I'm only a couple hundred pages into CoMC, so I don't know what happens in the end.

Simon/Ned's return to the island at the end shocked the hell out of me -- I wasn't expecting that at all. I didn't believe he should end up with Portia (not after looking at Cade's legs set on the table like a bunch of flowers), but I didn't expect self-imposed exile to what had been hell. I didn't think of it as Valhalla, but that almost makes sense -- I was wondering if he'd kill himself once his task was done.

Out of curiosity, do you think he had Rolf and all the rest killed as well?

Sarah | January 22, 2003 10:43 AM

As for the island -- I had to stop reading a couple of times during the worst of the brain games. It filled me with horror.

Sarah | January 22, 2003 10:48 AM

No.

Remember, Rolf didn't ever act in a malicious or violent way. Note that when Rolf dislocates Ned's shoulder, it's described as being calculated, mechanical, not motivated by hatred or malice.

Keep in mind the punishment was about intent, not action.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 12:50 PM

Ned's inversion doesn't happen on the island: his "rebirth" happens when he leaves the island. You'll note that Ned enters a coffin to get off the island and leaves it on the mainland as a new person: with a new name, a new intent, etc.

A few religious traditions either symbolically (by immersing in water) or literally (some Masonic rituals etc) interr the aspiring practitioner in a coffin, and consider him "born again" when he leaves it.

Interesting as well to see that he becomes what he's accused of. He is sent to the island ostensibly as a conspirator and terrorist, habouring a list of names of people to kill. He is also ostensibly sent to the police station as someone who pushes drugs to foreigners. When he leaves the island, he is a conspirator with a list of names to kill, and his first act is to sell pharmaceutical grade heroin to someone from another country.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 12:54 PM

For me, Ned on the island is the "One Flew Over the Cukoo's Nest" portion of the story. and the best part of the book. I was fascinated...trying to figure if his writing was a deliberate attempt to con/appease the hospital staff or if he was so addled by drugs, that he was really watching words deconstruct. It is so horrifying to visit madness. So I was fully sympathetic to Ned at that point.

But like you, Kara, once he showed his capacity for violence and vicious cruelty; I began enjoying the book a whole lot less. I didn't want to dislike Ned. But by the end of the book - I hated him and was THRILLED that he & Portia did not get back together. Ned's return to the island gave me satisfaction...it seemed just and right.

barbara | January 22, 2003 1:37 PM

I have to disagree with dark past, that the transformation occurred in the trip off the island. The journey and its revelations and discoveries may have passed for "birth-pangs," but the "gestation" of the new person certainly started when Babe and Ned began to reconstruct how Ned wound up incarcerated in the first place.

But then I'm a pro-lifer, so make of that what you will. ;-)

Did Ned's/Simon's obsession "burn him up," though? It certainly destroyed the passive, benevolent person that was Ned, but in Ned's place we have Simon, the man who can (and does) go anywhere and do anything. Simon doesn't finish the book an empty shell of a man, he finishes with a final, messy break from the ties of his prior life. But he's a larger, more dynamic, more powerful person because of it. Twisted and driven to revenge, yes, but also unfettered by the bounds of normalcy.

I figured, once significant time began to pass, that Portia was forever lost to Ned - after all, the title of the book is Revenge, not Rueful Journey of Pain and Reconciliation. Heh.

What I found drawing was watching Ned grow and bloom into a full, interesting person with Babe, just knowing that he was going to twist and become his own version of an avenging angel. Watching Fry tread the line between brilliance and derangement, in Ashley's case as well as Ned's and Babe's, is the fun.

What's less fun but more thought-provoking is considering how Fry has come to know these borderland regions of the self so well.

Rich | January 22, 2003 1:44 PM

Another thought: in learning about other funny people, I've found it's fairly common for many of the funniest to have strong dark sides to their character.

One of the best definitions of comedy I've heard is "truth plus tragedy." Understanding this almost requires the degree of familiarity with human weakness and fallibility that accompanies pain in one's life. Robin Williams, Douglas Adams and John Cleese are all comedians of one feather or another who show a surprisingly dark streak through their work. Can comedy exist without darkness?

A man goes to the doctor. Says he's depressed. He says life seems harsh and cruel. Says he feels all alone in a threatening world where what lies ahead is vague and uncertain. The doctor says "The treatment is simple. The great clown Pagliacci is in town tonight. Go and see him, that should pick you up." The man bursts into tears. He says "But doctor... I am Pagliacci."         - Alan Moore, The Watchmen

I need to read more about Stephen Fry. Dark past, where did you get your biographical info on him?

Rich | January 22, 2003 2:06 PM

RE: I need to read more about Stephen Fry. Dark past, where did you get your biographical info on him?

Although he did write an autobiography, I believe, most of what I know about him I read in newspapers. His mental breakdown occurred during a theatre production - he literally bolted from town hours before due on stage in the middle of the show's run. As for his homosexual/Christian dichotomy, he's been quite public about both - in the 80s, becoming one of Britain's most vocal and well known celibates. As for his incarceration, well, there are many online references to Fry that highlight this part of his life.

I wasn't referring to the transformation happening in the coffin - obviously, Babe's influence honed and refined the eventual avenging angel. But remember even on his deathbed. just before Ned's escape, Babe was struggling to get Ned to calm down, get his head together, etc. (basically, to stop acting like a flop-haired schoolboy) because he was still Ned. There was NO trace of that once he left the coffin. Ned Maddstone truly died in that coffin. What left that coffin was a singleminded predator.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 2:23 PM

Predator. That's it exactly! So how can you say (dark past's comment from yesterday) "Cotter is anything but malicious." Isn't predation of one human after a fellow human hideously malicious? After all the tutelage from Babe, exposure to philosophy, poetry, languages etc...Ned should have been operating on a much higher plane. Instead, he is more evil and more malicious than his victims. His schoolmates have the excuse of not knowing the series of events they set into motion. They were merely pranking, however petty their grievances. Cotter went way over the top.

barbara | January 22, 2003 4:01 PM

RE: Predator. That's it exactly! So how can you say (dark past's comment from yesterday) "Cotter is anything but malicious."

Because he isn't. Predation does not imply malice. If I need to eat, for example, and I live in a society that does not have a supermarket, I must go out with some kind of weapon, and remove the life of an animal so I can feed what remains to me and my kids. I have nothing against the animal - I have no particular reason to single any particular one out.

RE: Isn't predation of one human after a fellow human hideously malicious?

No - and that's the point behind the Anglo-Saxon revenge stories. It is about NOTHING else but redressing a wrong.

Portia asks this question - (paraphrasing) "you have money, power, influence - intellect and memory on a scary level. Whatever you lost you got back tenfold, you should be thanking them." Cotter does mention that he doesn't have her or a family, but his overall argument is, it isn't in his hands.

Let's face it - Cotter doesn't actually kill anyone (save the Drapers and Gaine, etc - but those are incidental, coverup deaths). Barson Garland kills himself. Fendeman suffers a heart attack. Cade was offered a way into a shady deal and took it - and it was the Suleimans that killed him. Delft swallowed hot coal of his own volition.

RE: After all the tutelage from Babe, exposure to philosophy, poetry, languages etc...

None of this implies morality, humanity or compassion - and none of those figures into the book's endgame.

RE: Ned should have been operating on a much higher plane.

It could be argued that he was. An amoral agent of fate is not a malicious one.

RE: Instead, he is more evil

Aha! Excellent question. Is he really evil?

RE: His schoolmates have the excuse of not knowing the series of events they set into motion.

His schoolmates wanted him ruined. They may not have had the means to knock him so low, but they had that intent. Every single one. Barson Garland wanted his name destroyed. Fendeman wanted him out of the picture. Cade had a malice that was almost totally unfounded. Remember, all Cotter did was expose these three for who they were, and events unfurled from there, almost wholly of their own doing.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 4:36 PM

Careful, Barbara. I don't know that I'd paint Cotter as more evil and malicious than his victims. Ashley became a child pornographer, Rufus a drug dealer, and Fendeman a rapist, fraud and displacer of dozens (hundreds?) of impoverished people. And of course there's the ex-MI5 agent and his heavies (sorry, names are escaping me), who pretty well deserve anything.

Part of me would like to think that if, say, Ashley had turned into a true philanthropist, feeder of the hungry and general pillar of societal virtue, then he would have been spared serious consequences.

Rich | January 22, 2003 4:42 PM

Hear hear, dp!

Rich | January 22, 2003 4:44 PM

Here's a morality question for you.

Who is more evil?

1) A guy who really wants another man dead, and seethes about it for years, or

2) A guy who accidentally fires a gun, killing another man, with no intent to injure or harm whatsoever.

The Christian answer? "A man who looks after a woman with lust has ALREADY committed adultery with her in his heart".

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 4:47 PM

First, I apologize for checking in late -- the book came late, and I spent every free moment the past two days reading. Second, I want to thank Kara for introducing me to this book and finally pushing me to read Fry. I'm glad I did, even if, ultimately, I was somewhat disappointed by the novel.

The island is where Fry lost me, at least in terms of the story. That is, at the beginning, his prose was beautiful, introducing us to each character with careful crafted and wonderfully real portraits. The rest of the book could have been a stream of numbers and it would have been worth reading just for this, and I wish Fry had continued to inhabit the universe that he creates at the beginning.

But then the IRA stuff happens and it just stumbles along from there, with each scene and major point of action not really seeming to be anything more than a convenient device to move the story along. It's primarily from a lack of development. And I'm with Kara in that I was truly disappointed when Ned/Simon started to plot his revenge, which there are glimpses of on the island. Because the revenge just seemed to be dropped onto the pages; there wasn't enough there to make me truly feel strongly about it one way or the other. It just happened.

The ideas many of you have introduced here about the subtexts and overarching ideology are fascinating, however, and as I finished reading about five minutes ago, I need time to think about the book as more than just a story.

Andy | January 22, 2003 5:39 PM

RE: Because the revenge just seemed to be dropped onto the pages; there wasn't enough there to make me truly feel strongly about it one way or the other. It just happened.

IMHO that's the point - and Fry did it for a reason.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 5:56 PM

I'm not entirely convinced. Unlike, say, American Psycho, this book seems to place its emphasis on narrative more than it does on form, so I'm not sure I'm willing to let him off the hook for the lack of development in perhaps the most crucial part of the novel. If he wanted to emphasize the pointlessness of the revenge, for example, there are plenty of ways he could have done that besides not developing the final third of the story.

If he did it for a reason, what do you suggest that reason is?

Andy | January 22, 2003 6:45 PM

Dark Past: "There was NO trace of that once he left the coffin. Ned Maddstone truly died in that coffin. What left that coffin was a singleminded predator."

I have to slightly disagree with this point, but only by a few pages in the text. I believe shreds of Ned still remained until he discovers he has the means to exact his revenge. Otherwise, he probably wouldn’t have been moved to tears by the fortune left to him by his lost friend. He issn’t truly "an avenging angel—an instrument of God" until he returns to England as Simon Cotter in the last section, "Thoroughly Thought Through."

I do agree with the others who have commented on being disappointed with Simon. I simply did not feel his hate was justified. Sure, Ashley, Gordon, and Rufus want to ruin him, but as Barbara already mentioned, there is absolutely no way their schoolboy antics deserve the horrific fates Simon designs for them. They did turn out to be despicable adults, but I still didn’t feel it was Simon’s place to be the one to bring them down. And Rufus’ death? He was a dirty-dealing scumbag, but the drug deal gone bad was pure entrapment.

marydell | January 22, 2003 6:49 PM

RE: I have to slightly disagree with this point, but only by a few pages in the text. I believe shreds of Ned still remained until he discovers he has the means to exact his revenge. Otherwise, he probably wouldn’t have been moved to tears by the fortune left to him by his lost friend.

Oh, I see. No, I'm not suggesting a robotic automaton a la Terminator - I'm suggesting that the silly, flappy schoolboy part of Ned is gone. Ned was still human - still pining for Babe, still concerned about capture when accessing the vault - but there was no hesitation, backtracking or absentmindedness or wasted effort from the moment he left the coffin - that was what I was getting at.

RE: They did turn out to be despicable adults, but I still didn’t feel it was Simon’s place to be the one to bring them down.

According to Anglo-Saxon myth - yes, it is the place of humans to bring them down. Not lightning bolts from the sky.

RE: And Rufus’ death? He was a dirty-dealing scumbag, but the drug deal gone bad was pure entrapment.

Perhaps - but there was no gun put to his head.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 6:56 PM

Andy's right when he says the revenge is just dropped onto the pages. Fry didn't include us in on Ned's transformation into Simon, since a huge chunk of time is missing between his first visit to the Suisse bank and his emergence as the dotcom god. His plans were "thoroughly though through" since they all went off without a hitch (well, except for Portia and Albert), but leaving us out of the thought/study process is where Fry lost me.

marydell | January 22, 2003 6:58 PM

Marydell: I kind of do and don't - yes a lot of time is missing, but that would have ruined the surprises later on (hands up anyone who saw the missing legs coming)

Here's an interesting point. All Simon did in the majority of cases was expose the villains for who they were. Simon did NOT put the scissors into Barson Garland's throat, remove the legs of Cade or make Fendeman have a heart attack. In fact, the revenge would have been as complete if Barson Garland had been jailed as a pederast, Fendeman stripped of his position and company (and probably his marraige - I wouldn't stay with a creep who raped a kid), and Cade arrested for drug use - which was probably the intent of the exercise. However, just as how none of the three could ever imagine the end result of the pot planting being Ned buried for life in a prison, Cotter couldn't have forseen Barson Garland and/or Fendeman DYING. Nor did he entrap any of the three people.

However, many people here reacted as if Cotter engineered such levels of sick violence, or carried them out himself.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 7:06 PM

Dark Past: "According to Anglo-Saxon myth - yes, it is the place of humans to bring them down. Not lightning bolts from the sky."

I totally agree with this. I just don't think Simon is the right human. His hatred of them is a reaction to them planting some pot in his pocket then calling the cops. Causing them to destroy themselves in horrible ways is a bit over the top for that.

This is the whole reason why I wish we were privy to Simon's study of their weaknesses. If his hate boiled over as a reaction to them being allowed to become the deviants they were while he rotted on an island, I'd buy into it better. At each of their ends, Simon's motives revert back to the pot incident. Weak, in my mind.

Hating Delft, on the other hand, didn't bother me at all. Swallowing hot coals is a bit much, but Simon's hatred is better placed in this case.

marydell | January 22, 2003 7:13 PM

RE:I totally agree with this. I just don't think Simon is the right human. His hatred of them is a reaction to them planting some pot in his pocket then calling the cops. Causing them to destroy themselves in horrible ways is a bit over the top for that.

But my point is, although Simon has every reason to do this, he isn't really the author of the eventual destruction. Technically, his having been "wronged" in no way excludes him from the potential pool of wrong-righters.

RE: If his hate boiled over as a reaction to them being allowed to become the deviants they were while he rotted on an island, I'd buy into it better.

Hate's nothing to do with it. Simon's only interest was in destroying them the same way they destroyed him. He sets out to ruin Barson-Garland's reputation, Fendeman's relationship, and Cade's body (closest thing to athletic rivalry) - the very things that he had that made them hate him. Sadly, the real world doesn't work like chess - the pawns have minds of their own. Perhaps Cade was only supposed to have been roughed up and told never to show up around drugs or London again, for example.

RE: At each of their ends, Simon's motives revert back to the pot incident. Weak, in my mind.

Here's another thought - maybe the Gods engineered this to destroy the hospital and Delft. All the other people, including Simon and Babe, are "collateral damage".

RE: Hating Delft, on the other hand, didn't bother me at all.

The hot coals bit I'm not so sure about. How that fits in poetically with the crime is beyond me. I need to read Julius Caesar to get this better - maybe there's a link between Portia in Julius Caesar and Delft.

Dark Past | January 22, 2003 7:35 PM

Dark Past: "Hate's nothing to do with it. Simon's only interest was in destroying them the same way they destroyed him."

They didn't destroy Ned. After leaving the island, he was well-educated, fabulously wealthy, and able to turn himself into one of the most powerful men on the planet. He destroyed himself through his hatred, which is why he didn't end up with Portia and Albert in the end.

Speaking of undeveloped bits of the story, my guess is Simon's motivation in hiring Albert is to endear him and turn him against his father. Right? If so, it backfired.

marydell | January 22, 2003 9:25 PM

Re: He wouldn't kill Rolf, because Rolf wasn't malicious -- but then why did he kill the drug cop? He didn't do anything malicious -- he was just doing his job when he picked Ned up. That shocked me almost as much as the leg thing, when Simon killed him. Yes, it was tying up loose ends, but he must have gone out of his way to get the drug cop involved (and yes, i'm too lazy to look up the name. )

Sarah | January 22, 2003 10:31 PM

Re: Why hire Albert: I think he was hoping Albert was his son -- he said as much when Portia came to his office. When he discovered Albert wasn't, Simon put him on the destruction list -- by writing the letter to Oxford -- which would have destroyed the same chance for Albert that was destroyed for Ned. When Albert wrote the e-mail saying he was sorry for what happened, he was "saved".

Which brings up something -- none of the conspirators showed any remorse. Their last words, almost to a man, were "fucking Ned Maddenstone." They couldn't/wouldn't admit that they'd destroyed his life. I wonder if their ends would have beenless bloody if they'd admitted the mistake and begged forgiveness. I don't know if that would counteract the need for vengeance. Albert's near miss implies that it would.

Sarah | January 22, 2003 10:31 PM

Sorry for entering into the discussion so late - just got back from China, so forgive me if my comments sound a bit trite, "Revenge" is a major paradigm shift from Beijing.
At any rate, thanks to dark past for interesting background info. Things are starting to fall into place. What strikes me the most is the rather circumstantial role of Ned/Simon. I agree that the deaths of the three conspirators seemed like they were of their own making. If it wasn't for Simon, then each of them would have eventually met their just desserts anyway. Which brings me to a question then, doesn't this illustrate a point that one does not need a reveng-er? That those who are this despicable cannot help come to a bad end through their own doings? So that Simon, for all his calculating thouroughness, was really ancilliary to the workings of fate/God? And in fact, all that revenge brought was the destruction of his (actually Ned's) best qualities, and perhaps only slightly hastened the unavoidable end of these people?
I actually like the deliberate disjunction before Ned met Babe and after he left the island. While Ned was on the island, it seemed like it was the only moment in the book where it seemed he had choices (true freedom?), choice to beleive he was mad, choice to learn from Babe, choice to escape etc.. even if it was ironically in a prison (could make a very intersting parallel to the freedom by donning the yoke of Christ). Before the island, he was the victim of a cruel prank. After the island, he was the victim of one very bad decision made while he DID have choices, but once he left, he could not choose to stop exacting revenge.
I think the lack of motivation for Simon's obssession with revenge that others have noted is deliberate. If it is presented as a concious decision, nothing more nothing less, Fry rips away the romance of feeling away and exposes it as a deliberate choice to resent fate/God's choice for him that could have been just as easily avoided. I dunno, I think perhaps too many assumptions are needed to go the distance on that one, but there's something in it...Let me sort that one out later...
By the way, way to go to Portia for turning
Simon down in the end. I think vainer, greedier women (and perhaps even me in a weak moment) might not have been so strong or at least clear-minded. I was a bit worried about her as the book closed, afterall, she didn't know exactly how Simon went after all those people and you never know about teenage girls, not all of them manage to turn out decent. At first I was all disappointed because, well, I'm pretty bloodthirsty and vengeful myself, even if Simon had to become a dirt bag, it was nice to see revenge metted out so justly, but really, who would want to be with someone who cannot forgive? What if Portia transgressed against him in something minor later on, what are the chances he could forgive and forget that?
Thanks for the pick this month Kara, this was a marvelously good read. I stayed up all night with it as well. I try to ration them out, but it was impossble this time. It was only in my desperate hunt to find the bloody thing (yes, Canada follows UK titles, and forgets to remind us that in just a few things it is not the same as the states) that all of the sudden people started recommending the Hippo too. Like others, this book was definitly a teaser for Fry's whole body of work.

do-hee | January 23, 2003 7:46 AM

Dark Past took issue with most of what I had to say-but I stand by my assertion that Ned/Sam was malicious and evil. (Keep in mind - I have to do this at work - so my comments are not as well crafted as I would wish)

Re: Predation. Killing for food is survival - which obviously is NOT malicious and not at all what I was getting at. Ned's intent was heartless destruction and deliberate cruelty. To me - that constitutes evil. I don't accept that he is an "instrument" or amoral agent redressing wrongs. It may not match Anglo-Saxon revenge archetypes (in which I'm not sufficiently schooled)but since he is the one who undergoes the awakening or transformation or whatever you want to call it...I want his enlightenment to raise him above the past. Ok - so I'm re-writing the story to suit my own view of how the world should be.

I just don't see anything "just" or equal in the way he goes after his victims. Rich's point is well taken - the school chums all turn out to be bottom feeders. But I wasn't expecting anything big from them...I was allied with Ned. So it was a bitter pill for me when he failed to be a heroic figure.

grrrrr. I hate trying to defend/explain my thinking. Just take my word; I am smarter than everybody. crap. I hafta go get the timesheets ready for friggin payroll.

barbara | January 23, 2003 1:03 PM

RE: but then why did he kill the drug cop?

For the same reason why he iced the Drapers (his real revenge was making the rest of their prison term hell) - so that they wouldn't talk.

RE: Why hire Albert

Simon was probably trying to steal Portia and Albert from Fendeman (who in essence stole his "family" from him)

RE: I just don't see anything "just" or equal in the way he goes after his victims.

That isn't the point. The Gods play pieces against each other. One pawn moves one square, but what that does to the configuration of the board has a far greater importance and impact. Again, Simon did not wreak the havoc that was wrought, in its strictest sense. The universe did that. Just as the ripple effect from the arrest for pot possession led to the whole island/Babe/thing

Dark Past | January 23, 2003 2:22 PM

Then what IS the point of the revenge - if not to exact justice or "redress wrongs" ?
I don't think it is the universe that wreaks havoc... Cotter made free-will choices to pursue his retribution. He manipulates and controls too many circumstances to dismiss it as the same ripple effect triggered by pot bust.

barbara | January 23, 2003 2:58 PM

RE: Then what IS the point of the revenge - if not to exact justice or "redress wrongs" ?

That's what I'm getting at, though. Look at the evil that Cotter knocks out in one fell stroke. On one side, you have a pederastic, scheming and manipulative pyramid climber set to potentially run government - you have an "ethical trader" who not only kills off half a tribe but rapes its monarch, while deceiving the public to the tune of millions that they're paying twice as much for evil-free coffee. You also have a serial-screwing around drug pusher. And to top it off, a pyramid climbing MI-5 agent who sees no problem in ruining a boy's life for personal gain, and a hospital that's designed to torture and contain people who are political prisoners.

Point being, it isn't justifiable (e.g. revenge, the American title) to make a guy cut his own throat out over a fake pot bust. However, the UK title indicates that Cotter, being who he is, serves a LARGER purpose than what he thinks he does. But, pays a terrible price for doing so.

RE: I don't think it is the universe that wreaks havoc... Cotter made free-will choices to pursue his retribution.

True. But so did everyone else. Remember, Barson Garland might have only just lost his job but been free after paying fines. He chose to die.

RE: He manipulates and controls too many circumstances

However, all he is doing is exposing existing corruption.

Dark Past | January 23, 2003 3:41 PM

UNCLE ! ;)

barbara | January 23, 2003 4:00 PM

Sorry, Barbara. :(

That Liberal Arts education of mine has to be good for something.

Dark Past | January 23, 2003 4:18 PM

The UK book having a different title throws this off slightly but I'll say it anyway: If Simon/Ned wasn't extracting revenge -- not just being an instrument of the gods or whatever that helps to expose all of them -- the book wouldn't be called Revenge. Unless it was talking about the planting-pot revenge only. I think the title refers to all of the different instances of revenge in the novel.

Also: The final chapter, if it wasn't about Simon's plans to f them all up himself, wouldn't be called Thoroughly Thought Through.

Andy | January 23, 2003 6:35 PM

RE: The UK book having a different title throws this off slightly but I'll say it anyway: If Simon/Ned wasn't extracting revenge -- not just being an instrument of the gods or whatever that helps to expose all of them -- the book wouldn't be called Revenge.

Or it could be that some marketing wonk in the US division decided that literary allusion would be too far above the heads of most Americans. Remember that the original intention of the Harry Potter movie was to set the film in New Jersey and have Potter be a 'merkin bo-ah! Gosh gee willikers, sasparilly and sody pop, Mistah Dumbadow-ah!
Heavens forbid *cringe*

RE: Also: The final chapter, if it wasn't about Simon's plans to f them all up himself, wouldn't be called Thoroughly Thought Through.

Ah, but that could be ironic. He didn't exactly intend on alienating Portia - he figured she'd think Fendeman a creep and they could walk into the sunset together. He DID intend on some kind of doom for the others, but left the details to fate. Remember, it was the SETUP that was thoroughly thought through - however, the endgame was a HUGE X factor.

Dark Past | January 23, 2003 8:13 PM

Re: Different title in US vs Brit edition
I have mixed feelings about this. I remember when I lived in Hong Kong, deciding that the US was inherently superior when it came to publishing.

(dark past and any other Brit types, I was living and working with a bunch of Brits, dating a Northern Irishman, and had finally figured out that the dominant British cultural trait was random mockery. No actual offence is meant. Or not much, anyway. "Just taking the piss. Don't be so bloody sensitive." )

My evidence: Two titles of the same book, translated from the Danish.
The US version: Smila's Sense of Snow.
The Brit version: Miss Smila's Feeling for Snow.
Oy. One is taut and edgy, the other brings to mind tea cozies. In that case, the US version wins.

However, I've noticed that US publishers don't give readers a hell of a lot of credit. Witness the first Harry Potter -- the Brit version was The Philosopher's Stone, while the US version was The Sorcerer's Stone. US publishers didn't think kid's book with "Philosopher" in the title would fly (so to speak.) So they changed it. Never mind that a philosopher's stone is an actual (mythical) alchemical device. We wouldn't get it. Therefore, change it.

I think the same thing happened here. The publisher said "The Star's tennis balls? What the...? People are going to think it's an expose on Venus and Serena Williams or something. No way can we go with that title. We need something snappy. How about Revenge?"

And that does make a difference. Yes, it's a snappier title, but it loses a layer of meaning. It becomes less a "game of the gods" and more a "one man is mad as hell, and he's not gonna take it anymore!" Starring Bruce Willis, no doubt.

To sum up: I don't think we can read much about the author's intentions in the US title.

But I'm still right about Smila's Sense of Snow.

Sarah | January 24, 2003 1:19 PM

Dammit, dark past beat me to it.

Sarah | January 24, 2003 1:20 PM

Not that I'm trying to argue with you Sarah, just curious

RE: The US version: Smila's Sense of Snow.
The Brit version: Miss Smila's Feeling for Snow.

What does the original Danish say?

Dark Past | January 24, 2003 2:18 PM

What, you know Danish? I haven't a clue.

And of course you're trying to pick a fight with me. You're British. It's in your nature :-)

Sarah | January 24, 2003 2:52 PM

RE: What, you know Danish? I haven't a clue.

No, but I travel through Copenhagen sometimes.

RE: And of course you're trying to pick a fight with me. You're British. It's in your nature :-)

Oi! I'm British, not Irish ;P

Dark Past | January 24, 2003 2:54 PM

Oh, that makes a HUGE difference. In trhat case, you're DEFINITELY picking a fight. :-)

Where from?

Sarah | January 24, 2003 3:06 PM

Mancunian raised, Canadian born and raised (UK dual citizenship), reside in USA

Dark Past | January 24, 2003 5:02 PM

Having worked for a book publisher, I can confirm at least one thing about why the title was changed. In the US, books are purchased based on the cover. Actual content doesn't matter much because Americans are impulse shoppers as a result of having too much disposable income. Therefore, the title has to leap out at buyers if your book doesn't happen to get a coveted face out position.

(As an aside, a certain executive at my former employer used to demand that everyone who worked for him to turn our books face out whenever in a bookstore.)

The Stars' Tennis Balls is kind of awkward, and, in my opinion, conveys the exact opposite message of what's actually in the story (despite Dark Past's contention that it's ironic). The publisher, no doubt, made an executive decision in order to make sure Americans would pick up the book. Smart, I think, since Random House is the US' largest book house for a reason.

marydell | January 24, 2003 5:05 PM

i'm sorry dark past, but it's awfully un-Canadian of you to be exhibiting these aggressive tendancies outside of the hockey rink. Makes the rest of us look bad for something you picked up elsewhere.

While admittedly, the Uk title is little deeper, as one who has been guilty of purchasing books based on their cover (I am a sucker for baroque art in any form, please don't kick me out becuase of this), I have to say that the US cover was way better. The American cover had that nice, slightly ominous, public-schoolboy-gone-wrong feel that my copy simply lacked. I mean what deep peril are we to infer from a bright blue cover with yellow and white sans serif type and a picture of a battered boater at first glance? If it was accompanied by the US title, or something a little more inventive like Leaven of Malice, or something, that hat takes on a much more insiduous meaning, but without such aids, the poor consumer in mega-bookstore-land is left at a complete loss, and me, admittedly a little less intrigued. Sorry for siding with the masses on this one, I can't help it, I'm a visual learner.

do-hee | January 29, 2003 5:40 AM

Do-Hee: Ooooh, do I detect another Robertson Davies fan?

Dark Past: Does that passport say "Ireland" on it, or "United Kingdon/Great Britain"? Ergo, British. Possibly British of Irish extraction, but British nonetheless.

Sarah | January 29, 2003 10:35 AM

Sarah: Guilty as charged. You mean there are people who read Fifth Business even though it was not assigned in grade 10 English? Say it ain't so!

do-hee | January 30, 2003 8:21 AM

Assigned? Do you honestly think anyone in the US school system was assigned a Canadian writer? I think not.

No, it's strictly recreational for me. Until a few years ago, he was my favorite living writer. Then he died mid-trilogy. Alas.

Sarah | January 30, 2003 11:18 AM

The title "The Stars' Tennis Balls" is a quote from John Webster's revenge tragedy "The Duchess of Malfi." It seems to me that the point of this is not that we are the agents of some ultimately benign deity, but that we are the mercy of arbitrary, cruel and ultimately meaningless Fate. Perhaps more than any other Jacobean tragedy, "The Duchess of Malfi" ends on a note of total pessimism (brightened only by the Duchess' redeemed honour in her heroic death). I think this fits Fry's book rather well. Maddstone thinks that he is an avenging angel, but in the final analysis he is as much at the mercy of blind Fate as he was at the beginning of the book. The most "Thoroughly Thought Through" plans of mice and men do oft go awry. Bleak and fatalistic? Possibly; but preferable, I think, to claiming that Maddstone seizes hold of his destiny like some Nietzschean superman in the last part of the book. "Nature, nurture, or Nietzsche?" Perhaps just dumb luck.

Caliban | February 12, 2003 4:35 AM

Sorry - one other tiny point before I forget.
Does it not seem to anyone else that the real crime of those punished in this novel - whether Maddstone realises it or not - is not pederasty or even rape, but hypocrisy? This is a theme that occurs in many of Fry's books, and for which he seems to have little tolerance, especially when perpetrated by a certain class of English society.

caliban again | February 12, 2003 4:52 AM

Caliban, you've actually hit the nail on the head, which is something I think we all missed during our particularly active discussion about Revenge. Ned was all about punishing hypocrisy, but we got overly mired in whether or not his revenge is justified. If we really are all at the mercy of fate, the fate of Ashley and the rest is that they end horribly. As a result, Ned’s motivation is probably inconsequential.

marydell | February 18, 2003 11:09 AM