Wow, what a great double episode about a fantastic story! (And I'm very happy about the hints that your planning to do more of the King in Yellow stories.) I have a lot of thoughts, so I'll try to gather some of them all here.
First of all, Hildred Castaigne: what an interesting protagonist. My first reaction is that he fits well into the types of characters we already discussed with relation to The Frolic and The Insanity of Jones. Has he really had some kind of world-shattering revelation, or is he actually insane? Once again, we have the ambiguity that allows for us to read the story either way. On the surface, I think we're supposed to read it that Hildred is insane: he's already had some problems following his accident and now is relapsing under the influence of The King in Yellow and Mr Wilde. The main clue here is the way Louis dismisses Hildred's tiara and safe. The reader is more inclined to take Louis's dismissal at face value than to accept that Hildred has some kind of secret crown gifted to him by a mysterious entity, and it's a shame we don't get an external opinion on the robes he's wearing at the end to bolster this. If, on the other hand, we want to argue that Hildred has had some kind of revelation, we could point to the fact that the King in Yellow is also described as a king in tatters/tattered king, in which case a trinket kept in a biscuit box would be an appropriate symbol of authority for his chosen representative. The other clue here is in Hawberk's reaction to Hildred's suggestion that he is the exiled Marquis of Avonshire, which absolutely might hint that he knows more than he's letting on. But ultimately I think the way the story is written suggests that we are supposed to read Hildred as insane and not take his perspective at face value (though how much of the story that extends to is an open question).
Based on him being the titular 'repairer of reputations', I actually think Mr Wilde is the central character and crucial to understanding what's going on. We get so little about him that it's hard to say anything for certain (even if this adds to the ambiguous nature of the story): we don't even get a proper explanation of what a 'repairer of reputations' is! Based on Hawberk's reaction to the sign that Wilde puts up, the 'real-world' explanation is that it's just something nonsensical made up by a madman (if Hawberk is just a normal person and not actually the Marquis of Avonshire). The implication is that, as you pointed out in the recap episode, it's some kind of anti-blackmailer, which still doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
What I think is actually going on here is that Hildred and Mr Wilde are not only involved in some kind of revelation/delusion that they share with each other, but that Wilde has drawn a whole bunch of other people into it too (presumably by facilitating their reading of the play The King in Yellow). His clients (the people whose reputations he is supposed to be repairing) aren't who he claims they are. Like Hildred, Wilde has given these people new, important identities in order to give the revelation/delusion a grander scope beyond the mundanity of the lives they all lead. Wilde has convinced Hildred that he is vital to Hildred's mission to take what is rightfully his; with the others, Wilde has convinced them he is the only one who can repair their reputations and made them terrified of the consequences (not just financial) of crossing him. They are all completely cowed to Wilde as the dominant personality within the shared revelation/delusion, except Hildred, who retains some autonomy/authority as the Wilde's chosen heir of the imperial title.
So, it is a shared revelation or a shared delusion? It depends what we make of the other central element: the play The King in Yellow. Is it just a play that drives people insane, or is it the tool of some sort of malign entity that reveals something of the true nature of the universe to those who read it? This and the nature of the documents concerning the Imperial Dynasty of America are part of the ambiguity of the story. It's possible that Wilde is just using these to manipulate people because he has some kind of extreme god complex. But then again, Louis reads the Imperial documents and, even though he dismisses them, there is an implication he sees something there that disturbs him beyond just the ramblings of a madman. Glenn made a good case for there being something fundamentally wrong with Mr Wilde, physically as well as mentally. The cat could be another clue here. Lovecraft uses cats to suggest paranormal/supernatural goings on in his writings, and Chambers could be doing something similar here: is the cat's hatred of Wilde not just a result of his teasing it, but that it knows who/what he really is? It does kill him at the crux of the conspiracy coming to fruition after all. But then why was he keeping the cat in the first place? Nevertheless, we have the possibility that Mr Wilde is some kind of prophet of the King in Yellow (the entity rather than the play).
I already said that I think we are supposed to read Hildred as insane, and I feel like that's the case for Wilde as well: he's insane himself but also manipulating other insane people into sharing some kind of delusion. There are definitely enough clues and ambiguities to suggest the opposite reading though, and I really like the idea that the King in Yellow uses lowly people and things (the 'insane' Mr Wilde, worthless trinkets) to achieve his goals. What those goals are is kind of the big hole in the story if we want argue for the revelation reading though. Beyond just driving people insane, what is the King really trying to achieve? Was this actually an attempt to overthrow the American government and establish the Imperial Dynasty on its throne (eventually leading to the conquest of the world)? If so, it seems a bit feeble to have been stopped so easily. Or is the King just an inter-dimensional anarchist? If so, why target Hildred?
Right, last thing (for now): the world building. I actually really liked this element of the story. I mean, I didn't like the world that Chambers built as such, but I appreciate the effort of setting the scene. (Maybe like Glenn I just have too much of a fondness for world-building RPG books.) I admit that when I read the story I took this straightforwardly as a reflection of what Chambers himself thought would make America a better country (with all that that's a damning indictment of his own political beliefs, from a modern perspective). But I think you made some really convincing arguments that he might actually be parodying that kind of nationalism. I'm not sure about the joke names - I thought they were just an Anglophone author trying to make up some generic sounding foreign names to be honest: the brandy link is intriguing though (and Hawberk is just way too on the nose). Going beyond just this story, it's clear from the others in the series that Chambers had a real fondness for French artistic culture (although there's probably an element of parody there too), so I'm sure he's not trying to claim that getting rid of all foreign influence in America would be a good thing. I also haven't read anything else by Chambers, though, so I can't say anything conclusive.
Actual last thing. On the subject of names, I just want to touch on Avonshire, since Glenn was so dismissive of it. It's absolutely not a nonsense name, and I don't think Chambers was using it as such. The Avon is a real river in England (yes, it's one of our many geographical features that has a name that just means the same thing in two languages), so there are three possibilities for Avonshire. 1) Hildred has a very poor knowledge of English geography. 2) England has had a reorganisation of the counties in this fictional version of 1920 (not impossible, reorganisations happened in 1888, 1972 and 1997), and Avonshire is now a county (presumably) in the West Midlands. 3) Avonshire is part of a secret hidden world, like the Imperial Dynasty of America, and the Marquis of Avonshire is somehow involved in whatever's going on (whether the current holder of the title wants to be or not). The fact that neither Louis nor Hildred can marry the daughter of the Marquis is also intriguing: the ostensible goal is to conquer the world, so why not marry a foreigner? There must be even more layers to this than what the story tells us.
As usual, more ambiguities and questions than answers, but that's the way we like it!
Jumping back to an older podcast, I just recently (finally) watched the first season of "True Detective,' in which The King in Yellow and Carcosa are referenced by the serial killer that Matthew McConnaughy and Woody Harrelson's detectives pursue over the years. Looking up some reviews of the show, I ran across an interesting fan theory, which makes sense: McConnaughy's detective obsessively gathers information on the killings, even for years after he leaves the police department. You can see "The King in Yellow" and "Carcosa" written on the walls of the storage locker where he is storing his investigative archives, and he briefs Harrelson on what he found in-depth - yet, at no point does he mention the book that is source of the allusions, or Robert Chambers or Ambrose Bierce - all information that could be easily found with a Google search of the terms (and we see over the course of several episodes that McConnaughy's detective is Internet-literate). The fan theory is that the series takes place in a world where Chambers never wrote the book, and is actually in in the same universe as Chamber's collection of stories, and the killer (I won't go into too much detail to avoid spoilers) is yet another individual who read the play and went mad. Thought this was interesting. Maybe a retrospective look at the series, which certainly has its weird aspects (particularly in the last episode) would make a good Elder Sign podcast.
I haven't posted in while, but have been listening and enjoying the Wolfe and Elder Sign podcasts - will try to start posting more often.
I read this story a few years ago and the following take on it did not occur to me, but it seemed very obvious this time (but in another few years, I might think this was the most ludicrous reading ever). I guess reading a lot of Gene Wolfe has trained me to look for all the missing pieces (whether they are there or not) in the off-hand mentioned details. So...
Hildred says of the author of The King in Yellow, “I pray God will curse the writer, as the writer has cursed the world with this beautiful, stupendous creation, terrible in its simplicity, irresistible in its truth.” I can see an artist who had achieved such a thing as believing it impossible to ever top it and so deciding to kill themselves.
After he had written The King in Yellow, attempted suicide, failed, and spent four years recovering, Hildred wrote the long future alternate history introduction. His version of reality is distorted (as all of our views are to one extent or another) and includes the suicide booths and social and government acceptance of suicide because his suicide attempt is what lead to him being labeled “insane.”
The author of the King in Yellow shot himself, but Hildred says he survived. “Someone” shot Hildred's “horse” in the head and Hildred had pains in the back of his head and neck for years. Hildred didn't fall from a horse, but that is what he purports had happened. Everyone knows the truth though. Hawberk responds to Hildred mentioning his fall with, “Ah, yes, your fall,” and looks away. I could almost hear his eyes rolling.
Governor's speech says lethal chambers are for “that class of human creatures from whose desponding ranks new victims of self-destruction fall daily.”
Hildred is not in love or obsessed with Constance. He is obsessed with the sound of metal on metal, which is probably meant to evoke the sound of the click of the hammer of the pistol that he shot himself with. He cares not for Hawberk and Constance at all, except in that Constance might marry his cousin and produce an heir. It is the threat to his own future legitimacy as King that he is concerned with.
Hildred's version of 1895-1920 shows that 1) he is creative enough to have been a writer before his failed suicide and 2) that he has thought through some political issues enough that he believes he can bring about world prosperity as King. Reading the story as a love triangle does not do justice to Hildred's grandiose nature.
And keep in mind that Hildred's version of 1895-1920 was written by a man who wrote a play which drives others mad and then shot himself in the head and is now but a shadow of his former self.
I'm listening to these podcasts out of order, so I will jump back to this one. As usual, great job. My take on the world-building aspects of this unusual future is that it is, after all, told from the viewpoint of an insane man, and is itself suspect in terms of its reality. Even the timeframe, set in the near future from the time it is written, is as suspect as the other details Hildred relates. I haven't read the other stories in the volume, but my understanding is that the political setting and future setting for the 1st story is not carried through to the others. Oddly enough, while writing this there was a commercial on TV for a company that restores people's reputations - it sounds like they will search the internet to remove offensive statements and promote positive stories about the client, and suppress negative search results. So becoming a Restorer of Reputations could be a thing now. I understand there are references to the King in Yellow in the 1st season of the HBO series "True Detective", I'm going to have to watch that.
Thanks for the response! Again, all of it interesting to me.
You are right when you say that weird fiction is less 'weird' (or denigrated) when the reader tries to rationalize the story. Indeed, the atmosphere of the eerie and mystery, the fear of the unknown still keeps lingering in tales like these, whatever the explanation. Mystery of course inherently gives rise to looking for an answer.
Maybe McDorman and/or Budda have ideas about why this specific tale has this world building thing, as opposed to the other tales?
I'm very curious about the rest of The King in Yellow (it's just, I read too many books next to each other, a very irritating habit - but I will read the rest of it soon).
Two great podcast episodes indeed! As a not-American (but Dutchman) it was a real revelation to me how to interpret the first part of the story, the world building (namely as a dystopian parody - I think you're right in that).
(Totally besides: in The Netherlands there really is a socio-political discussion about how far we can go with facilitating suicide (and euthanasia), but of course here it is not about how to get rid of 'inferior' people as is in this story.)
Daniel Falch already asked the question I had in mind about a possible reference to Oscar Wilde, so that one's settled.
Concerning the madnesses in the other stories (The Frolic and especially The Insanity of Jones), I think the madness in this story is of a totally different kind, if we look to the intention of the author. Here it hasn't to do with the psychological insights of insanity, I think, but as a means to mirror the insanity of nationalism (a la KKK), made sarcastically clear at the beginning of the story.
I like to quote Karanthir here:
'Beyond just driving people insane, what is the King really trying to achieve? Was this actually an attempt to overthrow the American government and establish the Imperial Dynasty on its throne (eventually leading to the conquest of the world)? If so, it seems a bit feeble to have been stopped so easily. Or is the King just an inter-dimensional anarchist? If so, why target Hildred?'
Maybe Chambers wants to show us that the 'sect' of extreme nationalists is just as insane a group of people as the insane 'Sarcosan royalists' (whatever that is) lead (or misused) by the King in Yellow. I don't think the KiY is an anarchist, but in a way a symbol of the insanity of a leader and his group, guiding people into the madness of a extremist idea. The taboo on the play mirrors the taboo on the truth that systems like nationalism or following/serving a nationalist (or maybe fascist) leader will end into disaster.
But if we are to read this tale solely as a sort of doubled-up dystopia of political madness, then we don't appreciate the tale as it is in other aspects, then it won't be a weird story after all (because we have then 'solved' the tale, and weird tales aren't to be solved).
Chambers' world building in the first part is clean and clear, but his other one, the one about Carcosa and the other places ('just as insane') isn't build but only hinted at and suggested. That makes the Carcosan world mysterious, it makes the King in Yellow, the 'pallid Mask' eerie, unknown, weird (is he an alien, is this about other dimensions?). And even if this is 'made up', the play exists and is feared. The fear of the unknown, of the things that are 'above' us, to which we have no hold, that are more powerfull than we are - that is weird fiction.
I haven't read the other stories of the King in Yellow yet, but I presume that the weird element of Carcosa and the King, or at least the hints at it - and of course the maddening play itself - will make all these stories weird fiction, not political dystopia.
Cassilda's song about desparacy and lonely grief would be the central theme of the book, according to the podcast - but if this is so (and I assume it is), then maybe we have to look at this aspect in this tale a bit more: here the desperacy and lonely grief lies within the suicidials - but are they suicidal because of the nationalist system or because they read The King in Yellow (or maybe the combination of the two)? And it lies also within the play itself. Carcosa is also full of grief: is this also some form of mirroring or something different? Just some questions, I don't have the answer.
Quote Karanthir: ' As usual, more ambiguities and questions than answers, but that's the way we like it!'
I have a question. Could the character of Mr. Wilde be a reference to Oscar Wilde who would have been scandalous at the time. He was sentenced to jail in 1895 for homosexuality. The description of the characters would be in line with a Victorian/ Puritan take on homosexuality. Also the corrupting play would seem to play into this idea.
Wow, we really dropped the ball on the title of the story, but you've picked it up an run with it. Seeing Wilde as the title character and therefore central to the story really opens it up. To my mind this reinforces the possibility that Mr. Wilde is truly an agent of the King in Yellow -- a supernatural being of some sort -- and that he has an agenda. Pointing to the cat here is also excellent, and your subtle advice to pay more attention to cats is well taken. This is an awesome catch and has me wanting to revisit the story immediately.
I stand by my reading of Avonshire as a nonsense name on two counts. First (and I'm happy to be corrected on this) "shires" are all named after the city of which they are the hinterland. Yorkshire, Derbyshire, Lincolnshire, and so on. I don't think there is a single one of them named after a river, which makes sense because rivers cross through all sorts of other boundaries. Second, there is not a river Avon in England, but five distinct rivers with that name precisely because it is just a generic word (we can think of Beorn here) so if it is the area around the river Avon we would have to ask which river Avon -- Shakespeare's or one of the other ones?
Finally, I suspect that you are right about the nature of the silly names. It is quite plausible -- likely, even -- that Chambers is making of German and Germans rather than winking at the reader and that it's really part of his dislike for (some) non-Americans. This is the question I'm most looking forward to thinking more about as we dig deeper into the collection and into some of Chambers's other stories.
Oh yes, also, this does indeed feel like "The Insanity of Jones" and "The Frolic." I'm not sure how we wound up with so many insanity stories in our first batch, but something might be wrong with our twenty-sided die.