Subject: Re: (urth) Napoleon

From: Robert King <bobking at gate.net>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 1998 20:23:43 +0000

[Posted from URTH, a mailing list about Gene Wolfe's New Sun and other works]

Maybe it's my sick mind at work, but I always surmised that Weer's theory
held that Napoleon was surreptitiously, uh, fondling himself. (In
Seinfeldian terms, the Emperor might have ruled much of Europe but he was
definitely not master of his own domain.) Although I suppose the hand
would have to be much lower than portraits usually place it.

In any case, that's the type of explanation a certain type of boy at a
certain age would take great delight in recounting, especially to older
relatives. And it would invariably offend.

-- Bob

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: Paul C Duggan <pduggan at world.std.com>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 14:23:07 +0000

The story about napoleon that fits weers description would seem to be that
Napoleon was one of the first to receive a colostomy bag. He kept his hand
in his coat to keep it from passing wind.

Hey, that's what I read somewhere. Sounds like a job for
alt.folklore.urban

"I am an impure thinker. I am hurt, swayed, shaken, |  paul           + | +
elated, disillusioned, shocked, comforted, and I    |                 --|--
have to transmit my mental experiences lest I die." |                 + | +
                     --  Eugen Rosenstock-Huessy    |  pduggan at world.std.com

---

From: William H. Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 23:46:17 +0000

Bob (Robert King) wrote:

>held that Napoleon was surreptitiously, uh, fondling himself.
....
>relatives. And it would invariably offend.

Aside from difficulties associated with how Nappy could do this with his
hand in his waistcoat (which ends at the waist, at least in front), it
seems unlikely to me that Weer (or Wolfe) would consider this an innocent
remark.

William Ansley

---

From: William H. Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Fri, 01 May 1998 23:46:00 +0000

>in his coat to keep it from passing wind.

Again, I don't think this fits with the fact that this is supposed to be an
innocent remark.

"At first I used to tell it in the hope of satisfying curiosity (and so
obtaining those real though impalpable satifactions, sweet at any time, but
sweetest at thirteen, which accrue when we appear knowledgeable and thus,
at least by implication, effective). Later I continued it as a
psychological experiment, having observed that the innocent remark
invariably offended."

_Peace_, p. 2

BTW, don't you just love the long involuted sentences that abound in _Peace_?

William Ansley

---

From: Robert King <bobking at gate.net>
Date: Sat, 02 May 1998 13:18:49 +0000

I agree with you on the physical difficulties, and maybe the colostomy bag
is more realistic. But I think it's perfectly common for kids (okay, maybe
13 is a little old, but then again these were supposedly more innocent
days, weren't they?) to think of their questions or remarks as innocuous
and then find that they've offended more-knowing adults. As in, "Hey
mommy, what does **** mean?"

To "invariably offend," the remark would have to somewhat salacious,
wouldn't it? How likely is it everybody would be offended by young Weer
demystifying Napoleon's pose?

Don't you think it's wonderful that by not telling us what Napoleon was
supposedly doing, Wolfe has managed to keep us talking about it 23 years
later?

-- Bob

---

From: William H. Ansley <wansley at warwick.net>
Date: Mon, 04 May 1998 00:57:43 +0000

>mommy, what does **** mean?"

This is possible, but my interpretation of the passage in question, which I
have
appended to the end of this message, is that Weer continued to repeat the
story ("as a psychological experiment") into his adult years but still felt
the remark to be innocent. There is some mild support for this later on.
When Weer is talking to Louis Gold in his study, after Sherry Gold has
persuaded Weer not to tell anyone about about her father's forged books, on
p. 226 of the Orb edition, he says:

"I'm afraid I only know the story of Bonaparte's hand, and I don't tell it
very often anymore."

>demystifying Napoleon's pose?

It certainly is hard to think of a remark that meets these two criteria. If
the author weren't Wolfe, I might think that he didn't have any real remark
about Napoleon's hand in mind and was just being annoyingly mysterious.
But, since it is Wolfe, I tend to think that (in addition to being
annoyingly mysterious) he does have a remark in mind that would make us all
say "Oh, of course!"

>supposedly doing, Wolfe has managed to keep us talking about it 23 years

It certainly is wonderful, but the time of wonders must end. 8-> I think I
have beat this thing to death and beyond, so I'll (probably) stop here.

-----------------------------------

_Peace_, p. 2
-----------------------------------

William Ansley