Date: Fri, 9 Aug 2002 12:27:41 -0700
From: Michael Andre-Driussi 
Subject: (urth) sepia man as Tilly?

Here is something I wanted to mention before.

The photo of the giant and the man: as an advertisement (goes well with the
photo of Candy as an advertisement; perhaps fits well with the "commerce
documentary" of section 5 of PEACE) it makes sense that the "normal" man
beside the giant actually be rather small, yet still in normal proportions,
to visually over-state the actual height of the giant.

And since we know Smart was small-ish, this is another nice point in favor
of the normal sepia man as Julius Smart.

OTOH, why wouldn't he be recognized?  Robert Borski has pointed out the
social decorum involved whereby the secretary might avoid mentioning it,
and Weer being opaque as usual takes care of his side.

But what if the normal sepia man really is a man that neither one has ever
seen--what if he is Tilly?

Again, if Charlie is acting as the ghost of the past, then he is showing us
something about a previous owner/manager (I forget, but doesn't the ghost
show Scroog the wonderful Christmas parties put on by Marley?).  Well, that
would work for both Smart and Tilly.  Yet the arrival of Charlie initially
validates the story told by Smart about Tilly, nearly like a character
stepping out of a book; and Tilly is the invisible one (I mean, we even
question whether he exists or is just a mask for Smart!) whereas Weer saw
the courtship, the wedding, and even lived in the house with Smart.

So what does it do, having the sepia man as Tilly?  It might point to
another offspring, another heir to the factory, if Doris is Tilly's
daughter.  Because Tilly's condition of being "stoned"  links to
"Mason," and Tilly had close ties to the carnies, and so on.

Roy, remind me about the Tilly subsection of the timeline.  Tilly died in
1922 or so?  Wife "died" when?

Is 1920 a good benchmark for natural sepia, for the clothing, for the
Lombard reference?

Eek!  Since what I'm saying here is that Doris's story somehow "fills in
the blanks" to Smart's story of Tilly, then what are the blanks: the wife,
the son, etc.  What if somehow lovely Candy is the one who ends up in the
aquarium tank?

Just a creepy thought.

Anyway, back to the photos.  Adam Stephanides (iirc) wondered why Charlie
would not mention the second photo.  Weeeellll . . . if it =was= a
blackmail thing (which would fit with my sense of Charlie running some kind
of scam), and the photo shows Weer and the giant (or any other kind of
blackmail evidence), then Charlie doesn't need to say anything -- in fact
he =shouldn't= say anything.  The artifact speaks for itself, or the
attempt is off-target (Weer is unaffected) and Charlie cannot be implicated
in a blackmail attempt (since he makes no mention).

=mantis=



--