Dorothy Dunnett fans discussion
Lymond Chronicles
>
Checkmate ***SPOILERS*** ONLY for those who have READ IT!
Mod
Mickey"
I wonder why there's so much discussion about whether she was raped or gave herself to Bailey. It says right in the text that she gave herself to him, and that she had joined Francis in the gutter.
This last part of the book is so filled with sorrow, tragedy, and wrenching pain that it's hard to read.
Mod
Can you imagine the disaster if Philippa, with her plain speech and brutal honesty, had married him?
Mod
And I was sobbing all the way through. Floods and floods.
It seems to me that DD could've written lots more about FC. What does he do in Scotland? Do he and Philippa have children? Do they keep Kuzum in the dark about his parentage? Waaaahhh. Want more.
Mod
Except I can bury myself in the life of Arithon s'Ffalenn in Wurts books. Sigh. Very Lymond-like.
So, I'm convinced that Khaireddin was not Lymond's son and that Kuzum was. I think that Lymond believes that Khaireddin was his son, which is what matters for the character development & plot, but I can't seem to convince myself of it. For some reason it feels really important to me. (sigh) Lymond would of course believe that the more damaged & more abandoned child was his, and would of course believe that he had killed his own son. I think Lymond being an opium addict by that point also puts his judgement into question.The physical descriptions of the children sound to me like DD is telling us that Kuzum is his son, despite the most straightforward plot interpretation that would have us believe that he's not. For example, when we first meet each child she describes their hair (a big thing for her!). Khaireddin has silk hair, Kuzum has a cone of yellow. Also, there is Phillipa's comment about seeing the child Kuzum in Lymond's face, during the traboules scene. yes, she could mean just the attitude, but perhaps not.
I have gathered from the internet discussions that I am in the vast minority here. Perhaps the only hold out. What are your reasons for believing that Khaireddin was Lymond's son (aside from Lymond's belief)?
Mod
You must've been reading my mind! I just finished listening to it -- again! --
You make some interesting points. But there were things in PiF that make me think Khaireddin was his son. He was the one with the nursemaid, I forget her name AtM, also he was with the silk worm creep. But DD is so tricky it's hard to tell. Where was the traboules scene you speak of?
I know that the plot seems to point to it, b/c of the nursemaid, b/c of the name, but since when has DD been that straightforward?? and she's so focused on hair & eye color. And she gives Kuzum the same descriptions as she gives Lymond.
the traboules (maybe spelled wrong) is the scene in Lyon. I don't have the book with me, but it's the very end of the chase scene with Phillippa.
Mod
and she's so focused on hair & eye color. And she gives Kuzum..."
Ah. Yes. Now you've given me another reason to reread! I do have a vague memory of Philippa thinking that.
oh dang, I just was reading on the yahoo group and saw something that breaks my theory - apparently right after Lymond picked Khaireddin to be the child to die, Khaireddin ran over and said some words in Irish to him. heartbreaking. I admit that in all my rereading of passages, I never reread the paragraphs right after he picked Khaireddin. I just couldn't. Assuming that DD never has Lymond talking to the child in irish, that's a pretty damning piece of evidence for which I have no reply.I bought these books after finishing the series thinking I'd want to reread and reread them, but the whole child-killing-choice really sours my interest as time goes on. I can't seem to get past it and part of me just wants to get rid of the books and not look back.
Mod
Unless, of course, Graham Mallett had someone teach him Irish, as his mother had little to do with him. Or Lymond taught him some in the meetings when he was being kept at the house of nightingales.
Yes, there is great tragedy, but there's also a lot more, along with great heroism and a great love story. Maybe you'll feel like reading them again in a year or so.
I went back and reread that part when I got home. indeed, goodbye reassuring theory of mine!yeah, it's true there is more. I don't know why this part speaks so horribly loudly to me. I will try to finish my reread of the series, since the first time through I found the bleakness of Russia in RC to be cathartic.
Mod
Apparently Lymond found the bleakness of Russia to be cathartic as well. They're just this evening discussing Russia and Slata Baba on Yahoo. I hated that part first time through. Hated his attempt to be cold and wipe out all the pain and guilt and Guzel's role in it. When I reread it, I thought it was beautiful. Dorothy at her most poetic. I was completely undone when Diccon Chancellor died on the trip home. Sobbed when I read it.
Well, I never had a doubt that Khaireddin was Lymond's son. Dorothy wrote it that way and years ago she said so several times. Over the years, she gave up trying to convince some readers. Here is what she said in a chat room in May of 1998 on the subject:
DD: I did give this answer once in private correspondence, but
never in public. I realize that people tend to find it more
interesting to find the answer themselves. But, if you read right
through CHECKMATE, and think about it, there shouldn't be much
doubt.
Mickey
that's interesting that she thinks it's so obvious to the reader. But, I find her to be a difficult read at times. For example, the part when Lymond says, at John Dee's, that he lied to Philippa about Kuzum, she describes Lymond's gesture right before he speaks (something doubtlessly important) as "a gesture that John Dee might recognize." Perhaps on my 2nd reading I'll understand what that gesture is, but she so frequently leaves open to interpretation key expressions like this.What makes the whole child-killing-chess game worse is that the whole part in Istanbul is the weakest and least believable part of all the series and plays the strongest on western culture's stereotypes of orientalism/otherness.
Hi Betsey,That is why we continue to reread and discuss her books. There are so many things that can be debated over and over, so when she actually said which child was which, I believe her. Believe me, many think she really didn't mean what she wrote in the private correspondence. (g)
I asked her a question once about the HN, just her and I in a corridor of a hotel in Philly. When I related what she said, some again, refused to think that was what actually happened in the book. What can I say, she wrote the books.
Mickey
Mod
In reading what other people say, I am amazed over and over again at what we ourselves bring to the stories and the characters.
And I've always been convinced it is Kuzum that is Lymonds son. For me it's a matter of the age difference. Kh suffered abuse which would reduce his size making him appear younger so as to match the younger Oonagh's child. The 'mo chridh' at the end of the chess game is explainable if the boys are mixed up early and/or if GRM is as vicious as we know him to be.Mickey quoted
DD: I did give this answer once in private correspondence, but
never in public. I realize that people tend to find it more
interesting to find the answer themselves. But, if you read right
through CHECKMATE, and think about it, there shouldn't be much
doubt.
Mickey,What question was she responding to?? Did she ever make a simple declarative sentence that Kh was Lymond's boy? Who did she write to? Or did she just say 'it's' in the text?
I will reread CM next time looking specifically for 'what' she is referring to. Or is the quote meant to refer to all the books 'through' CM?
I've avoided the Kh v Ku argument so far but I guess it's time to go looking in the Marzipan archived messages.
Gracie,Did she ever make a simple declarative sentence that Kh was Lymond's boy?
Yes
Who did she write to?
It was a private correspondence to a member of DW.
Or did she just say 'it's' in the text?
No
The question that was asked:
QUESTION: Which boy is Lynond's? I change my mind with each
reading and know you won't tell, but would you consider
revealing it as a millenium present in 2001?
Dorothy said it also in an interview, would have to look it up.
It was a talk she gave in March of 1990:
One of the anxieties everybody has about Pawn in Frankincense is the
identity (Thank you, Judith) of the two children and especially the child
who died. I think I made it clear. I was defient I make it clear, I may say
, when I was writing Pawn in Frankincense. Harvey Ginsberg, who I mentioned
, said, "You cannot say which one died," and I said, "Yes, I can." He
said "No, you can't." So I didn't. By then I thought, Yes, let me, I think,
made it clear If I haven't, I'm not making it any clearer.
Mickey
Mod
That abuse, BTW, was harder for me to read about than Khaireddin's death.
well, Gracie, I'm glad to have some company. Even though I said my theory was broken, I only managed to get back to neutral (i.e. thinking that it could have been either boy that was killed). I don't think DD made it clear, despite her belief that she did! I read some of the discussions on Marzipan, but it is such a terrible interface that I gave up.
Thanx Mickey,Now I feel guilty because I still don't believe and that's just stupid on my part! I do not doubt you or DD but I really thought I had it figured out. Boy will my next read be looking hard for her evidence.
Betsy, I've been having much better luck with messages lately but haven't been in the archives in the last few days so I hope what your experiencing is temporary. It was a real delight to look up and find things quick as opposed to last year.
Sandra, yes the abuse is just awful and I know Lymond could have saved him from the repercussions of said abuse.
In however many rereads 5-10 I still pour tears and I'm sure that effects my ability to read for 'the answer'. Though in many ways to me the identity of the boy doesn't mean a thing. I usually come down on the nurture side of nurture v nature.
Some think, the peach vs. the seashells was a clue. Joleta of the apricot hair and described as a peach and Kuzum also at times described as a peach and Oonagh of the sea, and Khaireddin playing with the shells at Lymond's feet when Jerrot found them. Lymond's thoughts in the House of Opium scene are some clues some readers think she leftMickey
Mod
Now I feel guilty because I still don't believe and that's just stupid on my part! I do not doubt you or DD but I really thought I had it figured out. Boy will my next read be look..."
LOL, Gracie! A lot of people had trouble believing the world is round and not flat.
A friend of mine points out that if Kuzum is his son then it weakens his character... if so, what was all the sobbing about afterwards? What about breaking his vow at St. Giles? No, I definitely think it's Khaireddin who was his son... Philippa points out in the library scene that he will meet him after death and have to account for his behavior.
Yes, Sandra,That was the whole point, his vow at St. Giles. He had to break it. He had offered his own life to replace both children, but Roxalana refused. What would be the point of the the rest of the books, if he let his son live, by taking the life of Joleta's child. Lymond's sense of honor, would not have let that happen.
Mickey
I'm confused - why does Lymond's code of honor require that he kill his own son instead of Joleta's? My reread of PiF seemed to be that he doesn't know until after he's made the decision. no? Now that I'm rereading this, I am also more aware of the repeated set-up of "two boys, one dies - which one is the living?" that DD sets up yet again for Lymond. It really does take 2 readings to get at what's going on, doesn't it!
Mod
Come on now. You can't see why it would go against his code to kill the boy who belongs to someone else? That would be tantamount to letting someone die to save himself. He always chooses to save others at his own risk. And the betrayal of his pledge at St Giles is part of why he sees himself as the hunchback in the gutter.
I wrote this in 2006:Well as most of you know, I believe Francis sent the word to Marthe and his son
would soon die.
One could point to the seashells, Mo chridh, the kiss at the end. For me it
was Francis thinking who should survive, who had the better chance. He mentions
later I chose the one who had a chance to survive, not Khaireddin, who was of
his breading. He, at this point, is wondering who he really is once having meet
Marthe at the beginning of PinF. In sending Marthe, he breaks his vow at St.
Giles. One of the themes of the series is Sybilla's not breaking her vow, or
oath, until the end of CM. Now Francis must break his vow, one had to perish,
he had tried in vain to offer himself in place of both children. That was
denied him. He believed Khaireddin was his son, even though he told Gabriel he
didn't know. Kuzum had the better chance for a normal life. He sends Marthe
and breaks his vow. Hence the cold freeze in Russia, the very slow thawing in
the form of his attachment to Slata Baba, and his having to kill her also. What
did he say, " One surely could not love and eagle."
Every time I read or listen to that exchange, I feel so sad for our Francis.
Even before Sybilla brings him back at the end of CM, he thinks and says in
his mind, "A child, a son...playing with seashells at the feet of his father who
would shortly kill him."
Just my reasoning, I know others have reasoning for the opposite. Nothing is
easy in Dunnettland.
Mickey
Hi everyone, this is my first post here. I know some of the participants from other parts of the Dunnett universe, but not everyone.The KvK conversation is a fascinating (and timeless) one in the Dunnett world. While my own views are similar to Mickey's (hi, Mickey)I can see how alternate readings are possible. Nothing is straightforward in the world of Dunnett.
Jenny in Canberra
Mod
Hi Sandra, thanks for the welcome. We can speculate about life after Checkmate: I just wanted Lymond and Philippa to be happy. But what form would that happiness take? Hmm.
Mod
Mod
Hi Jenny, welcome! I find that I don't think that much about what comes after the ending. Surprising myself there. I think some of the reason is that having read the actual events during that time frame, it's hard to predict what Lymond would do politically. I think definitely music, children & laughter. And I guess I do wonder what would happen between him & Kuzum.I'm still rereading CM and have gotten as far as the post-betrothal scene. Man, that is one powerful scene between Philippa & Lymond! What I didn't notice so much in the first read is all the resonances between Lymond's life & Sybilla's. The mother/daughter thing (with the Marchale & Catherine) especially, I missed.
Hi Sandra,You need to go back and remember Archie both in France and Turkey handled elephants. After he delivers the note to Catherine page 356 in the vintage edition. It ends 'Elephants gave you less bother, any day.
So Archie was referring that elepants were easier to handle and Lymond laughed and said he could not offer Archie a zoo at St. Mary's to which Archie replies:
"With Hoddin and Guthrie and Blacklock? What you have is a zoo.
Hope this helps,
Mickey
Mod
You need to go back and remember Archie both in France and Turkey handled elephants. After he delivers the note to Catherine page 356 in the vintage edition. It ends 'Elephants gave..."
Yes, I remember that part. That's not the part I had a question about.
To him, Francis gave no easy fareewell, but set his hands lightly on the wiry shoulders and said, "How much of it did you see, back in Rouen?"
"Not as much as the auld besom," said Archie. "She had a grip of me long before that, looking for you. It's been a fair upgang. It's a bloody sight easier with..."
And Lymond laughed, his eyes brilliant. Then it goes on to talk about the zoo.
I have a feeling this was about the incident in QP, when Lymond was injured, and the DdeD cared for him. But I'm not sure.
Sandra
Hi Sandra,I thought you were asking about It's a bloody sight easier with....That was the reference to elephants.
I would assume (but then never assume anything in Dunnettland) that yes, it goes back to QP about the DdeD.
Mickey
Mod
I thought you were asking about It's a bloody sight easier with....That was the reference to elephants.
I would assume (but then never assume anything in Dunnettland) that yes, it ..."
Are you sure 'it's a bloody sight easier with...' doesn't refer to the DdeD being dead?
Because it's after that that Lymond brings up elephants.
Hi Sandra,Are you sure 'it's a bloody sight easier with...' doesn't refer to the DdeD being dead?
I don't think so, because right after that why would Lymond laugh and say I can't give you a zoo at St. Mary's?
Just my take on it.
Mickey
Mod
Are you sure 'it's a bloody sight easier with...' doesn't refer to the DdeD being dead?
I don't think so, because right after that why would Lymond laugh and say I can't give you a..."
OK. I reread it and think I agree with you.
I just finished CM again. sigh. so good. I had missed a lot in the first read, especially who was who in the italicized statements. A really sharp reader would not have been worried for Francis's death by Austin Grey, if they'd correctly identified the DdeD as the voice that says, right after the golden haired person is killed, "It is finished. Remember me no longer; or my children, or my children's children." Alas, on my first read, I was not a sharp reader.I remain undecided about Kuzum's identity. I think it seems slightly more likely that he's not Lymond's son, but I think DD works to make us feel that it doesn't really matter in the end. The fact that Lymond asks Sybilla in the final bit about Kuzum's identity indicates to me some level of uncertainty.
Sandra, I agree with Mickey that Archie was going to say "elephants."
ok, I feel ridiculous to keep commenting on this, but...I finally feel settled about the identities of the boys. I think I was feeling unfinished b/c I was undecided. I went back and reread parts of PiF and found many things that were convincing. Again with commentary on the children's coloring, but also the conversation between Salamanca and the cook in Donati's house. However, Lymond's inner dialogue about the 2 children made me realize that for the breaking of the oath, it doesn't particularly matter to him. he feels responsible for both boys b/c both are being pawned for him. Anyway, I am going with my original feeling that Kuzum is his son. I can see how others might reason differently. I think that DD was probably a tricky lady herself - she may have said that his son was the one named Khairreddin, but they both are! anyway, I'm glad that I'll soon be reading something new. lol.
Hi Betsey,Did you remember the comment in Philippa's letter:
He is going to be tall, at that point Francis threw the letter on the fire.
Francis was not tall, Gabrial was.
The important thing is that Francis believe he gave the command to Marthe to take Khairreddin and send him to this death at the hands of the mutes.
There are others that also believe as you do.
Mickey
I totally agree that the main point is that Francis believe that he ordered the child's death.Yep, I remember that part. Gabriel was tall. Oonagh was tall. Joleta was teeny tiny. Sybilla was small. Lymond isn't big (but he's not tiny). I think this is a case where the "evidence" for one vs the other is pretty slim and each person weights it her/himself.
For example, you'd mentioned before that a lot of people think that the seashells are a reference to Oonagh, but they could equally be a reference to the Knights of Malta. There is a lot of reference to them as being masters of the sea. Also, Marthe knew which boy was which (not sure where Sybilla gets that intel) and she reassured Lymond at the end of PiF that he picked the right boy. But again, I don't think it matters much for the plot which was which, just, as you say, that Francis thinks it was his fault.
Zorro wrote: "How, when, where do we learn Sybilla's maiden name?????I have been so disappointed to not make a connection to Lymond in House of Niccolo....then I searched the Marzipan files and found the famil..."
It's mentioned several times, but spelled Semple. I won't say more due to spoilage for the other series.
I am posting this here, because I assume you all have read the entire LC. In late September of this year, which to my regret could not attend, Simon and Olive (UK) put together the Dunnett Siege of Constantinople. At the end (don't ask me when he found the time), Simon created the follow to end the Siege.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4YDJBz...
It is brilliant as only Simon could create such an amazing video. Entitled it Byzantian Rhapsody and it is:
What *was* going through Lymond's head when he was in Volos?
It goes fast so watch it several times to get the full effect.
Enjoy,
Mickey
Wow! Thanks for posting this. That was brilliant. And I've enjoyed reading all your posts, having just discovered this group.
That was awesome! Thanks for sharing it with us.
Something I think shows really strong writing in the unfolding of Lymond and Phillipa's relationship is how they are at times parallel and at others complementary. For instance, Phillipa's pragmatism and common sense is a good complement to Lymond's shifting (and related) debased view of himself and his need to do something for the world at a grand scale. I'm finding this especially poignant as Lymond switches from the view of himself as the hunchback who isn't worthy to love Phillipa, to the hunchback who has to love her and care for her after her sacrifice. And what gets to me about that is that the sacrifice is a parallel to the times (I think this is true) where he has used sexuality to save others. So then I can see how the happy ending develops ('cause sometimes it's actually hard for me to see how someone comes out of the bleakness that Lymond suffers). Phillipa has to come out of the same self-debasement that Lymond has suffered from for so long ("I have joined you in your gutter"). And I think both rise out of it by their reflection of each other--"I am thou, thyself"--loving each other, they must come to love the self who is a reflection of that other.
Jasmine, that is such a beautiful reflection. As Lymond pushes love away because he considers himself unworthy and Philippa is willing to sacrifices herself for love and is damaged. Is it only fair that eventually they find each other and acknowledge they are both worthy of that love? I honestly think it is.
Mickey