TSH: Ted's identity

Roy C. Lackey · 23 Apr 2010, 00:00 · from 2010-April.txt.gz

This is the message as the crawl holds it, before anything here touched it. What the conversation shows has been through ingest: transfer encodings decoded, attachments dropped, quote markers repaired, and the archiver’s ? resolved into quotation marks and dashes. Those repairs are judgements and some of them are wrong, which is what this page is for. Email addresses are obscured here as they are everywhere else on the site, so it is before our repairs rather than byte for byte.

From: rclackey at stic.net (Roy C. Lackey)
Date: Thu, 22 Apr 2010 19:00:13 -0500
Subject: (urth) TSH: Ted's identity
References: <p2oe11bddb61003301936xa2f0970en2c959bd358e2a128 at mail.gmail.com><912986.45611.qm at web37603.mail.mud.yahoo.com><005101cae0e6$72bd7800$76d14a0c@rclackey><l2ge8e9702e1004211202h3d877ac8tcbd91eb5d27e5760 at mail.gmail.com><s2x93d4039f1004211205xcd02ebb1qcbb32b8b453c2a31 at mail.gmail.com><006101cae193$1d3a90e0$85cd4a0c@rclackey><l2ne8e9702e1004220802w16a7c3f7yd5c4731473cf8eaa at mail.gmail.com><001301cae247$541e2ea0$6ad34a0c@rclackey><i2ne8e9702e1004221157zbf995d49za82d2a495ddb99c9 at mail.gmail.com><000601cae260$203d3360$42d24a0c@rclackey>
	<u2le8e9702e1004221507pf80b9ffcx3edc071e76bc9bfa at mail.gmail.com>
Message-ID: <001501cae277$f66e74a0$d1ce4a0c@rclackey>

James Wynn quoted and wrote:
> > I'm not following you. The gold ring with the dark stone that Bax found
in
> > the catfish had belonged to Ambrosius (270). It was the "weapon of
> >sorcery" wherein Ambrosius had stored some of his power, the item
> > Goldwurm hadn't been able to find (73). Ambrosius had supposedly been
> > strangled and his body thrown in a river (74), probably the same river
we
> > have been talking about.
>
> Well, it's obvious I haven't re-read to page 74 yet. As page 270, why
> do you think the ring Bax showed Kate was the onyx and not the wedding
> band (which I had assumed on my first read)?

Because Kate commented on the stone: "That's a nice stone." Ted's ring had
no stone.

> I mean, is it really
> possible that Goldwurm would throw Ambrosius' body in the river with
> expensive-looking jewelry still on it?

Yes. When Bax first showed the ring to a jeweler, he handed it over for
examination. He was told it was old but worthless. "Just costume jewelry,
sir." (31) When Bax wore it, it looked valuable, the various types of opal
later mentioned. That's why Bax didn't want to take it off to show it to
Dorcas. It was a magic ring. It could disguise itself, just as old Nick's
cheap wooden crutch later had a "gold head" (284). Goldwurm apparently
didn't know the ring's worth because he couldn't see the worth.

> > Ted's body (the list of characters says he was Doris's "late husband")
had
> > been placed in a casket and buried (36). So Ted's body was never in the
> > river. The body parts Lupine called up from the river had come from
victims
> > of the "Horror Hound", as Martha called it (285).
>
> So you consider the list of characters 100% authoritative? So you
> don't think it possible that there is any duplication or ellisions? If
> the list says Ambrosius a "murdered sorcerer" and there are no other
> murdered sorcerers on the list, that's the way it is. And if the list
> says Ted is "late" there is no valid reading this as ironic? How do
> you know that Ambrosius was not actually murdered after Ted faked his
> death?

Teen Emlyn said, "It was before my time, but I've heard that the old
sorcerer's name was Ambrosius." (74) Ted died just two years ago (36).

> How do you know he was not killed by Lupine? That would still
> make him Doris's "late husband" right?

I think Doris would have mentioned it if her husband had been killed by a
werewolf two years ago. Her co-workers Jake Jacobs and/or Jim Hardaway would
probably have mentioned it, too, given all the gossip and newspaper articles
about the Horror Hound.

> And it's a strange ghost that leaves a tear-stained anything. That is,
> if it is a gothic ghost. So you've got a mystery there.
>
> It's fine that you don't think Ambrosius was Ted (I mistakenly thought
> that had become all but accepted fact),

I don't know if they are/were the same person or not, so I haven't said what
I believe, one way or the other.

> but the text is simply not as
> flatly plain as you seem to be letting on.

About some things it is.

-Roy

An unofficial mirror of a public mailing list · about & removal requests · download the archive · before the list · original archive at urth.net