Venus of PEACE

Michael Andre-Driussi · 25 Nov 2002, 21:19 · from urth-v0211.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: Michael Andre-Driussi <mantis at siriusfiction.com>
Subject: (urth) Venus of PEACE
Date: Mon, 25 Nov 2002 13:19:18 -0800
Message-ID: <urth-v0211-2240 at digest.urth.net>
X-Urthmirror-Source: http://www.urth.net/urth/archives/v0211/2240.txt.shtml
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Back on the PEACE channel, I've probably mentioned this a time or two, but
my conviction seems to be growing.  All the threads about forgery and
statues and people being statues (add a little NIGHTLIFE OF THE GODS,
maybe) find an intersection/crystalization in at least one spot.

When Gold is talking about Venus of Melos, which he claims is a forgery
(and there does seem to be rumor of this, or the possibility of it, in the
real world), he says the armless statue became "a secret erotic stimulant
for a whole generation of little boys--all over the world.  Many men retain
a lifelong interest in the things that stirred them as children."

So okay, at an initial level, Gold is showing how a fake Venus took on the
real power of a Venus: an object of focus for "Love" of the varieties that
Venus is known for.

But Gold's second sentence seems more specific to the text.  Granted, he is
saying that the young Venusian acolytes remain faithful to her, as per the
level I described above.  But he also seems to be saying that there are men
of that generation who would love an armless woman if they met one.

Which brings us to Janet Turner, aka Cleo the Seal Girl.  Again, since I'm
sure I've linked her to Venus of Melos before, that weirdness of her being
possibly a fake freak (just as the statue is said to be a fake); the strong
suggestion that she was also a Venusian prostitute (that many men would be
powerfully attracted to her).

This would make "dog boy" Charlie Turner into Cupid.  Which seems absurd at
first blush, but then the pandering thread of his Doris letter takes hold.
Eek!  Charlie Turner is shooting "love arrows" at Weer!

Back up again.  We have often wondered who Charlie's father is, and we have
posited Julius Smart among others.  Yet these things go together: a man of
a certain generation older than Weer (Smart) meets an armless woman (or
creates her ala Pygmalion: don't forget, Pygmalion carved a statue of
Aphrodite, and that goddess brought it to life; the resulting woman, some
give her name as Galatea, bore him a son!) and finds her very attractive.

Would he then poison his wife?  Or was she a victim of his attempts to
remake her into something more like Venus?

In any event, the possibility remains that Charlie could be Smart's son,
and as such, the true heir to the Smart empire.

But mainly: Janet is Venus, and Charlie is Cupid. In one common tradition,
Cupid is the son of Aphrodite by Zeus or Ares or Hermes.  The best match
for Smart would be Hermes, the god of the alchemists as well as liars,
tricksters, and thieves.

=3Dmantis=3D

--=20

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