On Paths Unknown discussion

Thread for discussion of the first "King in Yellow" story, The Repairer of Reputations.

Let's confine our comments to chapter one for now.

Is someone prepared to help out with the translation of the opening quote? I have: "Let us not mock the insane (the mad, fools, the crazy?), for their folly/madness outlasts ours; there ends the difference."

for : ""Ne raillons pas les fous; leur folie dure plus longtemps que la nôtre… . Voila toute la différence."

Traveller wrote: "Voila toute la différence."

Surely that is more like "That is all the difference."

otoh, I guess it's the same :-)

Yep, I actually originally had something like that, and then the other one sounded a bit more... er... it sounded nicer. @_@ More English, I guess.

...but pls help out with which of crazy/nutto/foolish/or, er (yeah ok insane is just a nicer word for crazy and nutto) Is it fools or madmen we are talking about here?

Traveller wrote: "Yep, I actually originally had something like that, and then the other one sounded a bit more... er... it sounded nicer. @_@ More English, I guess.

...but pls help out with which of crazy/nutto/fo..."

Interesting quote!

The last part I translated as "that is the only difference" as an option for making it sound more natural English. I saw if I could find a translation online to verify madness or stupidity and found this: http://feedergoldfish.tumblr.com/post...

(which also translates the last bit to "that is the only difference", but any one of the others work as well). It looks like a sound translation. It seems to be "madness" then as in, most probably, a mental illness type thing.

Thanks Yolande! I am gratified to see how close that t/lation is to my own initial one: The one Yolande links to, says:" Do not mock the insane; their madness lasts longer than ours… that is the only difference."; whereas my own original t/lation went: "Let us not mock the insane, for their folly outlasts ours; that's the only difference." Ok, folly - yeah, I guess madness is better there. (In this context I suppose both would kinda fit).

Anyway, in other words, agreed on the last sentence, and glad to see "the insane" which is what I also thought.

Thanks everyone!

You are all wonderful; thanks for the translation discussion.

My initial impression of the opening chapter was one of sheer vertigo. When he began describing New York in 1920 I actually had to stop and look and make sure I was reading a book published in 1895. (I don't get the same sense of being totally unmoored from reading 1984 or other books written in their own future, but now that I've read this I'd guess that's because I know what I'm going into there.) That opener just really threw me off balance (in a delightful kind of way).

Amy, I needed your post to orient me; I was going to look up " how the Tariff and Labour questions were settled." and then I realized that it is all fictional since the story is set in his future at the time!
Even though William Chambers only died in 1933, this story was first published by F. Tennyson Neely in 1895, and the story narrates events from 1920...so.

Right? It is just a moment of complete disorientation, followed by a mixture of fascination and desire to recoil when I realized just what this denizen of 1895 thought 1920 might look like. I mean, it perfectly achieves the goal of the horror genre, but it does so by virtue of the fact that I live in 2015 reading the imagining of 1920 from a guy in 1895, so it doesn't really get credit for that achievement from me. But it was a great sensation.

Some old-timey sci-fi stories or TV shows from the earlier 20th century to around the 1980's which are set to play out in around the year 2000 or just after, often make you giggle at how unrealistic their future projections were, but I must say that 1984 was actually not so very far off in many respects (given the vantage point in time it was written from), which is what makes it rather chilling.

Traveller wrote: "Yep, I actually originally had something like that, and then the other one sounded a bit more... er... it sounded nicer. @_@ More English, I guess.

...but pls help out with which of crazy/nutto/fo..."

I felt it more to be "and there in lies the difference."

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "You are all wonderful; thanks for the translation discussion.

My initial impression of the opening chapter was one of sheer vertigo. When he began describing New York in 1920 I actually had to sto..."

Interesting, I had to check the date as well.

I had an unread copy of this which I just pulled down. It's pretty fascinating so far, and Chambers gets a lot of his guesses fairly correct, particularly in forseeing that Europe would eventually become divided between the west and Russia. All this about the U.S. becoming a dystopian military state is interesting as well. This seems promising!

Did everyone else eventually finish the first story? I'll be done with it later today, doubtless.

I did, and I think that section of 'predictions' was my favorite part of it. The story itself did not hold me that well.

I've just grabbed it myself and I'm seeing why Amy said it made her feel strange. I wonder what people in 1895 thought of his predictions; I'd love to know, if anybody has found some responses from his contemporaries anywhere.

Heh, he obviously knew Germany was going to cause some kind of trouble...

Oh, and I'm wanting to go back and check out the architectural trends from the last century or so...

Interesting how he sees these as solutions:
the exclusion of foreign-born Jews as a measure of self-preservation, the settlement of the new independent negro state of Suanee, the checking of immigration, the new laws concerning naturalization, and the gradual centralization of power in the executive...

As many of you might know, Ambrose Bierce also wrote horror stories, and now I am curious to read "An Inhabitant of Carcosa" an Ambrose Bierce short story (1891) which is apparently where Chambers got HIS city of Carcosa from.

In Bierce's story, the ancient and mysterious city is barely described, and is viewed only in hindsight (after its destruction) by a character who once lived there.

PS. Lucky narrator, that he has so much spare time as to be able to sit and listen for hours and hours to the ting ting of steel on steel...

Traveller wrote: "Interesting how he sees these as solutions:
the exclusion of foreign-born Jews as a measure of self-preservation, the settlement of the new independent negro state of Suanee, the checking of immigr..."

I noticed this as well. It really seems to be intentionally ominous and dystopian, a sign of troubled times, along with the newly institutionalized suicide. But it's obviously harder to say exactly at such a double-remove (1895, and then projected into the "future"), and knowing really nothing of Chambers, though.

Shall I make an "ending spoiler" thread for this story, or shall we just use spoiler tags for the ending?
EDIT: Nah, not really necessary? I think I'll do one for all three stories, perhaps, hm?

PS. I'm finding Chapter 2 so weird so far, that I'm starting to wonder if the author was sane! :P

There's a lot of military bands and parading regiments around, eh? Makes it feel like London to me... :)

Hm! Ghastly story..... ;)

(view spoiler)[ Though, did he(Hildred) kill the cat or did Hildred kill Wilde in the dark? ...and was it the cat who had killed Wilde? Did the cat even exist? (hide spoiler)]

Traveller wrote: "Hm! Ghastly story..... ;)

[spoilers removed]"

(view spoiler)[I think the question we have to ask ourselves is, did any of it exist at all? Hildred seemed to view his cousin, a man of supposed "Imperial" blood, as a dashing, handsome man. Was that just his madness influencing how he perceived his cousin? Was the existence of the Lethal Chamber just an expression of unspoken suicidal desires? Was the cat, if it existed, a cat? Or was it a captive that Wilde struggled with? Hildred is the ultimate unreliable narrator. He is by his own admission not entirely of sound mind; the entire narrative is untrustworthy. (hide spoiler)]

That's probably why I enjoyed it so much!

Yesss, one can look at it from various levels of potential "reality" or "non-reality". I was wondering why an armorer would have such a weirdly fitting name as Hawberk... and Wilde's name also seems rather made-up.

I wonder if the color yellow was associated with insanity before this story already.

(view spoiler)[ I definitely think that Louis was real though, for various reasons. (hide spoiler)]

Hawberk struck me (ha) as odd, too. I wonder how much of what we see might be corroborated in the other stories. Precious little, I wager.

Oh! Which reminds me... thread for next story is here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Traveller wrote: "Heh, he obviously knew Germany was going to cause some kind of trouble..."

From what I understand having read a couple of books about the period, Wilhelm II made no illusions whatsoever about his and his Empire's martial ambitions. Not to rob Chambers of credit, but that one probably wasn't that hard of a guess. ;)

I found it very interesting to to see a post-war US highly militarized (albeit 20-some years before its time), as well as the prediction of the Prussian military model becoming the standard (which it did, though to a lesser extent in the US, I think).

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Traveller wrote: "Heh, he obviously knew Germany was going to cause some kind of trouble..."

From what I understand having read a couple of books about the period, Wilhelm II made no illusions wha..."

Well no really, hmm?;) Of course they knew, but actually all of Europe was in a tiff with one another, making and breaking alliances in their hegemony struggles. So yeah, they knew trouble was brewing, just as most of Europe and the US also knew trouble was brewing before WW2 broke out.

The thing is that alliances weren't 100% set yet by 1895 IIRC, so it's interesting that he's making all kinds of guesses. The Communist party tended to be quite strong in Europe around that time as well, so I suppose that's what he labels as Anarchist, alsthough there was also quite a strong Anarchist movement in its own right. Will have to look that up again for dates etc.

Ruth wrote: "I did, and I think that section of 'predictions' was my favorite part of it. The story itself did not hold me that well."

I did not really love the work when I read it, but I find it is staying with me. I find myself turning the pieces over in my mind. I can see why so many people have been inspired to work at it in various media. (Also, when I had heard Lovecraft considered it essential, I had assumed he admired it, but Chambers' Wikipedia page has this quote from Lovecraft's letters: "Chambers is like Rupert Hughes and a few other fallen Titans – equipped with the right brains and education but wholly out of the habit of using them." Maybe it has been so worked over because the bones of something really great are there but the general consensus is that he failed to put them to proper use. Alternatively this could be Lovecraft's opinion of the man's later career, since it also says Chambers turned to writing adventures and romances.)

Traveller wrote: "As many of you might know, Ambrose Bierce also wrote horror stories, and now I am curious to read "An Inhabitant of Carcosa" an Ambrose Bierce short story (1891) which is apparently ..."

I really liked Bierce's story, but it is so very short I wasn't sure how much discussion we could get out of it. The man was an amazing writer; everything I've read of his sounds great to me. I don't remember if I put it in the other thread, but its available online here.

Nate D wrote: "I noticed this as well. It really seems to be intentionally ominous and dystopian, a sign of troubled times, along with the newly institutionalized suicide. But it's obviously harder to say exactly at such a double-remove (1895, and then projected into the "future"), and knowing really nothing of Chambers, though."

I really like your reading of this, Nate. The racial remarks rather caught me off guard (apparently everything was catching me off guard that day), all the more because I couldn't figure out if this was Chambers or Hildred's assessment of the developments, (view spoiler)[or even how much is real (hide spoiler)].

Traveller wrote: "Hm! Ghastly story..... ;)"

(view spoiler)[I honestly assumed immediately that Hildred actually killed Wilde and the cat had nothing to do with it. It didn't really occur to me that the cat might not even be real. (hide spoiler)]

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "That's probably why I enjoyed it so much!"

I agree, (view spoiler)[the totally untrustworthy narrative makes the whole thing come alive. It seems to me that Louis, the Hawberks, and Wilde are all real, but at least parts of his conversations with Hawberk seem fabricated (maybe? I am thinking of the bit about the rarity that Hildred gives the location of, saying it's from Wilde, and then Hawberk says it was where Wilde said it would be. I really don't know what to make of that part). (hide spoiler)]

Puddin Pointy-Toes wrote: "Hawberk struck me (ha) as odd, too. I wonder how much of what we see might be corroborated in the other stories. Precious little, I wager."

Very little. From other stories, all I can really tell is that there is such a play as The King in Yellow, that there really is a statue called The Fates sculpted by Boris Yvain (no mention of Lethal Chambers that I recall, though), and that something rather bad happened to Hildred Castaigne after he read The King in Yellow. (I may have missed something, but I was reading pretty closely for the connections, as that's part of what I loved the most.) However, the other stories ... hmmm. Maybe I'll save that comment for the thread on the fourth story.

Really, the three most interesting things about this story to me are, first, the opening description which is working not only with a time warp (Chambers establishing his future 1920s for his readers; I like 'double-remove') but also (view spoiler)[the classic unreliable narrator (hide spoiler)]; second, the interconnections of the first four stories; and third the snippets from the play itself. I loved those. (OK, and fourth, the trying to figure out what exactly happened by the end of the fourth story.)

Man, I think I am talking myself into rereading this.

Thanks for the link to the Bierce story, Amy, I'll definitely read it.
Yes, this story felt very weird and topsy turvy while I read it, but now I feel as if Borges must have cribbed off Chambers. He's diabolically clever in how he makes it almost impossible to tease out fact from fiction, and I can see why Lovecraft admired him.

As far as I know, people like Lovecraft chided him for wasting his talent on potboilers and romances, which he did to literally keep the pot on the boil.
I don't quite think this qualifies as a romance, but the point is that Lovecraft certainly admires at least -some- of Chambers work, and I wouldn't be surprised if Lovecraft did have a liking for King In Yellow.

Did everyone see the link to the second story thread?

Here: https://www.goodreads.com/topic/show/...

Well, Lovecraft -must- have been impressed by the Yellow King. See: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Kin...

...and much as people borrowed from Chambers, Chambers also seemed to borrow from Bierce a lot: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastur

I kept wondering if the suicide chambers were part of the narrator's imagination, something he wished existed.

I don't suppose there's anything with the name. I mean he could have called them 'rooms', cells', or ... ?

Ruth wrote: "I kept wondering if the suicide chambers were part of the narrator's imagination, something he wished existed.

I don't suppose there's anything with the name. I mean he could have called them 'ro..."

In any case, as I have mentioned on the second thread, at least the sculptures of the "Fates" are for real. I am starting to suspect we'll be given cross-references between the stories as clues hinting at what is real or not.

I sort of took it for granted that the rough events in outline were real on initially reading, while all of Hildreds connections, assumptions, and aspirations were highly delusional.

(view spoiler)[But while it seems to me that most everything that transpires between Hildred and Louis and the Hawberks has some kind of reality, Wilde's apartment seems another realm entirely. What are the chances that Wilde and Hildred would corroborate eachother's delusional realities so specifically? (Unless The King in Yellow really does cause these things by forcibly overlaying its own version of the world, which then becomes shard by all who read it.) Or the part where Hildred entirely misses a third person in the apartment while searching for the cat -- even he finds this odd. And finally the sort of hazy events of the last visit.

But even just the underexplained particulars of Wilde are extremely strange. How did he get his weird injuries, and what exactly does he do as a Repairer of Reputations? Does the army in his employ just spread positive rumor, like those agencies nowadays that can be hired to to flood the internet with positive press and tweets about you? I found all of this very intriguing, and I'm not sure if I wanted to to be told much more or if being left in the dark is ultimately more interesting here. (hide spoiler)]

Ruth wrote: "I think that section of 'predictions' was my favorite part of it."

Mine too.

Traveller wrote: "Heh, he obviously knew Germany was going to cause some kind of trouble..."

Well, Alsace had changed hands between France and Germany in the Franco-Prussian war, and nobody expected that border to stay stable.

Traveller wrote: "Interesting how he sees these as solutions:"

I initially read that literally, but I came to feel it was sarcasm. I don't think he does see them as solutions, but rather that others will, and it will of course lead to worse problems.

Traveller wrote: "Hm! Ghastly story..... ;)"

(view spoiler)[I think Hildred killed Wilde. I doubt the cat existed. But of course, the author's mad and possibly none of it happened. (hide spoiler)]

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "‘Chambers is like Rupert Hughes and a few other fallen Titans – equipped with the right brains and education but wholly out of the habit of using them.’"

I think your alternative is the correct interpretation. I don't think there's a hint here that Chambers is not using his brain, so I think that's more likely a reference to later work.

Nate D wrote: "…which then becomes shard by all who read it." [emphasis mine]

That's a creepily accurate typo :-)

Derek (Guilty of thoughtcrime) wrote: "I think your alternative is the correct interpretation. I don't think there's a hint here that Chambers is not using his brain, so I think that's more likely a reference to later work."

I've decided that is the correct reading also. I'm reading Lovecraft's (almost) complete works now, and it is very obvious in the earliest stories here that he admires Chambers without reservation.

Amy (Other Amy) wrote: "I've decided that is the correct reading also. I'm reading Lovecraft's (almost) complete works now, ..."

Ha, wow! You might also enjoy (or you might actually enjoy the more, the later works of Clive Barker. His first books of blood are yucky and gory, but I really enjoyed In the Flesh; they're more psychological, and reminded me a bit of the work of Thomas Ligotti.

Oh, much thanks, Traveller. I have been trying to figure out which Barker to read. (I have actually started a shelf for 'things VanderMeer reads', sort of aspirationally.) I will definitely start on In the Flesh as I do not really enjoy gore, but I found this quote on the first Book of Blood: "I look at these pieces and I don't think the man who wrote them is alive in me anymore.... We are all our own graveyards I believe; we squat amongst the tombs of the people we were. If we're healthy, every day is a celebration, a Day of the Dead, in which we give thanks for the lives that we lived; and if we are neurotic we brood and mourn and wish that the past was still present." So wonderful!

I have Songs of a Dead Dreamer, Grimscribe: His Lives and Works, and Teatro Grottesco on the stack for Ligotti. Any different suggestion or preferred work there?

The Lovecraft is my Kindle meal book now, i.e. the one I read at meals away from home, so I figure If I chip away at it I should have the complete works read by the end of the year pretty painlessly. (Lovecraft is most definitely not my fave, so I am virtually guaranteed to enjoy the Barker more.)

I have read a bit of Teatro Grottesco, and find it a similar kind of psychological horror. I haven't read the others yet. If you're not in a hurry, we can maybe do it (Ligotti) kinda together-ish after the 3 Ambergris VanderMeers?

I need to try out some of Barker's fantasy. IMO he's technically good and also an intelligent writer.

I found Lovecraft a bit bland, grey and bleak.

No hurry on the Ligotti; I hadn't even put him on my 2016 possibilities shelf. I would love to do a buddy read for it.

Lovecraft is the blandest of bland. The kind of creepiness he is going for requires a kind of connection he seems to me to be unable to build. I don't quite know how to say it right, but Poe had it and Lovecraft did not. (Something about characterization, I think.) Chambers is somewhere in between.

I loved Teatro Grottesco.

Ha, I was going to say Poe is more.... (ok, but I couldn't find the right word) - his work is more atmospheric in a ....what is the word I'm looking for - in a more pleasantly macabre sense, is more or less what I'm trying to say.

That said, I once played a videogame based on the Chtulu mythos, and it was easily one of the creepiest games I had ever played...

mark wrote: "I loved Teatro Grottesco."
That is an encouraging sign, Mark. I've heard such great things about him, but I wasn't at all sure where to start. Thanks.

Traveller wrote: "Ha, I was going to say Poe is more.... (ok, but I couldn't find the right word) - his work is more atmospheric in a ....what is the word I'm looking for - in a more pleasantly macabre sense, is mor..."
I know just what you mean, but I had to laugh at 'pleasantly.' I find Poe's preference for people murdering the jeepers out of each other much more horrifying than Lovecraft's alien gods. (Of course, I've only read one brief anthology of Lovecraft until now and it may not have been the best selection, so that may be a bit unfair.)

I think his mythos would make an awesome game though. What game was it?

Yeah, well, not pleasantly - how about satisfying? We're talking comparatively now.....:P

The game was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of...

Traveller wrote: "Yeah, well, not pleasantly - how about satisfying? We're talking comparatively now.....:P

The game was this one: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Call_of..."

I like pleasantly, even though it's funny :) Satisfying works too.

Re: game. Ooh, yes, that looks creepy. I am much too much of a wimp to play survival horror. I'm more of a Final Fantasy kind of gamer. But I always wished I was brave enough, because I very much wanted to play Fatal Frame when it came out (don't know if that one was ever on PC). Couldn't do it though.

I need to catch up on games like FF (and Zelda!). I've always been more of a PC gamer especially because I'm quite big into strategy, especially of the fantasy variety.
Not that I have time to game anymore, but one can always dream... :D

I am planning to game during my coming Xmas vacation though.
Oh, and I don't really do survival horror either, but I loved some of Bethesda's other games, which is why i got that one.

Traveller wrote: "I need to catch up on games like FF (and Zelda!). I've always been more of a PC gamer especially because I'm quite big into strategy, especially of the fantasy variety.
Not that I have time to game..."

No, me either, and I was on Playstation but they upgraded to 4 and I don't really feel like shelling out the bucks for it since they didn't make enough games for 3 IMHO. I still fire up the beast and replay favorites, but I'm spending most of the time I would have spent on new games on books instead; I figure it's a good trade. (If PS4 turns out to have a really great catalog I might reconsider later. I think my brother got one and I am going to visit for the holidays, so I will probably get some gaming in then too. It is one of the things that keeps us from choking each other.)

Weeellll.... Xbox -is- a cheaper alternative, and they have a lot of titles, although I admit they tend to lean towards the shooter side. (I don't really do shooters either unless they're RPG's like Mass Effect and Fallout 3).

But yeah, PS3 was pretty expensive and the games ain't cheap either...

A game I had been sneaking in because I loved Witcher 1, has been Witcher 3. I'll finish it up with the latest DLC in my soon - to be vacation. Shoon!

Btw. do you play adventure games at all? I suppose a console gamer wouldn't though... Anyway, because looks like Syberia 3 is really coming!

Shooters, yes, not my cup. Aren't the systems about the same price though? I'm seeing both at $350 and games are the same.

Witcher is the series that most nearly made me buy an Xbox (along with Fable and with Oddworld crossing over to Xbox only), and now that it's on Playstation it's for PS4 only, of course. Sigh, envy.

Lots of adventure games. Lara Croft was always big on PS, and I played most of those. Uncharted was the other big one, and I have it, although I've never finished it. Syberia (the older ones) appears to be available on PS3; I had never heard of it. Will check it out.

Well, Xbox360 was quite a bit cheaper than PS3.

Do get them (Syberia) if you can get them for a reasonable price - they're old but they're little works of art, especially if you enjoy Steampunk!

Note that they are not action games, though- they are the story type of adventure game where you have to figure things out, so no swinging trough the trees a la Lara Croft! :D Really enjoyable story though, and I really enjoyed the atmosphere.
Also, you do have to start with the first one, because the story follows on.

If you're used to Lara Croft, you might find movement frustratingly slow at first - but hang in there, you'll soon get immersed in the story!