Subject: Re: (urth) Suzanne

From: Peter Westlake <peter at harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Thu, 07 May 1998 15:25:00 +0000

At 12:00 1998-05-07 -0400, Alice Turner wrote:
>Peter,
>
>We don't allow for spoilers here--in other words we simply assume that
>everyone has read everything, and let the unwary reader beware. What you
>found in "Suzanne"--I assume it's different from mantis's discovery of the
>Proust connection (which was amazing enough!)--do tell.

Well, I'll start with a couple of hints, and then put the spoiler
right at the end.

First, why do we see Suzanne's daughter? I think she's there to tell
us what Suzanne looks like. I would have been surprised if she had
been a tanned redhead, for instance. We don't meet Suzanne herself
because that would be too much like the Stoppard parody of Waiting
For Godot - "there he is now". It would undo the plot.

Second, the narrator wonders if Suzanne belongs to any cliques.
I think she belongs to at least two: the Pie Club, and one other
group of people, mentioned in the story.

Final hint: what's the problem with looking for Suzanne in the
picture of the Pie Club?

Okay, last chance. ** SPOILER follows **

Here's the sentence, and in particular the phrase, that still
gives me the shivers:

   Suzanne is listed among those "Unable to be photographed".

And the girls in the Pie Club photo are too loosely grouped to
be identified easily. But I bet they wouldn't have looked that
way at the time .... when you could see Suzanne.

Peter.

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

---

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Fri, 08 May 1998 16:03:03 +0000

> group of people, mentioned in the story.

Which?  The "dazzlingly beautiful ones"?  That's certainly what one
interpretation of Suzanne's daughter's appearance, but see below.

> way at the time .... when you could see Suzanne.

I hate to pour cold water on your theories, especially since this story
has always mystified me.  But if, as you seem to be implying, Suzanne is
some sort of supernatural being who doesn't show up in photographs, I
think the narrator would have heard about it and remembered it, along with
the entire town.  And if Suzanne had been absent from the Pie Club photo,
instead of just unidentifiable, wouldn't the narrator have noticed that
the caption contained one too many names?  I think "loosely grouped" means
only that the girls are posed as if in the middle of cooking, rather than
lined up in rows as is usual.

I really would like an explanation for this story.  The best I've been
able to do is: if Suzanne's daughter had really been as strikingly
beautiful as the story's next-to-last paragraph describes, then the
narrator would certainly have noticed Suzanne.  Ergo, the daughter is
really not so remarkable, and the flowery prose of the description
reflects the sentimentality of a lonely middle-aged man.  But if that's
all there is to it, it's not much of a story.  And the way Wolfe writes
it, it feels to me that there should be some greater payoff.

--Adam

---

From: Peter Westlake <peter at harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 00:01:07 +0000

>interpretation of Suzanne's daughter's appearance, but see below.

No, the ones who don't show up in photographs.

>the entire town.

I did wonder about that myself. But as Craig has just reminded us,
the story starts with the narrator reading about the idea that
everyone has had some truly extraordinary experience and forgotten
all about it. Mirrors might be more of a problem.

And if Suzanne had been absent from the Pie Club photo,
>lined up in rows as is usual.

It would depend on what and who was in the background, I think.

However ... looking again, I see that the narrator isn't quite
certain of the name of the Pie Club. So maybe Craig is right
and it is the "Pudding Club" instead! Suzanne's daughter is only
about fifteen, so that would mean the story takes place only
about sixteen years after high school, and we are told the
narrator has retired; but "much sooner than most men", so it
might still work.

One more small bit of evidence for the supernatural theory,
and the vampire theory in particular, is the way the narrator's
mother is so exhausted by her trips with Suzanne's mother,
but is always so keen to go again. Not much to go on, I admit.

Another theory is that Suzanne never was at the school, and
her mother didn't die while the narrator was at college, but
rejuvenated herself and then invented a high school career
to account for her appearing on the scene in her teens. Then
we really *do* meet her at the end. I'm not entirely convinced
by this, though.

Peter.

---

From: Alice Turner <al at interport.net>
Date: Sat, 09 May 1998 18:17:07 +0000

>has always mystified me [snip] I think "loosely grouped" means

I tend to go along with Adam's explanation here, but I don't agree that it
diminishes the story. I think there is something powerful and poignant about
a middle-aged man's shock of realization that his entire life could have
been entirely different, had it not been for the coincidences of fate. I
think you're all looking too hard for a fantasy element. The godfather of
this story is Proust (and for once that is proven, not conjectural), not
Kafka or Borges. The flavor of regret is bittersweet.

-alga-

---

From: Peter Westlake <peter at harlequin.co.uk>
Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 00:00:23 +0000

>Kafka or Borges. The flavor of regret is bittersweet.

That *does* make a lot of sense. In fact, I shall enjoy reading that
version of the story very much even if another explanation proves to
be the true one, just as I enjoyed reading "my" version. So do you
think that never seeing Suzanne is sufficiently odd to fit the
notion at the start of the story? Actually, I suppose it is,
and the narrator hadn't called it to mind before he read the idea.

It certainly is a powerful and poignant story, and at the moment
I think you're right.

Peter.