(urth) The Sorcerer's House Questions (*Major Spoilers*)

[Eugene Zaretskiy]

On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 11:27 AM, James Wynn <crushtv at gmail.com> wrote:
> On my second read, I think Bax always intended to replace George from
> the start. Right from letter #2, he gives George precise directions to
> the house. I think that at that time, he intended for George to show
> up there so he could murder him. He definitely implies in the letter
> that he is capable of murder.

I noticed the same thing on my second read through, but also just
reading Bax's syrupy writing with the idea that his aim is to replace
George puts those early letters in a completely different light. Why
is he writing to George in the first place? His
"he's-my-brother-and-I-love-him" shtick stinks of Ieaun's poor
attempts at pretending to be something else. I don't have the book in
front of me to quote, but almost every seemingly earnest plea to
George/Millie rings false. They rung false even on the first
read-through, but I had chalked it up to Bax trying to keep up
appearances and just being polite. Reading it now, it seems clear his
intent is not only to lure George to him, but also to woo Millie. He's
very careful to speak kindly of George at all times, but also making
himself sound superior by making himself empathetic, uh, if that makes
sense. Calling himself the bad brother with a curled lip and puppy
eyes, basically.

Millie's not very bright, and Bax knows that. But I get the impression
he also knows that she would detect that it's not George who has
returned to her. So he's trying to convince her (successfully, as we
see in Millie's letter) that he's the better brother, and that a
confrontation between the two of them is inevitable. The last letter
is for appearances' sake.

>
> Incidentally, I'm more convinced the supernatural stuff is real. Bax
> inheriting a house is too coincidental otherwise. And you don't
> attempt to pull a con with "My house is full of faeries (unless you
> are dealing with someone inclined to believe it).
>

Well, some of it. Bax certainly makes a compelling case for the
opposite, in light of our observations above. He's a convicted con
man, and knowing that he ultimately replaces his brother (if we are to
use that interpretation of the last letter) and reading his early
letters for what they are, it does seem to lend credence to idea that
what follows are Bax's all-inclusive attempts to con a easy-to-anger
brother to his death and a gullible Millie to believe the fantastic,
romantic tale that unfolds using his knowledge of 19th century
literature as sources. I'm not saying I believe that, or don't believe
it. As John Watkins said, choose whichever one makes a better story
for you.

> J.
>
> On Sat, Apr 17, 2010 at 7:03 PM,  <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:
>>
>> As I say, I get the impression that Bax lies a lot, but not about the
>> supernatural stuff.
>>
>> .
>>
>>
>>
>>>>So maybe the question with Bax is whether or not his ability to tell a
>>>> wonderful,
>>>>compelling, puzzling story (which is, of course, also Wolfe's talent) is
>>>> innocent or
>>>>dangerous? From that angle, it seems like one of the "big issues" with
>>>> TSH is the
>>>>relationship between fantasy and dishonesty. That seems like a perfectly
>>>> appropriate
>>>>theme for a writer who has always maintained that fantasy is one of the
>>>> best ways to
>>>>deal with the "really real" -- why shouldn't he write a story that
>>>> explicitly explores the
>>>>other side of that coin?
>>>
>>> I just think the story is lame if the whole thing is a fabrication of
>>> Bax's, because --after all-- it already IS a fabrication by Wolfe. It
>>> would be like saying everything in the Latro novels was a product of
>>> Latro's deranged state due to his wound. It makes trying to understand
>>> the "contrived" story to be moot, because any inconsistencies can be
>>> marked up to shoddy story-telling. We're already facing the problems
>>> of possible plot-holes anyway. If we treat the story as a work by Bax
>>> instead of Wolfe, what is the value of that? Shall we investigate the
>>> quality of Bax's novel instead? I certainly hope this is not true. I'm
>>> not re-reading it as though this is the case, because I don't think
>>> I'm up to analyzing two novels at once.
>>>
>>> J.
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> Urth Mailing List
>>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Urth Mailing List
>> To post, write urth at urth.net
>> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Eugene Z
http://blog.eugenez.net