Nicholas timing and trunk, etc

Mo Holkar / UKG · 04 May 2010, 22:08 · from 2010-May.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: lists at ukg.co.uk (Mo Holkar / UKG)
Date: Tue, 04 May 2010 23:08:39 +0100
Subject: (urth) Nicholas timing and trunk, etc
In-Reply-To: <003501caebae$e7d037e0$35d14a0c@rclackey>
References: <331192.93829.qm at smtp816.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<003501caeb58$69240c60$21d04a0c@rclackey>
	<370240.97486.qm at smtp822.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>
	<003501caebae$e7d037e0$35d14a0c@rclackey>
Message-ID: <306475.76967.qm at smtp819.mail.ukl.yahoo.com>

At 18:26 04/05/2010, Roy wrote:
>No, it was on the car. In her postscript Doris said, "We cornered Nicholas
>and he agreed to go into the trunk (tied on the back of your car) and let us
>close it if we would give him a cell phone." (290) That she bothered to make
>her parenthetical comment at all bothers me. Bax knew where the trunk was.
>It's almost as if Wolfe was drawing attention to this timing issue. I must
>be missing something.

Mm, that is odd. And Mme Orizia speaks on p292 of locking Nicholas 
"in an old trunk" which she then advises posting on somewhere, rather 
than eg. "in the trunk of your car". I supose it's reasonable that 
it's obvious to her that the trunk is meant for detachment, but again 
it feels like it's being brought to our attention.

> > Also, this cab period follows a conversation with Nick which Bax says
> > he will give Millie in its proper place (242) -- but, as far as I can
> > see, he never does so. I don't think it can be the conversation that
> > he reports to George on 254 et seq, because after that he goes to bed
>(259).
>
>I think it is the conversation in that letter (# 36) addressed to George.
>Though the letter is addressed to George, he didn't know where George was so
>he was sending it "to your dear and loyal Millie" (255), knowing she would
>read it (260). He went to bed but hadn't finished the letter. The postscript
>was evidently added the next morning after breakfast. (ibid.)

Yes, I guess that must be it. It's complicated by the way that when 
mentioning the conversation to Millie earlier (242) Bax says it was 
prompted by Nick interrupting him having just been speaking with 
Doris on the phone, prior to which he was in lethargy, but on 254 
there's no reference to any such interruption or phone call -- 
rather, the conversation with Nick there seems to follow on from Bax 
finishing searching for George. Of course it would be otiose for Bax 
to give overlapping accounts of events in these two letters which he 
expected to have the same reader, but to be marshalling incidents in 
this way -- such that the timeline skips back and forth between the 
two letters -- is quite a strain on my deductive powers, never mind 
Millie's :-)

best,

Mo

# ~ # ~ #

WolfeWiki -- a wiki about Gene Wolfe
http://www.wolfewiki.com/pmwiki/

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