{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5605", "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": 5605, "subject": "TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts", "messages": 3, "voices": 2, "first": "2010-05-14T19:27:50+00:00", "last": "2010-05-15T20:28:19+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "<004101caf39b$8ef9daa0$00d34a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-05-14T19:27:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "By the time Bax was beaten by Ieuan, he had both the opal ring from the fish\nand Ted's ring. At that point he knew nothing at all about any hypothetical\nprevious owner of the opal ring, and only what little Doris had told him\nabout Ted. He didn't know then what Ted looked like. When writing about it,\nBax decided that the big man who came between him and Ieuan must have been\nthe boy's father, but that is not what he thought at the time of the\nbeating: \"At the time, because of his ring, I thought him something else; .\n. .\" (50)\n\nThat \"something else\" must have been a ghost. It must have been that the big\nman was wearing a ring identical to the one on Bax's finger, the ring Doris\nhad given him that had belonged to her dead husband.\n\nBax, at least, did not believe that a ghost could leave behind real,\ntangible objects. In talking to Doris, who had asked if he had seen any\nghosts, he mentioned his first encounter with Emlyn. \"I didn't make it up,\nand he wasn't a ghost. I know he wasn't because he dropped things. Real\nthings. I still have them.\" (36) He meant, of course, the triannulus and\n\"longlight\".\n\nNow a digression to an earlier topic. The text makes clear that Ted was a\nbig man, taller and heavier than average Bax, and Black/Skotos was a small\nman, shorter than Bax. However, in later conversation with Emlyn, the boy\nasked Bax if he might be his father in disguise. Bax said no and asked if\nhis father could disguise himself that well, and the boy said yes (161).\n\nAnd that brings me back to Doris's bedroom and her visit by Ted. According\nto her, Ted's apparition had left behind an unspecified tangible object,\nwith his initials in a corner of it. I think someone wondered earlier if the\nobject might have been the triannulus. It seems doubtful, yet I can't rule\nit out. And if Zwart could really have disguised himself to look like Bax,\nthen he might as easily have disguised himself to look like anyone, even\nTed. And that opens up a whole can of worms.\n\nDoris might not have said what the wet item was because she didn't know\nwhat it was. And the Ted she saw might not have been a ghost. Winkle/Winker\nand old Nick seemed to come and go as if by magic, as well as other figures\nfrom faerie.\n\nNeither does any of this preclude Ted from somehow being Goldwurm.\n\nIf it seems as though I am pointing in different directions at the same\ntime, it is because I am. I'm just trying to make sense of what there is to\ndeal with.\n\n-Roy" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Mr Thalassocrat", "address": "thalassocrat08 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-05-15T08:45:49+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts", "in_reply_to": "<004101caf39b$8ef9daa0$00d34a0c@rclackey>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Roy C. Lackey wrote:\nBy the time Bax was beaten by Ieuan, he had both the opal ring from the\nfish\nand Ted's ring. At that point he knew nothing at all about any hypothetical\nprevious owner of the opal ring, and only what little Doris had told him\nabout Ted. He didn't know then what Ted looked like. When writing about it,\nBax decided that the big man who came between him and Ieuan must have been\nthe boy's father, but that is not what he thought at the time of the\nbeating: \"At the time, because of his ring, I thought him something else; .\n. .\" (50)\n\nThat \"something else\" must have been a ghost. It must have been that the\nbig\nman was wearing a ring identical to the one on Bax's finger, the ring Doris\nhad given him that had belonged to her dead husband." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "That's certainly the way I understood it." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Bax, at least, did not believe that a ghost could leave behind real,\ntangible objects. In talking to Doris, who had asked if he had seen any\nghosts, he mentioned his first encounter with Emlyn. \"I didn't make it up,\nand he wasn't a ghost. I know he wasn't because he dropped things. Real\nthings. I still have them.\" (36) He meant, of course, the triannulus and\n\"longlight\"." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Note how the ring gets introduced in this first conversation with Doris. She\nwants to hear any ghost stories Bax might have; he tells her about his\nencounter with Emlyn and Emlyn's dropping stuff; she asks whether Bax's opal\nring was one of those things; just after this, she gives Bax Ted's ring,\nafter ascertaINING that he's not married.\n\nI think Doris knows some \"stuff\" and she is actively fishing for information\nhere. She's really interested in that opal ring; hence my little theory\nabout why she gave Ted's ring to Bax: she wants Bax to give her the other\none (I guess a wedding ring).\n\nRecall also that on the scary ride to the same restaurant later on, she says\nthat of everybody she can think, she wishes Ted was with them - because, I\nthink, she knows that Ted was involved with this \"stuff\" and would know how\nto handle it.\n\nAs to what the wet initialled object might have been at the end: perhaps\nTed's shroud? Would that be monogrammed?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Now a digression to an earlier topic. The text makes clear that Ted was a\nbig man, taller and heavier than average Bax, and Black/Skotos was a small\nman, shorter than Bax. However, in later conversation with Emlyn, the boy\nasked Bax if he might be his father in disguise. Bax said no and asked if\nhis father could disguise himself that well, and the boy said yes (161).\n\nAnd that brings me back to Doris's bedroom and her visit by Ted. According\nto her, Ted's apparition had left behind an unspecified tangible object,\nwith his initials in a corner of it. I think someone wondered earlier if\nthe\nobject might have been the triannulus. It seems doubtful, yet I can't rule\nit out. And if Zwart could really have disguised himself to look like Bax,\nthen he might as easily have disguised himself to look like anyone, even\nTed. And that opens up a whole can of worms.\n\nDoris might not have said what the wet item was because she didn't know\nwhat it was. And the Ted she saw might not have been a ghost. Winkle/Winker\nand old Nick seemed to come and go as if by magic, as well as other figures\nfrom faerie.\n\nNeither does any of this preclude Ted from somehow being Goldwurm.\n\nIf it seems as though I am pointing in different directions at the same\ntime, it is because I am. I'm just trying to make sense of what there is to\ndeal with.\n\n-Roy\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<005601caf46d$2cb12560$58d14a0c@rclackey>", "from": { "name": "Roy C. Lackey", "address": "rclackey at stic.net" }, "date": "2010-05-15T20:28:19+00:00", "subject": "(urth) TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Andrew wrote:\nNote how the ring gets introduced in this first conversation with Doris." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "She" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "wants to hear any ghost stories Bax might have; he tells her about his\nencounter with Emlyn and Emlyn's dropping stuff; she asks whether Bax's\nopal\nring was one of those things; just after this, she gives Bax Ted's ring,\nafter ascertaINING that he's not married." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yet he had already told her he wasn't married when she picked him up to go\nto the restaurant (33)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I think Doris knows some \"stuff\" and she is actively fishing for\ninformation\nhere. She's really interested in that opal ring; hence my little theory\nabout why she gave Ted's ring to Bax: she wants Bax to give her the other\none (I guess a wedding ring)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "She came to the restaurant armed with Ted's ring, even though she said the\nsight of it caused her grief, which makes me think she must have been up to\nsomething. But how would she have known that Bax had the opal ring before\nshe saw it on his finger? The only other person who even knew Bax had it was\nthe jeweler he had shown it to that morning, who had said the ring was\nworthless. And her note with the flimsy excuse for asking him to lunch came\nin that same morning's mail.\n\nIf Ted is Someone Important, it seems just too coincidental that his wife\nwould spontaneously make a play for a man she had thought was poor up to the\nminute she saw the opal ring on his finger. That would imply that she was\nignorant of its sorcerous worth and saw only the potential wealth a\ncat's-eye opal suggested. That reduces her to a simple gold digger, not a\nknowing ally of her husband. Unless the coincidence was the result of Bax\nhaving messed with the triannulus and one of those \"other things\" that \"fell\ninto line as well\" (33) came into play." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Recall also that on the scary ride to the same restaurant later on, she\nsays\nthat of everybody she can think, she wishes Ted was with them - because, I\nthink, she knows that Ted was involved with this \"stuff\" and would know\nhow\nto handle it." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Much the same way that Emlyn lamented his father not being around to tell\nhim how to handle things." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "As to what the wet initialled object might have been at the end: perhaps\nTed's shroud? Would that be monogrammed?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I've never heard of a monogrammed shroud.\n\nLet's run with the theory that Ted is Goldwurm and Doris his accomplice.\nDoes that mean that he didn't die and she knows it? She faked being a widow\nfor two years before Bax even came to town? Or he didn't die and she really\nthought he had, medical bills and all?\n\nWhy did she send the Dear John letter? The last time Bax saw her was in his\ndriveway when she left to take Cathy to the hospital. The last he spoke to\nher was the next(?) morning when she phoned to confirm his suspicion that\nMartha had been one of the mourners at Skotos's funeral. The Dear John\nletter comes out of nowhere.\n\nA Dear John letter is usually prompted by the gal finding another guy. Was\nthere another guy? George? Then why turn right around and write the Terrible\nMistake letter, set it aside, go to the house to help catch a vampire, then\ncome home to write the postscript telling about it and mail it off?\n\n-Roy" } ] } ] }