Subject: (urth) Three Fingers

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 11:41:09 +0000

On Sun, 14 Jun 1998 I wrote:

> 3) "Michael Mauss" is really Mickey Mouse (and is also sane, as in 2)).
> Supporting this is that reserpine is now used as a veterinary
> tranquilizer.  This is a cute theory, and it's undoubtedly true in a
> metaphorical sense.

My remark about Michael Mauss being Mickey Mouse in a metaphorical sense
was just an afterthought, but thinking it over I realize that it is true
and important.  Michael Mauss, not the "suits" we see in the final scene
(whether real or not) is the true "owner" of Mickey Mouse, since he, not
they, is in touch with the mythical springs from which he derives, as the
unmasking scene indicates.

Of course, you may all think I've already spent too much time on another
of Wolfe's "oneiric jeux d'esprit," to use the phrase alga quoted from
Clute.

--Adam

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

---

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 15:05:46 +0000

On Mon, 15 Jun 1998 Dan'l Danehy-Oakes wrote:

> First and foremost, what on earth gives you the eyedea that they're
> _pretending_?

"Captain Hook" tells Michael he will be suffocated with the bonbons, but
Michael has no trouble swallowing the bonbon, and the "Wicked Queen's"
final remark shows that that's what's supposed to happen.

> And, similarly, the knowtion that they're "dressed up" 
> as Disney characters?

Because they remove their masks, and are revealed to be "paunchy
[men/women] in a business suit."  This is all plainly depicted in the
story; unless you've misremembered the ending, I'm missing your point.

> You have to know how fiercely these people protect their trademarks
> to feel this story.  We're talking about a company that brought 
> suit against an urban daycare center because they'd hand-painted
> Disney characters on the walls.

To be sure, knowing the determination with which Disney defends its
copyrights/trademarks adds resonance to the story.  (I'm tempted to make a
joke about how I would rather have Captain Hook et al. after me than
Disney's lawyers, but I'll refrain.)

--Adam

---

From: Dan'l Danehy Oakes <ddanehyo at us.oracle.com>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 14:56:28 +0000

> final remark shows that that's what's supposed to happen.

H'mmmm.  I'll have to look at this again.  I'm probably just plain 

> Because they remove their masks, and are revealed to be 
> "paunchy [men/women] in a business suit."  This is all plainly
> depicted in the story; unless you've misremembered the ending,
> I'm missing your point.

My point (all together now: "And I do have a point") was,
simply, that those suits _were_ the Queen, Captain, and Wolf,
or, perhaps, their instantiations in this-world.  

Making that assumption, then, the failure of the bonbon to 
accomplish its intended task makes sense; the Bad Guys hatch
marvellous plots, but they never seem to work out.  (The
application of this to Wolfe's moral conceptions is left as an 
exercise for the alert reader.)

> (I'm tempted to make a joke about how I would rather have
> Captain Hook et al. after me than Disney's lawyers, but I'll
> refrain.)

Well, it's worth noting that none of Disney's villains ever seem 
to accomplish much of anything -- as opposed to the aforesaid 
attorneys...

---------------------------------------------------------------------
|                                 |                                 |
|        Dan'l Danehy-Oakes       | First Amendment Pop Quiz:       |
|    Staff Curriculum Developer   |                                 |
|   Oracle World-Wide Education   | Is it all right to shout        |
|  e-mail ddanehyo at us.oracle.com  | "movie" in a crowded firehouse? |
|        phone 650.506.0793       |                                 |
|                                 |                                 |
---------------------------------------------------------------------

---

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Tue, 16 Jun 1998 10:17:44 +0000

> or, perhaps, their instantiations in this-world.  

So your argument is that the characters who are portrayed on the surface
as paunchy men/women in business suits disguised as the Queen, Hook, and
Wolf are really the Queen, Hook and Wolf disguised, or manifesting
themselves as, paunchy men/women in business suits disguised as the Queen,
Hook, and Wolf?

So where does this leave your earlier contention that "sometimes a pipe is
just a pipe"?

--Adam