silent service--say twenty-five years--at the end of which\nJulius would hand over the company to him and fade away--maybe to join the\ncircus or live on the beach in Florida. Smart would have accumulated a\nhandsome personal fortune by then, enough to live out his days in comfort.\nSmart would have only been in his early sixties when Weer took over his\ncompany. People just assume that Smart had to die in order for Weer to gain\ncontrol of the company, and that he did die. But the text doesn't ever say\nthat Smart died, or even hint at it. And during those twenty-five years Weer\nwould be guaranteed a living wage." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "An interesting speculation; but it strikes me as unlikely that, had Weer\nbeen in a position to blackmail Smart in his youth, he would have chosen to\nlive in poverty for twenty-five years and collect only in his fifties,\nrather than ensure a comfortable living now. (Not to mention that your\nscenario would provide Smart ample time to dispose of the Weer \"problem\" in\nother ways.) I'm inclined to agree with mantis: Smart was president and\nWeer a lowly engineer, they hadn't hit it off at Olivia's, and once Olivia\nwas dead, there was no reason for them to stay in contact. As for why Weer\ninherited, Smart did have other relatives, but they were distant; and he may\nhave preferred to leave the factory to someone who knew the business, though\nrelated only by marriage, rather than a distant relative by blood who might\nwreck the business through ignorance.\n\n(It just occurred to me, though: is it certain that Weer did in fact receive\nthe company from Smart, by inheritance or otherwise? Is it possible that he\nwas simply chosen president by the board after Smart's death or retirement,\nand got rich through his salary (and stock options)? Perhaps he had worked\nhis way up to head of research by that time, and so been in a position to be\nconsidered for the presidency; and his connection by marriage to Smart might\nhave also worked in his favor. A quick look at the book didn't turn up\nanything to rule this out, though I may be forgetting something obvious. At\nany rate, I have no attachment to this idea; I just throw it out as another\npossibility.)\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-10-18T21:46:40+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Adam wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As for why Weer\ninherited, Smart did have other relatives, but they were distant; and he\nmay\nhave preferred to leave the factory to someone who knew the business,\nthough\nrelated only by marriage, rather than a distant relative by blood who might\nwreck the business through ignorance." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps; it's just that I have a hard time believing that a man would\nwillingly leave his estate to someone he wouldn't even speak to. I wouldn't\nallow it to happen; it strikes me as \"contrary to everyday experience\"." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(It just occurred to me, though: is it certain that Weer did in fact\nreceive\nthe company from Smart, by inheritance or otherwise? Is it possible that\nhe\nwas simply chosen president by the board after Smart's death or retirement,\nand got rich through his salary (and stock options)? Perhaps he had worked\nhis way up to head of research by that time, and so been in a position to\nbe\nconsidered for the presidency; and his connection by marriage to Smart\nmight\nhave also worked in his favor. A quick look at the book didn't turn up\nanything to rule this out, though I may be forgetting something obvious." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "At" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "any rate, I have no attachment to this idea; I just throw it out as another\npossibility.)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Neither am I attached to the idea that Smart didn't necessarily die in order\nfor Weer to inherit. It just seems to me that Weer had to have had a good\nreason for sticking with that dead-end job for twenty-five years. After\nW.W.II, jobs for a college-educated man in his early thirties shouldn't have\nbeen hard to find. So why did Weer stay there?\n\nThe theory that Julius was, in effect, blackmailing Weer (in the wake of the\ncoldhouse prank) to get him to work for slave wages, if true, might have\ngiven Julius some vindictive satisfaction, but it would have had little\nimpact on the bottom line. One cheap laborer, more or less, was\ninsignificant, given the large number of employees at the plant. Also, if\nJulius was that petty, that's all the more reason to doubt he would\nwillingly leave the company to Weer.\n\nAnd the company _was_ Weer's. He wasn't just president; he was also \"board\nchairman and chief stockholder\" (108). The board of a corporation is not in\na legal position to bequeath a majority of its stock to an employee, even if\nthe board were inclined to do so, which isn't likely. If Smart died\nintestate, which I doubt, the courts could have and probably would have\nfound a closer relative. And those relatives would have been clamoring for a\nchunk of the pie. No, Smart had to have passed the company to Weer legally.\n\nWhile writing about the construction of his memory mansion, Weer says:\n\"Furthermore I made the mistake, when the company at last came into my hands\nand I had funds enough to build, of duplicating, or nearly duplicating,\ncertain well-remembered rooms whose furnishings had fallen to me by\ninheritance.\" (35) It's that \"at last\" which makes me inclined to believe\nthat he had reason to believe that he would someday get his hands on Smart's\ncompany. That's why I was looking for a reason for him to believe that, and\nto have stayed with the company for twenty-five years. When Aaron asked if\nWeer would \"come into some stock when Uncle Julius kicks off\", Weer's answer\nisn't an answer. \"Do I look like a fair-haired boy?\" is just a rhetorical\nbrush off, and the part about Smart not speaking to him for twenty-five\nyears tells me, at least, that Smart wouldn't have put Weer in his will if\nhe could help it.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Adam Stephanides", "address": "adamsteph at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2002-10-20T13:48:43+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "on 10/18/02 4:46 PM, Roy C. Lackey at rclackey at stic.net wrote:\nAdam wrote:\n[snip]" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "As for why Weer\ninherited, Smart did have other relatives, but they were distant; and he\nmay\nhave preferred to leave the factory to someone who knew the business,\nthough\nrelated only by marriage, rather than a distant relative by blood who might\nwreck the business through ignorance." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Perhaps; it's just that I have a hard time believing that a man would\nwillingly leave his estate to someone he wouldn't even speak to. I wouldn't\nallow it to happen; it strikes me as \"contrary to everyday experience\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If he doesn't speak to Weer because of loathing, yes. If, as I and mantis\nhave argued, they just don't have occasion to speak to each other, then it's\nnot so strange, given that we don't know of any other relatives Smart speaks\nto. In any case, your scenario seems more unlikely to me, especially given\nthe added twist of Smart as serial killer who lets his blackmailer live\nuntouched for twenty-five years." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Neither am I attached to the idea that Smart didn't necessarily die in order\nfor Weer to inherit. It just seems to me that Weer had to have had a good\nreason for sticking with that dead-end job for twenty-five years. After\nW.W.II, jobs for a college-educated man in his early thirties shouldn't have\nbeen hard to find. So why did Weer stay there?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "If Weer is blackmailing Julius to get the company when Julius was\nsixty-something, why does he have to stick around if he can get a better job\nelsewhere?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "And the company _was_ Weer's. He wasn't just president; he was also \"board\nchairman and chief stockholder\" (108)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well, a \"chief stockholder\" isn't necessarily a majority stockholder, just\nthe individual with the most shares. And if Weer is indeed the owner of the\ncompany, than why doesn't the doctor (or Weer speaking through the doctor)\njust say \"owner\"?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The board of a corporation is not in\na legal position to bequeath a majority of its stock to an employee, even if\nthe board were inclined to do so, which isn't likely." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "As I said above, it doesn't have to be a majority. And the board of a\ncorporation can grant stock options to an executive; I believe they can even\nissue new stock and give that to their executives. Or Weer could have\nbought the stock himself from his salary as president and board chairman.\nBut, as I said before, I'm not attached to this scenario; I just present it\nas oone possible solution." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "While writing about the construction of his memory mansion, Weer says:\n\"Furthermore I made the mistake, when the company at last came into my hands\nand I had funds enough to build, of duplicating, or nearly duplicating,\ncertain well-remembered rooms whose furnishings had fallen to me by\ninheritance.\" (35) It's that \"at last\" which makes me inclined to believe\nthat he had reason to believe that he would someday get his hands on Smart's\ncompany." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Perhaps; but if he was lying by implication to Aaron about inheriting from\nSmart, he could also have been lying about not having spoken to Smart.\n\nAnother objection to your scenario just occurred to me: if Weer were indeed\nblackmailing Smart, and if the payoff were not to come for twenty-five\nyears, is it really likely that Weer would not once in those years have\napproached Smart to remind Smart of his hold over him, and make sure Smart\nhadn't changed his mind?\n\n--Adam" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "David DiGiacomo", "address": "david at slack.com" }, "date": "2002-10-21T02:27:12+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Re: PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "(B) And then there's the question of Olivia's infidelities. How could Weer,\na boy, be aware that she was having sex with both Peacock and Macafee, and\nJulius not be? When Weer wrote that \"--when she was Mrs. Smart--repent three\nor four times a year of her casual connection with Professor Peacock and her\noccasional nights with Mr. Macafee\", did he mean that he was present when\nshe confessed to Julius?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "This is saying that the repentance took place after her marriage, not the\nsex. I don't see any evidence of infidelity in the passage." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2002-10-21T05:17:27+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) Re: PEACE: Smart", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "David DiGiacomo quoted and wrote:\n(B) And then there's the question of Olivia's infidelities. How could\nWeer,\na boy, be aware that she was having sex with both Peacock and Macafee, and\nJulius not be? When Weer wrote that \"--when she was Mrs. Smart--repent\nthree\nor four times a year of her casual connection with Professor Peacock and\nher\noccasional nights with Mr. Macafee\", did he mean that he was present when\nshe confessed to Julius?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "This is saying that the repentance took place after her marriage, not the\nsex. I don't see any evidence of infidelity in the passage." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Remember the infamous \"leather-covered couch\"? Weer wondered \". . .if Mr.\nMacafee had ever been able to explain to himself why my aunt, who had been\nimpossible of access before her marriage, had become so easy after . . .\"\n(180) In fact, it was while crossing Main Street after one such tryst, from\nMacafee's store to Dubarry's Bakery, that she was killed by Peacock.\n\n-Roy" } ] } ] }