(urth) The Devil in a Forest

[James Wynn]

> Don Doggett:
>Sorry James, I've read The Devil in a Forest,
 >but I was pretty underwhelmed by it, so I never dug very deep.

Look, this is no great work, but it is a very "well-constructed" work; to a 
degree that it's worth examining for that reason alone. Most people are 
unaware of the story of the evil abbess who poisons, blinds, and kills Robin 
Hood. Wolfe has combined the abbess, Baba Yaga, and Hansel & Gretel's witch 
into a single character.

The story has lots of interesting, filled-out characters. The abbe' is an 
early Silk as well as a kind of Friar Tuck.

Thematically Wat/Robin Hood is an interesting exemplar of the corrupting 
nature of socialism while the Ganelon/Sherriff of Nottingham is an exemplar 
of the ambiguous but cruel nature of big, bureaucratic government.

I've read much worse novels, even by Wolfe.

> Transentient:
> Is it completely impossible that Mark actually shot Gloin?

Yeah, I think it is. Mark came straight from the woods with Wat (after Wat 
stabbed him) to the hideout with the refugees. If we assume the deed was 
done with Wat's bow then there was no opportunity to retrieve it.  The deed 
was not done with a military bow, anyway. Also tDiaF has a third person 
narrator that speaks from Mark's POV.

So I don't think he could do something without us knowing it, unless...
...unless Mother Cloot mixed up some of that special potion that she gave 
Wat to make him Ganelon (or the other way around). But , it's still unlikely 
that Mark shot Gloin I think. He was over-taken by the soldiers.
Nor could he have killed the sexton, for that matter, despite what Mother 
Cloot said. It must have been the charcoal burner. But what was his motive? 
I bet there are some hints if I read some of the Robin Hood versions.

Hmmm...I suppose it's possible that Mother Cloot carried Wat's bow to him in 
the forest, but that would undermine Mark's reasoning for concluding that 
Wat was Ganelon. Still it's not unheard of in a Wolfe novel for people to 
come to the right conclusion for the wrong reason.

J.