TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts

Mr Thalassocrat · 15 May 2010, 08:45 · 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: thalassocrat08 at gmail.com (Mr Thalassocrat)
Date: Sat, 15 May 2010 18:15:49 +0930
Subject: (urth) TSH: Ted, rings, ghosts
In-Reply-To: <004101caf39b$8ef9daa0$00d34a0c@rclackey>
References: <004101caf39b$8ef9daa0$00d34a0c@rclackey>
Message-ID: <AANLkTin7aCTX6Coh3164gJoECU0JsUFkwSMK8PBf-aek at mail.gmail.com>

On Sat, May 15, 2010 at 4:57 AM, Roy C. Lackey <rclackey at stic.net> wrote:

> By the time Bax was beaten by Ieuan, he had both the opal ring from the
> fish
> and Ted's ring. At that point he knew nothing at all about any hypothetical
> previous owner of the opal ring, and only what little Doris had told him
> about Ted. He didn't know then what Ted looked like. When writing about it,
> Bax decided that the big man who came between him and Ieuan must have been
> the boy's father, but that is not what he thought at the time of the
> beating: "At the time, because of his ring, I thought him something else; .
> . ." (50)
>
> That "something else" must have been a ghost. It must have been that the
> big
> man was wearing a ring identical to the one on Bax's finger, the ring Doris
> had given him that had belonged to her dead husband.
>
>
That's certainly the way I understood it.



> Bax, at least, did not believe that a ghost could leave behind real,
> tangible objects. In talking to Doris, who had asked if he had seen any
> ghosts, he mentioned his first encounter with Emlyn. "I didn't make it up,
> and he wasn't a ghost. I know he wasn't because he dropped things. Real
> things. I still have them." (36) He meant, of course, the triannulus and
> "longlight".
>
>

Note how the ring gets introduced in this first conversation with Doris. She
wants to hear any ghost stories Bax might have; he tells her about his
encounter with Emlyn and Emlyn's dropping stuff; she asks whether Bax's opal
ring was one of those things; just after this, she gives Bax Ted's ring,
after ascertaINING that he's not married.

I think Doris knows some "stuff" and she is actively fishing for information
here. She's really interested in that opal ring; hence my little theory
about why she gave Ted's ring to Bax: she wants Bax to give her the other
one (I guess a wedding ring).

Recall also that on the scary ride to the same restaurant later on, she says
that of everybody she can think, she wishes Ted was with them - because, I
think, she knows that Ted was involved with this "stuff" and would know how
to handle it.

As to what the wet initialled object might have been at the end: perhaps
Ted's shroud? Would that be monogrammed?



> Now a digression to an earlier topic. The text makes clear that Ted was a
> big man, taller and heavier than average Bax, and Black/Skotos was a small
> man, shorter than Bax. However, in later conversation with Emlyn, the boy
> asked Bax if he might be his father in disguise. Bax said no and asked if
> his father could disguise himself that well, and the boy said yes (161).
>
> And that brings me back to Doris's bedroom and her visit by Ted. According
> to her, Ted's apparition had left behind an unspecified tangible object,
> with his initials in a corner of it. I think someone wondered earlier if
> the
> object might have been the triannulus. It seems doubtful, yet I can't rule
> it out. And if Zwart could really have disguised himself to look like Bax,
> then he might as easily have disguised himself to look like anyone, even
> Ted. And that opens up a whole can of worms.
>
> Doris might not have said what the wet item was because she didn't know
> what it was. And the Ted she saw might not have been a ghost. Winkle/Winker
> and old Nick seemed to come and go as if by magic, as well as other figures
> from faerie.
>
> Neither does any of this preclude Ted from somehow being Goldwurm.
>
> If it seems as though I am pointing in different directions at the same
> time, it is because I am. I'm just trying to make sense of what there is to
> deal with.
>
> -Roy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100515/7028bf65/attachment-0001.htm>

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