Date: Mon, 20 May 2002 21:16:01 -0500
Subject: Re: (urth) uncut dogs
From: Adam Stephanides 

Paging through my old messages, I came across the following year-old post by
Andy Robertson:

> When Marsh remarks that the boy is "uncut" and *therefore* when he was with
> the girl, would "bind", or something like that (sorry I can't lay my hand on
> my copy of 5HC rigth now) , what the hell is he talking about?
> 
> 
> "They would bind, I know.  I think I would kill them if I found them like
> that"

> (from memory)

I've just consulted my copy of 5HC, and there's nothing in that passage
about "binding."  The relevant parts of that entry are "I could climb down
and catch them together (I _know_ she is with him, I can almost hear them),
except that I can smell the ghoul-bear somewhere near.  They would die, the
two of them -- when the boy was washing I noticed he wasn't circumcised.  If
they were like that when I came, I think I would shoot them both."  (p. 251,
Ace pb)  So either there's a major discrepancy here between the Ace pb and
other editions, or the whole "binding" theme is a non-issue (which, of
course, makes Marsch's remark about Victor's non-circumcision even more
irrelevant).

--Adam


--