"KM" defense II

Tony Ellis · 08 Mar 1999, 17:41 · from urth-v0024.mbox · original

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: "Tony Ellis" <tony.ellis at futurenet.co.uk>
Subject: (urth) Re: "KM" defense II
Date: Mon, 08 Mar 1999 17:41:14 +0000
Message-ID: <urth-v0024-0049 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0024/0049.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Roy wrote:

>     But we _do_ know what memories he claims. He states that his father w=
as
> the "man-of-all-work", his mother the "parlor maid" (p-45). He does _not_
> state that he was the son of the dead couple. The elder Malone was the
> "stableman".

You're suggesting that as well as the elder Malone and Betty Malone, there =
were
another -two- Malones on the estate who were KM's parents. To have two Malo=
nes on
an estate may be considered a coincidence; to have four begins to sound like
contrivance. Why do they all have to be called Malone? Why didn't Gene Wolf=
e call
Betty and her murderer Derby and Joan, and avoid needless confusion? And wh=
y does
the narrator not find any mention of your two Malones, or their child, when=
 he
researches KM's story? Most of all, why are we set up to think that the eld=
er
Malone and Betty were KM's parents, and why are we then carefully told at t=
he end
of story that they weren't? If KM has always "known" they weren't, what was=
 the
point?

The answer to all those questions is that there weren't four Malones on the
estate as you suggest, there were two, as the story tells us. Betty Malone =
and
her murderer have the same name so that KM can think they were his parents,=
 and
we are told that this was coincidental so that we can realise he's wrong.

>  A man-of-all-work is _not_ a stableman.

I'm not sure I share your certainty, but I don't think it matters anyway. P=
riest,
I seem to recall, says that the murder happened before his time. He's certa=
inly
telling the "story" of the murder, as it has come down to him, and in the t=
elling
perhaps Malone the man-of-all-work has become Malone the stableman. Kevin M=
alone,
being so much closer to the source, doesn't make this mistake. Just a thoug=
ht.

> Yes, he is possessed, but by the estate itself.

I did consider this once, but it doesn't really tie in with the details of =
the
story. Why did the estate "want" to possess Kevin Malone? If we were told t=
hat
the place burned down after the murder, or was converted into a theme park,=
 we
could perhaps understand why it would want to possess someone and make them
rebuild it, but as the facts of the story stand, why should the estate both=
er?
And why does KM want so badly to live as a servant, and sleep in the servan=
t's
quarters of the house he owns? Doesn't that sound more like someone who is
possessed by a specific person, rather than a whole estate?

I think I've now said all that I want to about "Kevin Malone", and then som=
e. If
everyone else on this list hasn't got fed up with posts on this subject, I =
know I
have. Read the story, folks.

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

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