The Changeling (Episode 4)

Thank you so much for listening and for your thoughtful and thought-provoking comment! Damon Knight is right, I think, in stating that this story lacks a linear solution. I think both Glenn and I found that there was a kind of dream logic at play in the story, a logic befitting the Peter Pan/Fairy roots of the story. I'm fairly convinced, as we discuss in the podcast, that Peter/Pete are a split of the same being and that the young Peter represents Pete's life before he experiences several episodes of trauma. Somehow that young Peter is able to remain in Cassonsville, unaffected by the death of his mother and the trauma of war.

Damon Knight's later comments about Wolfe mentioning that "the old man is dead" don't quite fit with what I found in the text of the story. I would have to go back to The Changeling and look for clues. There is another story, though, that takes place in Cassonsville, that fits more closely with Knight's comments. That story is the novel Peace. I wonder if there is some confusion there around the comments.

In any event, The Changeling is a classic whose dream-logic is part of what makes returning to it so rewarding.

I agree that the comment makes more *sense* for Peace... but it doesn't make sense for Wolfe to say it to DK in particular (it wasn't published in Orbit or anything, I don't think). Not to mention the timing is tight (Peace came out in 75; the Best of Orbit in 76; the comment would have to have been made, and then put into a book later to be printed....). And, of course, it still leaves the question of what sense Knight (a perceptive Wolfe reader, I'd presume) THOUGHT it made of that story (even if he was wrong).

As I said, I loved your podcast — the peter pan reference is spot on, the details regarding war trauma (and the death of his mother), the frog bit from medieval theorizing — all fit really well. But I'm not yet sure if it really is *just* dream logic, or if there is some fundamental answer we can tease out about it. I'm inclined to believe the latter, since there so often is for Wolfe. But I'll admit I haven't found it yet.

One final thought on The Changeling: inspired by your episode, I just watched the short documentary "THEY CHANGED CHINA", made (by a Chinese filmmaker, Shuibo Wang) about the 21 Americans who refused repatriation after Korea. Fascinating stuff. But one thing that it emphasized for me is how the motives of most of them seemed to have been left-wing politics (in some cases, filtered through the experience of being an African American in the Jim Crow south). Given that Wolfe was, by his later testimony, a "William F. Buckley" conservative at the time, I wonder if that fact isn't worth exploring a bit. It fits right in with the themes you outline (changing, trauma, etc), but it presents his experiences as not only above-average traumatic, but also as *treasonous*. I don't know if Wolfe would have seen it so; but it's worth considering.

(In general, I tend to think Wolfe's sheer political conservatism (an ideology, FWIW, I don't share) is underrated. I, like you, loved the BOOK OF THE LONG SUN; but there are a few pages there (when Silk is considering whether to let the citizens keep the arms they got during the rebellion) where Wolfe has Silk voice a series of pretty straight-up NRA talking points. I don't say this to dismiss Wolfe—one of my favorite writers—but I wonder if readers tend to downplay it, assuming that, with his complexity of thought & writing, he's above such things. Just food for thought.)

Thanks again for the podcast. See you in Paul's Treehouse.

Those are some excellent points about Wolfe's early political conservatism. I have found that though Wolfe was an admitted William F. Buckley conservative, his characters and world are complex enough to allow the stories to breathe in the sense that they are not constricted by ideological preaching. That said, we definitely take in to account his admitted claims when they appear as a theme in his work (or in his characters mouths). I think in The Changeling, there is a negative connotation within the text of the story as it applies to the Americans who stayed behind. However, there is a redemption arc for Peter, which complicates a purely negative view of that group.

We have just begun to record our coverage of Operation:ARES. In it, we take a much closer look at Wolfe's political views as they are a major theme of the novel.

Thanks again for listening. I look forward to your comments on Paul's Treehouse!

Stephen, wow, these are some great comments -- thank you!

Regarding they mystery and confusion of the story, you are right to say that we skirted the issue a little bit. I hate shrugging my shoulders in defeat, but I just don't have a hard line on it. That said, if I had to pick I side, I would side with Joan Gordon who suggests that the confusion rests with the narrator himself, not with Peter. That doesn't solve all (or probably even most) of the problems, but it satisfies me emotionally at least.

That Damon Knight comment is interesting. It absolutely has to be about Peace, because, well, that's the mystery in that novel. That said, I like your idea of trying to figure out what Damon Knight thought Papa's ghostliness does to make sense of the story. My suggestion would be that this is a parallel with the first thing we learn about the narrator -- his father is dead. Perhaps Knight sees that as some proof that Pete and Peter are two halves of the same person?

That's also a really great question about the politics regarding the soldiers who remained in China. I read Wolfe as being sympathetic with his narrator in this story, and I think that Christian compassion is a central theme of the piece. That Christian compassion really shows in many of these early stories, and I think is where Wolfe's politics become hard to really pin down. As Brandon says, we're recording Operation ARES now, and it's quite political, so I imagine that we'll be addressing that more, and I'm looking forward to it. Paul's Treehouse is also in some part about political ideologies, and I'll look forward to what you think of it.

And thank you for your kind words. We're so glad to have you reading along with us.

Never feel defeated when you have Aramini! I solved this one and mark it my first success with the short stories. I strongly recommend reading everything I ever wrote on Wolfe. First off, there is always an objective solution in Wolfe, and often it hangs on objective facts or creeds. We know he was in 4th grade circa 1944 because of what was happening with Korea when he moved away. However, the events which supposedly occur in 1949 have him in the military ... at 15! This is a three year discrepancy ... Maria is 3 years older than him, and Peter Palmieri first appeared when she was a kid. Pete and Peter were switched at birth when Maria was a kid (Immaculate Conception refers to Mary, not Christ, so the magic happened when she was young). Pete Palmer was a real life actor born in 1931 (not 1934) like Gene Wolfe, and he played Li'l Abner, a notorious oaf - the etymology of the word oaf was orginally to refer to a boorish elfin changeling - thus the title. They were swapped at birth in 1931, and this is a fantasy story. Pete Palmer was in the 7th grade not the 4th, but wrestling his changeling, who is always in the 4th grade, messed with his memories. I will never pull out Wolfe again as confirmation, but when I sent this reading to him, this was his response in personal email circa 2012: "There's a special mass tonight for Holy Thursday ... I've lways liked Li'l Abner. Not Fearless Fosdick or any such stuff, but the real thing: Abner, Mammy (Pansy Yokum), Pappy (Lucifer Yokum), Daisy Mae (Scragg), Moonbeam (McSwine), Stupfyin' Jones, Ol' Man Mose, Nightmare Alice, Hairless Joe, Lonesome Polecate, Eddie Ricketyback, Earthquake McGoon, and, well, on and on. The cast was huge, and always full of interest" So ... even though L'il Abner does not appear in the story, the objective details about the star playing him inform our CORRECT reading of what happened: an elfin and regular family, and a switch performed in 1931, with altered memories from the wrestling in 1934 to explain the missing picture (he was in the 7th grade then) and how he can be in Korea when he is supposedly too young. The takeaways here: Wolfe writes puzzles that can be solved logically. (And never give up until you have read Aramini, whose arrogance is only exceeded by his rightness).

Sorry if that was too overbearing guys - getting in character as Sol Invictus, Tyrant of America. Confidence is everything.

The other philosophical point under discussion for the validity of my reading involves the extra-textual nature of the evidence. I started with a problem - three years and a missing yearbook picture, and two possibilities - a split or a switch. The split was the favored reading. However, the title, The Changeling, definitely indicates a more traditional fey kind of story, given the weird father figure who dies but once had the strength to bend nails. So I was left with the suspicion that Peter Palmer was born in 1931, but how to prove it? Only the objective facts of history could do so, and external creeds (the Immaculate Conception is a mystery innately tied to Mary). So ... for the sake of discussion, I think sometimes Wolfe's texts cannot be objectively understood without being grounded in facts of our own external reality. Those who think everything must be directly rather than tangentially referenced in the text might not always have enough information to solve it. I suspect those suspicious of my reading here would also be suspicious of the very nice evidence outside of Seven American Nights which corroborates a particular reading - but luckily there are several allusions to one source - here we only have the name Pete Palmer as a tie in to a potential source the story itself. However, it solved my textual problems of three years by granting external fact as a fact in text: Peter Palmer is born in 1931 in reality. So, title, resolution of a plot hole and the missing three years as well as the missing yearbook picture, and extra-textual corroboration via objective fact and biographical detail from Wolfe (also 1931 birth) and perhaps a meta-textual interest in the actor Peter Palmer in my opinion provide some level of logical closure here. Sorry if the previous post struck the wrong note.

No worries Marc! Always glad to hear your point of view, especially given the amount of time you've given to studying and corresponding with Wolfe. Your post about the confirmation you received from work interests me insofar as it speaks directly to authorial intent. But I think there are additional themes to develop besides the puzzle Wolfe leaves us with. To be perfectly honest, I completely missed the time shift in this story, which means I need to revisit it. This definitely opens up new possibilities for the answer to the puzzle about Peter Palmer's identity. Your solution must be correct. Thanks again for your awesome insight. You're a luminary in the field!

I definitely agree there are many, many themes that can be fruitfully explored even ignoring the puzzling nature of his identity - I would just emphasize that I think Wolfe always plots his puzzles like word problems, with a rigorous web of semiotic slippages and logical substitutions. It is perfectly valid to forego solving the mysteries and talk about the other important plot elements, but I think Wolfe always intends there to be a solution to these kinds of identity problems if one is crazy enough to seek it out. There are a handful of times when he and I have shared a joke about subtext, but despite the fact that I come on so strong I don't want to kill the autonomy of discussion. This one is so out there that I feel we need confirmation that Wolfe knows L'il Abner intimately, as it is almost unfair - but it establishes precedent for the way he does allusions. So that will be the only time I ever tromp Wolfe out in discussion - though there is one other notable moment in our correspondence when he corrected me in a way I immediately knew was the truth - but that is for a far more important work than The Changeling, so I would rather let my argument carry that one even if no one but Wolfe and myself believe it.

Marc, I have to confess a complete ignorance on all matters Abner, L'il or otherwise, but I find this solution really intriguing. If you are right, then we know what happened, but I still wonder what Wolfe wants us to do with that information.

I hate to reduce this to a theme, since for me part of the glory of Wolfe is simply solving the puzzles (that mock subjective points of view) but I think if you pressed me I would say the story is very much about ceasing to believe in the magic of childhood and the soul after being forced to live the life of an adult: war, failure, betrayal, violence - all things which darken the spirit and deny its mystical and elevated nature. Here, we see an example of a thing of magic - but it is the HUMAN who is the boorish villain, not the magical changeling, the being of spirit, who is unharmed by the father's holy water and lives on innocently and purely. I think Wolfe is playing with ideas of innocent Jesus as a changeling, and the spiritual sundering that goes on in the modern world - just because we don't understand the mystical doesn't mean it isn't real, and that it isn't innately involved in our own personal story, though we lack the necessary perceptions to understand that the mysteries we see have everything to do with us, and no war, no denial, can ever change that reality. Perhaps childhish belief is immortal and unchanging, and very much the best part of us that endures.

I think that's a really nice reading that integrates the puzzle with the emotional trauma of the protagonist, which is what spoke to me in this story and made me fall in love with it so much.

Hey all,

First, I'm sorry I'm very far behind, as I&#