{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/6682", "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": 6682, "subject": "Short Story 8: Volksweapon", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2014-10-08T14:27:47+00:00", "last": "2014-10-08T14:57:47+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Robert Pirkola", "address": "rpirkola at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:27:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Short Story 8: Volksweapon", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Marc Aramini wrote on October 7, 2014: \"Off topic, your input on volksweapon from a few months ago .. It is verysuspicious that the hero wants to leave the dead girl alone, and thealleged killer wants to stay with her body or bring it. I feel that as anonrealistic meta mystery your solution would work ... But with any degreeof realism, the proper authorities would have the \"hero\" if he were at allrelated to the dead girl or her husband. He wouldn't get away with it ashis motive would be obvious to authorities. \"Oh wait... You are herhusband?\"However, the image of blinding the deer with a flashlight also seems as ifit could describe the murder of the girl if the person who presents oursolution is not trustworthy.I don't know. Maybe it should be revisited.\"\nYeah, I am pretty sure you are right that Smythe can't have been the husband. It was an hypothesis too far, especially\ngiven that the third-person narrator specifically identifies him as, \"game warden\", which I think we have to trust. However, \nif you forget that ill-considered bit of speculation and make a different assumption (that does have plausible\ntextual support) it remains narratively sound. Assume that Smythe was the person \nthe moon-faced boy claims initially confronted he and Judy, and that his name is indeed an indication of\nhis character. I generally associate smiting with Old Testament-style justice from on high and if Smythe\nknew that Judy was married and was committing adultery, he may have taken justice into his own hands\nand killed her for the transgression. Leviticus 20:10 ?If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor, \nboth the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.\" This would also help explain why he\ndisposes of the old hunter's derringer rather than allowing the judicial process to proceed. It is an example of\njustice like that exhibited by Solomon, though thankfully no babies were harmed in the making of that reference.\n\nThis of course fails to explain two ambiguous statements from Smythe:\nThe last line of the story, \"I wish I could have given it to her\"\nand \n?I suppose she and that fellow were driving out to one of the summer\n cottages on the lake — maybe not for the reasons you would think.\n\nYeah, I want to believe the jacklighting bit is relevant beyond implicating the hunters, but I can't seem to\nmake it fit the narrative. Smythe couldn't have used the technique to kill the girl as the MFB would have mentionedsomething about a bright light coming out of nowhere. The description of \njacklighting given by Smythe on pg. 49:\n\n\"The jacklighter shines a lamp or the headlights of a car into the woods and kind of hypnotizes the deer. Since the deer's\neyes reflect the light, your poacher has a perfect target; the range is short and the deer's not moving. Usually your jacklighter\nuses a car and you can stop him on the road with the carcass in his trunk.\"\n\nAny ideas?\n\nFor those interested, the discussion of this story started with Marc's post on March 29, 2012. http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2012-March/026740.html\nMy follow-up was on July 2, 2014. http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2014-July/054877.html\n\n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<0DA454A32913114C9CC19BB781FB907D011F79@ETSUMB2.etsu.edu>", "from": { "name": "Norwood, Frederick Hudson", "address": "norwoodr at mail.etsu.edu" }, "date": "2014-10-08T14:57:47+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Short Story 8: Volksweapon", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I'm so glad to see this discussion returning to the works of Gene Wolfe.\n\nRick Norwood\n\nFrom: Urth [mailto:urth-bounces at lists.urth.net] On Behalf Of Robert Pirkola\nSent: Wednesday, October 08, 2014 10:28 AM\nTo: urth at urth.net\nSubject: (urth) Short Story 8: Volksweapon\n\nMarc Aramini wrote on October 7, 2014:\n\"Off topic, your input on volksweapon from a few months ago .. It is very\nsuspicious that the hero wants to leave the dead girl alone, and the\nalleged killer wants to stay with her body or bring it. I feel that as a\nnonrealistic meta mystery your solution would work ... But with any degree\nof realism, the proper authorities would have the \"hero\" if he were at all\nrelated to the dead girl or her husband. He wouldn't get away with it as\nhis motive would be obvious to authorities. \"Oh wait... You are her\nhusband?\"\nHowever, the image of blinding the deer with a flashlight also seems as if\nit could describe the murder of the girl if the person who presents our\nsolution is not trustworthy.\nI don't know. Maybe it should be revisited.\"\n\nYeah, I am pretty sure you are right that Smythe can't have been the husband. It was an hypothesis too far, especially\ngiven that the third-person narrator specifically identifies him as, \"game warden\", which I think we have to trust. However,\nif you forget that ill-considered bit of speculation and make a different assumption (that does have plausible\ntextual support) it remains narratively sound. Assume that Smythe was the person\nthe moon-faced boy claims initially confronted he and Judy, and that his name is indeed an indication of\nhis character. I generally associate smiting with Old Testament-style justice from on high and if Smythe\nknew that Judy was married and was committing adultery, he may have taken justice into his own hands\nand killed her for the transgression. Leviticus 20:10 \"If a man commits adultery with the wife of his neighbor,\nboth the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death.\" This would also help explain why he\ndisposes of the old hunter's derringer rather than allowing the judicial process to proceed. It is an example of\njustice like that exhibited by Solomon, though thankfully no babies were harmed in the making of that reference.\n\nThis of course fails to explain two ambiguous statements from Smythe:\nThe last line of the story, \"I wish I could have given it to her\"\nand\n\"I suppose she and that fellow were driving out to one of the summer\ncottages on the lake - maybe not for the reasons you would think.\"\n\nYeah, I want to believe the jacklighting bit is relevant beyond implicating the hunters, but I can't seem to\nmake it fit the narrative. Smythe couldn't have used the technique to kill the girl as the MFB would have mentioned\nsomething about a bright light coming out of nowhere. The description of\njacklighting given by Smythe on pg. 49:\n\n\"The jacklighter shines a lamp or the headlights of a car into the woods and kind of hypnotizes the deer. Since the deer's\neyes reflect the light, your poacher has a perfect target; the range is short and the deer's not moving. Usually your jacklighter\nuses a car and you can stop him on the road with the carcass in his trunk.\"\n\nAny ideas?\n\nFor those interested, the discussion of this story started with Marc's post on March 29, 2012. http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2012-March/026740.html\nMy follow-up was on July 2, 2014. http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/2014-July/054877.html" } ] } ] }