In this issue: RE: Chat: Worms and Anarchists Re: "Amore Dure" and over-detailing elsewhere Re: "Amore Dure" and over-detailing elsewhere RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description Re: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description Detailing: then and now CHAT:Re: Detailing: then and now WWW etext avail: another of John Wilson Murray's cases: "Over the Andes for Aitken" WWW etext avail: Athan Chilton's "The ballad of Reynardine" (new version) RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description Chat: Beardsley Illustrations Chat: Chinese Ghost story RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description Today in History - Feb. 22 Etext avail: Chopin's "An Egyptian cigarette" Etext avail: Benson's "The recent 'witch-burning' at Clonmel" Etext avail: Le Fanu's _Haunted lives_ part two End of the James controversy Telling detail -----------------------------THE POSTS----------------------------- Date: Thu, 18 Feb 1999 23:50:48 -0500 From: "James E. Kearman" <jkearman(at)gate.net> Subject: RE: Chat: Worms and Anarchists Peter Wood wrote: > What I find interesting is why someone > should develop a computer virus (worm, Trojan Horse whatever) - and then > release it onto the general public? I'm sure there are many 'reasons' for such behavior, just as there are many 'motives' for murder. > It may be that > we on Gaslight are just part of a "field-test" in the same way that the > inhabitants of Winnipeg (and, I believe, New York) were part of a > bacteriological warfare field-test some thirty years ago. I think it was pure coincidence. Margaret's computer was infected by an email and she inadvertently sneezed it onto Gaslight simply by posting. > "There *are* no innocent bystanders!" This is the anarchist's credo. Interesting that in Conrad's story, even anarchists have standards: Mr Verloc is criticized for his corpulence and for being married. > Those who develop and release computer viruses may feel they have a case > to argue; that we do not accept it does not concern them. > Consider that a degree of computer expertise is required to write a virus program, or to make a bomb. Conrad's Mr Verloc obtains a very sophisticated explosive device to damage the Greenwich Observatory, a symbol of England's stature in science and technology. One thinks of a more-recent series of bombings carried out against scientific and technical people by a creative and intelligent drop out from the field of mathematics. Unlike the Luddites, who simply destroyed modern machinery with whatever objects were available, the anarchist seems to have progressed to a certain level of expertise, and then turned against the scientific/technical culture which spawned him. Fratricide or matricide, if I may stretch the point. Anarchy seems to require an industrial culture. If the anarchist seeks to destroy his culture, doesn't he realize that he will become his own victim? Or am I getting too Freudian? Still, I think many people are suspicious of technology, especially computers. Every day we hear stories about Y2K problems, the use of computers to pry into peoples' personal lives, stolen credit card information on the Internet, and so on. To the proletariat of Conrad's time, the Industrial Revolution probably induced similar feelings. Technology excludes those who aren't a part of the techno-industrial culture. Yet it is people within that culture who become the best anarchists, because they understand the machinery well enough to know how to really damage it. Cheers, Jim "Why is it that the destruction of something created by humans is called vandalism, yet the destruction of something created by God is called development?" --Edward Abbey, as quoted in Outside magazine
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 00:07:57 -0500 From: "S.T. Karnick" <skarnick(at)INDY.NET> Subject: Re: "Amore Dure" and over-detailing elsewhere Len Roberts wrote, in part, >And may I add that Sherlockian (and most ) pastiches are not only overloaded >with detail but with celebrities of one type or another. Sherlock Holmes is >always meeting someone who is famous now but was relatively or completely >unknown at the time. I often suspect that this is because the writer could >not think of a good enough plot to carry the story. Whatever Conan Doyle's >faults as a writer, he could tell a story without excess detail or referring >to the famous. That is so true. Just the other day, I was talking with Stephen King, and he mentioned that our close mutual friend Pamela Anderson was recently at home alone talking with George Stephanopolous on the telephone, when suddenly, as if from nowhere, a paper airplane came fluttering down before her startled eyes. It was a note from the Prince of Wales, urgently requesting that he meet her at midnight beneath the cross at St. Peter's Church. On her way there, her driver, Fabio, suddenly turned into a narrow alleyway and stopped the car, the tires shrieking as if frozen with terror. He opened her door, then lurched violently to the ground, having been shot through the head. Immediately thereafter, into the car hurriedly tumbled Merle Haggard, Spike Lee, Bob Hope, and Gloria Steinem, all of them very drunk, and all dressed as authentic commedia d'ell arte clowns. And -- well, actually it is a rather dull story, so please forget I mentioned it. Sorry. Best w's, S.T. Karnick
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:22:17 -0500 From: lpv1(at)is2.nyu.edu Subject: Re: "Amore Dure" and over-detailing elsewhere Wow, you really had me going there for a nanosecond!! Started to form a most unfavorable impression , heh heh --- good example. luciepaula > >That is so true. Just the other day, I was talking with Stephen King, and he >mentioned that our close mutual friend Pamela Anderson was recently at home >alone talking with George Stephanopolous on the telephone, when suddenly, as >if from nowhere, a paper airplane came fluttering down before her startled >eyes. It was a note from the Prince of Wales, urgently requesting that he >meet her at midnight beneath the cross at St. Peter's Church. On her way >there, her driver, Fabio, suddenly turned into a narrow alleyway and stopped >the car, the tires shrieking as if frozen with terror. He opened her door, >then lurched violently to the ground, having been shot through the head. >Immediately thereafter, into the car hurriedly tumbled Merle Haggard, Spike >Lee, Bob Hope, and Gloria Steinem, all of them very drunk, and all dressed >as authentic commedia d'ell arte clowns. And -- well, actually it is a >rather dull story, so please forget I mentioned it. Sorry. > >Best w's, > >S.T. Karnick >
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:18:06 -0500 From: "Roberts, Leonard" <lroberts(at)email.uncc.edu> Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description To me, one of the surest marks of overdetailing is to give a detail with an explanation for that detail. To use Peter's example, where Conan Doyle simply states that they rushed out bareheaded, a pastiche writer have the character say "We rushed along the pavement bare-headed as we were, with passersby looking amazed at such an unusual sight". Ignoring the lame prose creation, the point is that the writer is apt to relate a detail then immediately explain it. While it might aid the modern reader in understanding the significance of what has been done, I think it hinders the flow of the story. Not many writers seem able to resist doing this though. Len Roberts > I am going on holiday for a week, starting Friday night, and would like > to leave this (admittedly off-topic) subject for discussion with > Gaslighters. > Recently on the <soc.history.what-if> newsgroup there has been a thread > entitled "You Know You're in an Alternate Timeline when...". Members have > posted their suggestions, which included such intriguing items as "You > wonder why the copper coin should feature the head of an undistinguished > 19C Senator". > To me, this thread has a connection with my remarks and those of Leonard > Roberts, Bob Champ and others on the topic of overloading descriptive > details in such fiction as Vernon Lee's "Amor Dure". Can Gaslighters cite > examples of "telling details" in fiction; items mentioned in passing which > give an immediate impression of a place or period? One which sticks in my > mind is from the Sherlockian story "The Naval Treaty", where a character > remarks: "We rushed along the pavement *bare-headed as we were*" (emphasis > mine). Clearly, at this time and in such a place (late Victorian London) > one did not go out into the street without a head-covering of some kind, > save in a great emergency. > Obviously, a story can have too much detail, as we have seen. But how > much is enough, and what *kind* of detail is what I term "telling detail"? > Opinions, anyone? > Peter Wood >
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:40:53 -0500 (EST) From: The Blue Fairy <pinniped(at)patriot.net> Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Roberts, Leonard wrote: > To me, one of the surest marks of overdetailing is to give a detail with an > explanation for that detail. To use Peter's example, where Conan Doyle > simply states that they rushed out bareheaded, a pastiche writer have the > character say "We rushed along the pavement bare-headed as we were, with > passersby looking amazed at such an unusual sight". The problem for the modern writer is, of course, to convey what a native of that place and time-period would have known without stopping to explain it. You can't assume that a modern reader will know that Victorian men always wore hats outside, women did not ride on the top level of omnibuses, dustmen expected to be given beer when they collected your coal ashes, or that your linen had your initials sewed into the corners to prevent laundry mixups. But knowing these things will help your reader appreciate the implications of bare-headed men, a "new woman" on the top of the bus, a surly dustman spilling ashes in a "Temperance" household, or the embarrassment of having to sell your linen, complete with un-removable monograms, when times get hard. Period works can acquire footnotes. The modern writer has to sneak in the relevant information without stopping and stating, "As you know, Reginald...." - -- Barbara Weitbrecht pinniped(at)patriot.net
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:43:32 -0500 From: lpv1(at)is2.nyu.edu Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description I find that usually in stories where the author starts addressing the reader directly, to wit: dear reader, wink wink, you and I know that this poor character is truly desperate, because you and I know that if he were not, he would have put on his hat and therefore would not have elicited such open-mouthed astonishment from the passersbys. And by golly, he wasn't even wearing gloves!! One of the pleasures of reading period literature is that the authors used to take time out and address the reader directly. I like that but I don't know how I would feel about it in contemporary lfiction. I can't remember any recent novels -- actually my current reading is mysteries mostly -- where the author does that. Luciepaula At 09:18 AM 2/19/99 -0500, you wrote: >To me, one of the surest marks of overdetailing is to give a detail with an >explanation for that detail. To use Peter's example, where Conan Doyle >simply states that they rushed out bareheaded, a pastiche writer have the >character say "We rushed along the pavement bare-headed as we were, with >passersby looking amazed at such an unusual sight". Ignoring the lame prose >creation, the point is that the writer is apt to relate a detail then >immediately explain it. While it might aid the modern reader in >understanding the significance of what has been done, I think it hinders the >flow of the story. Not many writers seem able to resist doing this though. > >Len Roberts >
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:56:31 -0500 From: "Roberts, Leonard" <lroberts(at)email.uncc.edu> Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description What Barbara says is very true, but my point is that these writers are creating a pastiche, an imitation of another writer. The more explanation the writer gives in a pastiche the less like the original the work is. While such a story might be informative and good of its type, it does not 'ring true'. Len Roberts > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Roberts, Leonard wrote: > > > To me, one of the surest marks of overdetailing is to give a detail with > an > > explanation for that detail. To use Peter's example, where Conan Doyle > > simply states that they rushed out bareheaded, a pastiche writer have > the > > character say "We rushed along the pavement bare-headed as we were, with > > passersby looking amazed at such an unusual sight". > > The problem for the modern writer is, of course, to convey what a native > of that place and time-period would have known without stopping to explain > it. You can't assume that a modern reader will know that Victorian men > always wore hats outside, women did not ride on the top level of > omnibuses, dustmen expected to be given beer when they collected your coal > ashes, or that your linen had your initials sewed into the corners to > prevent laundry mixups. But knowing these things will help your reader > appreciate the implications of bare-headed men, a "new woman" on the top > of the bus, a surly dustman spilling ashes in a "Temperance" household, or > the embarrassment of having to sell your linen, complete with un-removable > monograms, when times get hard. Period works can acquire footnotes. The > modern writer has to sneak in the relevant information without stopping > and stating, "As you know, Reginald...." > > > -- > Barbara Weitbrecht > pinniped(at)patriot.net > >
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:59:54 -0600 From: athan chilton <ayc(at)UIUC.EDU> Subject: Re: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description >Obviously, a story can have too much detail, as we have seen. But how >much is enough, and what *kind* of detail is what I term "telling detail"? >Opinions, anyone? Well, I haven't taken time to sit and ponder this (I can't find any spare time, though I've been searching diligently!) but at first thought it seems to me that 'too much detail' would be detail that gets in the way of the telling of the story, or doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to the story's progress. Of course, an obstructive character might be a person who offers too much detail to the reader, but that would be deliberate on the author's part. For me, 'telling detail' is what centers me in the story's frame of reference. There has to be some of it at the story's beginning, so that the reader has some idea of where that beginning lies. That detail depends on the kind of story it is. It might be atmospheric detail, esp. if it's a suspense or mystery story. If it's a story that depends upon place and time as much as plotline, then details that identify this milieu must be there. There doesn't have to be much of this for an astute reader to get a full picture. What detail is offered must be "telling" enough that the reader will not be mistaken about such details' significance--unless the aim is to confuse or mislead the reader. (i.e., I might, if I wanted to mystify a reader for awhile, set a scene with "streets awash in fog, buildings only shadowed shapes which might conceal anything"--this offers a scene, but gives no immediate location. London? San Francisco? Someone's dream of neither city?) Far as I'm concerned, appropriate and careful choice of detail can make or spoil a tale. And in order for the reader to fully grasp the tale, those details must be understood--which implies some knowledge on the reader's part of what details signify in the story's context. If the reader knows nothing of the author's setting, details may not mean very much. Yet details can make such a vivid picture that one might forever after think of that setting in terms of those details. Didn't somebody already mention Doyle's use of details in the Holmes Canon? How many of us, as young readers, pictured Holmes' London in our minds--and perhaps expected to see that same London when we finally got to the real city? I know I did!! athan ayc(at)uiuc.edu
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 08:56:25 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: Detailing: then and now
I think Peter W.'s original question was what details crop up in a Gaslight-era
story that marks the period. I ran across the best example ever of a perennial
jolt to the modern reader: men walking arm in arm.
Here's the excerpt from the next non-fiction episode of _Memoirs of a great
detective_ (1904):
> "The Munchen arrived at Cape de Verde Islands
>after fourteen days and coaled. We crossed the equator at
>12.40 on the morning of Saturday, January 13th (1894). It was a
>beautiful night. I brushed up on my earlier knowledge of
>navigation and kept the runs and took the latitude and longitude
>daily. There were only four passengers aboard, two doctors (one a
>Spaniard, one an Italian), and a gentleman from Russia, and
>myself. We played dominoes and muggins together and the four of
>us, Italian, Spanish, Russian, and English walked the deck arm in
>arm, all four talking, each in his own language and none
>understanding a word that another was saying. I taught them to
>bow profoundly and say:
>
> "'Good-morning, Carrie!'
>
> "I taught them also to place one hand on their
>heart and exclaim pathetically:
>
> "'Have a nip?'
>
> "There was great satisfaction in talking to them.
>It did not matter what I said. They would listen very gravely and
>reply solemnly, 'Good-morning, Carrie,' or 'Have a nip?'
The period detail I liked most in "Amour dure" was the warmers that people
carried
under their cloaks in winter. It inspired me to take a hot water bottle under
my jacket when I
had to wait outside to see a doctor recently (so I didn't spread my chicken
pox). A similar
amazing detail was worked into a _Man in grey_ story very successfully by
Baroness Orczy
when items are passed unseen inside the rented footwarmers during church
service.
As for contemporary personalities figuring in Gaslight-era fiction, I think
politicians and
sports figures are the least recognizable to the modern reader. (I already
didn't know who
Stephanopolous is.)
In _Geoffrey Hampstead_ (1890):
>while, as to rowing, there were few who did not cultivate a back and thigh
>action which, if not productive of so much speed as Hanlan's, was certainly,
>to the uninitiated, quite as pleasant to look upon;
How many would now remember that Ned Hanlan was an international rowing
celebrity,
Canada's first major athlete, equally famous for his unrestrained lifestyle?
Athan C. writes about modern stories:
>at first thought it seems
>to me that 'too much detail' would be detail that gets in the way of the
>telling of the story, or doesn't contribute in any meaningful way to the
>story's progress.
Which reminds me of Spencer Tracy's advice: "Acting is the easiest thing
to do. Just don't get caught doing it." I'm sure we've all read stories where
there was extraneous detail added simply to show off (unconsciously or not)
the author's research.
The fact that Athan doesn't do this is one of the reasons I like her
stories
so much. (see Athan Chilton in Gaslight's website fiction list)
Stephen
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 11:10:50 -0500 From: lpv1(at)is2.nyu.edu Subject: CHAT:Re: Detailing: then and now At 08:56 AM 2/19/99 -0700, you wrote: >I think Peter W.'s original question was what details crop up in a Gaslight-era >story that marks the period. I ran across the best example ever of a perennial > Stephen Ah, Stephen, as always your pithy comments bring me up short and onto the right track. (grin) I'm old enough to vaguely remember men walking arm in arm,especially my older European relatives, and not ascribe anything else except custom to it. What truly marks a period for me is the use of the word "lover" for admirer or friend, when in the context and in the period, it is very clear that this is used in the most innocent way. (or am I too naive?) luciepaula
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:15:46 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: WWW etext avail: another of John Wilson Murray's cases: "Over the
Andes for Aitken"
(MURYMENU.HTM) (Nonfict)
John Wilson Murray's _Memoirs of a great detective_ (1904)
John Wilson Murray often travelled into the United States to
catch Canadian criminals, but in this case of 1893/94 he had
to cover South America.
The newly mounted case is:
Over the Andes for Aitken
Thanks to help from Elmer K. at the Library of Congress.
Visit the Gaslight website at:
http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/gaslight/murymenu.htm
Stephen D.
Why have the plain ASCII versions of the stories stopped coming?
There's been a shift in technology at Mount Royal College and my
standard method of scooping a plain ASCII from the HTML version
no longer works. I'm sure I'll get back on track soon.
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 09:21:29 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: WWW etext avail: Athan Chilton's "The ballad of Reynardine" (new
version)
(BALLDREY.HTM) (Fiction)
Athan Chilton's "The ballad of Reynardine" (1999)
Athan has created a new version of her already powerful story,
"The ballad of Reynardine", and it is now mounted on the
Gaslight website.
Athan notes: "The author wishes to thank Linda Anderson for a
suggestion that greatly improved the horrific impact of the
story"
Visit the Gaslight website at:
http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/gaslight/balldrey.htm
Stephen D.
===0===
Date: Fri, 19 Feb 1999 12:25:50 -0700 (MST) From: "p.h.wood" <woodph(at)freenet.edmonton.ab.ca> Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Barbara wrote: > The problem for the modern writer is, of course, to convey what a native > of that place and time-period would have known without stopping to explain > it. You can't assume that a modern reader will know that Victorian men > always wore hats outside, women did not ride on the top level of > omnibuses, dustmen expected to be given beer when they collected your coal > ashes, or that your linen had your initials sewed into the corners to > prevent laundry mixups. But knowing these things will help your reader > appreciate the implications of bare-headed men, a "new woman" on the top > of the bus, a surly dustman spilling ashes in a "Temperance" household, or > the embarrassment of having to sell your linen, complete with un-removable > monograms, when times get hard. Period works can acquire footnotes. The > modern writer has to sneak in the relevant information without stopping > and stating, "As you know, Reginald...." Precisely what I was getting at! Now, let's take this one step further. I am saying that a hallmark of *good* historical novel-writing is to include as few period-specific details as possible. A first-class example of a novel where this *doesn't* occur is also in one of Conan Doyle's historical novels - "The White Company", where the excellently-related action scenes to often grind to a shuddering halt whilst Doyle fills in the socio-historical background. With respect to the items Barbara cites above, I would suggest that the governing principle should be that unless the story turns on a particular item (e.g., the initialled handkerchief which seems to be a clue to the murderer in Agatha Christie's "Murder on the Orient Express", but is in fact a 'red herring') then it should be left without explication or comment as local colour. As I said elsewhere, why should an English mystery writer need to explain the local geography of London or the Midlands, when Raymond Chandler's hero drives around Los Angeles with no footnote to explain where Cahuenga Pass leads to? If I want to know that kind of thing, I look up a guidebook. Otherwise, I accept it as story background, irrelevant to the plot. There is a very interesting essay on this topic in Umberto Eco's "Six Walks in the Fictional Woods" (1994, Harvard University Press, ISBN 1-674-81051-1), which I recommend unreservedly as an expert's views on the topic of "reality" in historical fiction. All six lectures are enjoyable, but #5 "The Strange Case of the Rue Servandoni" bears directly on this subject. Peter Wood
===0===
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 09:23:18 -0500 From: "James E. Kearman" <jkearman(at)gate.net> Subject: Chat: Beardsley Illustrations From the current New York Times Book Review Web page: Matthew Sturgis has written a new biography of Aubrey Beardsley, whose illustrations scandalized his British Victorian audience and influenced the Art Nouveau movement. This slide show [on the web page] includes a photo of Beardsley and five of his illustrations. You have to register to read the NY Times on the Web, but there is no charge. http://www.nytimes.com/books/home/ Cheers, Jim - ------------------------------------- James E. Kearman mailto:jkearman(at)iname.com http://www.gate.net/~jkearman Between what I see and what I say Between what I say and what I keep silent Between what I keep silent and what I dream Between what I dream and what I forget: Poetry. Octavio Paz ?
===0===
Date: Sat, 20 Feb 1999 07:44:08 -0700 From: Deborah McMillion Nering <deborah(at)gloaming.com> Subject: Chat: Chinese Ghost story For those of you who like to collect videos of ghost stories, I saw clips of this one and have finally managed to track it down (still no luck on Scottish movie "Haunting of M"): http://www.hkdb.com/hkpage/283.htm Deborah Deborah McMillion deborah(at)gloaming.com http://www.gloaming.com/deborah.html
===0===
Date: Sun, 21 Feb 1999 15:18:57 -0500 From: "James E. Kearman" <jkearman(at)gate.net> Subject: RE: CHAT: Telling details versus over-description Peter Wood wrote: > > On Fri, 19 Feb 1999, Barbara wrote: > > > it. You can't assume that a modern reader will know that Victorian men > > always wore hats outside, women did not ride on the top level of > > Precisely what I was getting at! Now, let's take this one step further. > I am saying that a hallmark of *good* historical novel-writing is to > include as few period-specific details as possible. The idea is to convey a sense of place and time. I think we all agree that the best writers do this without resort to excessive detail. Otherwise the author appears to be showing off and the narrative is disrupted. "We were so excited we didn't realize we were hatless until we noticed the disapproving looks of passersby..." Cheers, Jim mailto:jkearman(at)iname.com
===0===
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 10:12:18 -0700
From: Jerry Carlson <gmc(at)libra.pvh.org>
Subject: Today in History - Feb. 22
1819
Spain signs a treaty with the United States ceding eastern
Florida.
1825
Russia and Britain establish the Alaska/Canada boundary.
1862
Jefferson Davis is inaugurated president of the Confederacy in
Richmond, Va. for the second
time.
1864
Nathan Bedford Forrest's brother, Jeffrey, is killed at
Okolona, Miss.
1865
Federal troops capture Wilmington, N.C.
1879
Frank Winfield Woolworth's 'nothing over five cents' shop opens
at Utica, New York.. It is
the first chain store.
1902
A fistfight breaks out in the Senate. Senator Benjamin Tillman
suffers a bloody nose for
accusing Senator John McLaurin of bias on the Philippine tariff
issue.
1909
The Great White Fleet returns to Norfolk, Va., from an
around-the-world show of naval
power.
1911
Canadian Parliament votes to preserve the union with the
British Empire.
Born on February 22
1778
Rembrandt Peale, American painter who painted excellent
portraits of the founding fathers of
the United States.
1857
Lord Robert Baden-Powell, founder of the Boy Scout Movement.
===0===
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:11:33 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: Etext avail: Chopin's "An Egyptian cigarette"
(EGPYTSIG.HTM) (Fiction, Chronos, Scheds)
Kate Chopin's "An Egyptian cigarette" (1897)
egyptcig.sht
Kate Chopin pits the new woman against Victorian orientalism
in this minor fantasy, "An Egyptian cigarette". This short,
short story will form the basis of this week's discussion,
starting Wed., 99-feb-24.
This story was originally released on Gaslight in 1996, but
has never been discussed.
To retrieve the plain ASCII files send to: ftpmail(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
with no subject heading and completely in lowercase:
open aftp.mtroyal.ab.ca
cd /gaslight
get egyptcig.sht
or visit the Gaslight website at:
http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/gaslight/egyptcig.htm
Stephen D
mailto:SDavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
===0===
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 13:19:49 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: Etext avail: Benson's "The recent 'witch-burning' at Clonmel"
(CLONMEL.HTM) (Nonfic, Chronos)
E.F. Benson's "The recent 'witch-burning' at Clonmel" (1895)
clonmel.non
This ethnographic article was contributed to _The nineteenth
century_ by E.F. Benson, comparing an Irish confrontation with
fairies with supernatural beliefs around the world.
This etext was released in plain ASCII several years ago, but
I have returned to it and added Benson's bibliographic footnotes.
To retrieve the plain ASCII files send to: ftpmail(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
with no subject heading and completely in lowercase:
open aftp.mtroyal.ab.ca
cd /gaslight
get clonmel.non
or visit the Gaslight website at:
http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/gaslight/clonmel.htm
Stephen D
mailto:SDavies(at)mtroyal.ab.ca
===0===
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 18:24:21 -0700
From: sdavies(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
Subject: Etext avail: Le Fanu's _Haunted lives_ part two
(LFANUMEN.HTM) (Fiction, Chronos, Scheds)
J.S. Le Fanu's _Haunted lives_ part two (1868)
hauntX02.srl
We continue Le Fanu's neglected novel, a masterpiece of tension,
as we discuss part two of _Haunted lives_, next week: 99-mar-01
Thanks to Robert Garni for continuing to proofread this serial,
and for having suggested it in the first place.
The first two installments are now available on the website and
as ASCII etexts thru FTPmail.
To retrieve the plain ASCII file with admittedly skewed centering,
send to: ftpmail(at)MtRoyal.AB.CA
with no subject heading and completely in lowercase:
open aftp.mtroyal.ab.ca
cd /gaslight
get hauntX01.srl
get hauntX02.srl
or visit the Gaslight website at:
http://www.mtroyal.ab.ca/gaslight/lfanumen.htm
Stephen D
===0===
Date: Mon, 22 Feb 1999 23:10:59 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ <rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu>
Subject: End of the James controversy
Some time back we had a discussion of the controversy over whether Jesse
James actually died at the time history assigns his death or lived on,
under a new name, long after. At the time of our discussion the body of
"Jesse," was being exhumed at the request of the James family in the hope
that the many people who claimed descent from him would be silenced by
the evidence uncovered. And that was that, as far as I was able to find
out, though Eugene Ossa did report his attendence at a talk given by one
of the investigators in the case. (Don't know if Eugene is still with us.)
A couple of nights, A&E's program "The Unexplained," devoted a fascinating
hour to this subject, and for those who missed it, I thought I would give
a brief synopsis of the investigative team's findings.
This team was filled with experts--highly respected phyical
anthropologists,forensic scientists, a handwriting expert, and a
scientist skilled in interpreting DNA results were all aboard. The team
was led by Professor James Starrs. The hope was that the remains would be
in sufficiently good condition that DNA could be extracted and compared
against that of known James descendents.
Some curious discoveries were made. First, family history records that
Jesse was buried in a metal coffin; but when ultrasound scans were taken
at the gravesite, the researchers were puzzled not to find anything
metallic in the area. Nonetheless they started to dig and finally came
across bones--no coffin. They assumed, then, that Jesse had been buried
in a wooden coffin that had rotted away.
Unfortunately the bones were too degraded to produce analyzable DNA
samples. The ground in the area is very wet and water had obviously done
its work of bone and tissue destruction. However, a number of things, the
researchers later discovered, pointed to the body as belonging to Jesse.
First, Jesse was known to have a bullet lodged in one of his limbs. In
fact, the researchers found a bullet near the bone of that very limb, and
the deformation of the bullet dated it as having been made before and during
the Civil War (Jesse had been shot on one of this forays with Quantrell's
Raiders). Second, Jesse's body had undergone a partial autopsy in which
part of his skull had been removed with a saw. The skull, which was in
fragments when found, was painstakingly reconstructed, and was found to
have been cut at the back: the cutting line was clearly visible. Third,
yet more bullet evidence was found: a bullet turned up near the head area.
The skull, when reconstructed, show a clear entrance wound, but no exit
wound. Thus, the investigators believed that they were holding that very
round that killed Jesse. Fourth, photos of the dead Jesse show him
wearing a fancy tie which was held in place by a stud; a stud was also
found in the grave. All of this was extraordinary corroborative
evidence--but not conclusive. After all, the proponents argued that a
man had been killed (by Jesse) and buried in his stead, allowing him to
escape to lead a peaceful life elsewhere. The body, then, wasn't
necessarily Jesse's just because some of the historical material had
proved out. What the team was dealing with, and knew it, was
highly suggestive, but circumstantial.
Much stronger evidence was soon to arrive. The handwriting expert
made a careful study of letters and documents known to have been written
and signed by the real Jesse James. He also looked at the handwriting of
the most serious claimants to James's identity and found there was no
resemblance. (An on-screen comparison showed the clear differences. )
Then the team had a stroke of luck. It was known that, at the time of
Jesse's first exhumation and burial, a lock of hair had been taken from
his head as a keepsake. This lock is now kept in a museum devoted to
Jesse, but when the investigators asked to examine it--which would
involve destroying a small piece--the museum turned them down. The
curator apparently had second thoughts, however, because he finally agreed
to the request and gave the team a few strands.
The hair yielded up two important clues almost immediately. The first was
the clear indications that the hair came from a deceased person; the
second was evidence that the hair had been dyed. The dyeing was
consistent with Jesse's attempt to disguise his real identity; his hair
was a light brown and he had dyed his hair black. Near the root area, the
hair abruptly changed to a much lighter color than the strand as a whole,
suggesting hair coloring.
Then came what turned out to be the "clincher." What the scientists were
looking for in the hair samples was mitochondrial DNA. This type of DNA
is located in cellular structures called mitochondria. It is passed down
only through the mother. Thus, while Jesse would not have passed it on
(only women can do that), it would have been part of his genetic makeup.
Jesse, luckily for the investigators, had had a sister who married and
gave birth to several children, ensuring that the Jesse's mother's
mitochondria would be passed down. Some blood was drawn from one of the
sister's descendents, and this person's mitochondria was isolated.
When DNA tests were taken, the mitochondrial DNA from Jesse's hair and
that from his distant relative provided an unmistakable match.
As far as the investigative team was concerned, the case was proved beyond
all doubt: the condition of the body, the existence of strategically
placed bullets, the identification of Jesse's distinctive handwriting, and
the DNA evidence practically ruled out.the body in the grave being anyone
other than the famous outlaw.
There was one other anomaly that the team found and was unable to account
for. Jesse was buried face-down. In folklore practice, this was
sometimes done in cases where the deceased person was considered evil or
likely to rise and torment the living (some of the Griswold, Connecticut
corpses associated with cases of "vampirism" were also buried face-down).
But it is difficult to believe that Jesse would have been seen in that
light. He was to many, many people a hero rather than an outlaw, and his
mother, who was responsible for both his burials, undoubtedly saw her son
in the best light. This decision, then, is something of a mystery.
This was an intriguing program and will, I hope, be repeated in the
future.
Bob C.
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Robert L. Champ
rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu
Editor, teacher, anglophile, human curiosity
Whatever things are pure, whatever things are
lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
there is any virtue and if there is anything
praiseworthy; meditate on these things
Philippians 4:8
rchamp7927(at)aol.com robertchamp(at)netscape.net
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
===0===
Date: Tue, 23 Feb 1999 01:16:15 -0500 (EST)
From: Robert Champ <rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu>
Subject: Telling detail
Here is one of my favorite telling details, from Fitz Ludlow's "The
Phial of Dread."
<<
There were some green trees--green still, while all the urban parks were
taking their dust-baptism, and the lilac leaves, mad for thirst, in St.
John's church-yard, might be written on with the finger and keep their
record a week.
<<
I don't know the extent to which Ludlow is exaggerating here, but I
suddenly realized on reading it why so much dusting was done in
Victorian homes, and why people more often that not wore hats. The
amount of dust from unpaved roadways and streets must have been
considerable.
Fellow Gaslighter Mary Lee Herrick and I had a very long and enjoyable
lunch today at the Mt Clare Room at UMUC--what a charming person Mary Lee
is!--and I was talking about this little passage. I also wondered
aloud when the lawnmower was invented and what people did, before
it came along, to keep the grass cut.
Bob C.
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
Robert L. Champ
rchamp(at)polaris.umuc.edu
Editor, teacher, anglophile, human curiosity
Whatever things are pure, whatever things are
lovely, whatever things are of good report, if
there is any virtue and if there is anything
praiseworthy; meditate on these things
Philippians 4:8
rchamp7927(at)aol.com robertchamp(at)netscape.net
_________________________________________________
@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@@
------------------------------
End of Gaslight Digest V1 #46
*****************************