Klarinet Archive - Posting 000055.txt from 2000/06

From: LeliaLoban@-----.com
Subj: [kl] Re Lelia's comments about finding old things
Date: Fri, 2 Jun 2000 11:36:51 -0400

Dan Leeson writes,
>But consider the size of the manuscripts involved. [snip of details...]
>The total is 40 leaves of paper. That's about 3/4 inch thick. Hard to
>not see it Lelia. I admit that a few pages might be included, but 40
>leaves?
>Possible I suppose, but not very probable.

I agree with you that it's unlikely. However, given the heavy weight of
luggage in Mozart's time, I think 40 pages of MS *could* be overlooked *if*
the owner were careless about inspecting visually, before he sold the case.
I think Kevin and I have found forgotten paper ephemera comparable in bulk to
your description of the Mozart documents, even in lighter-weight modern
luggage, and we've certainly found ample evidence of owners' failure to
inspect.

(Wife to husband at yard sale: "Omigawd, it's the dirty laundry from the
trip to El Paso! I'm gonna die. You said you checked inside all this stuff
before you set it out!")

The version of the story I've read called Stadler's pawned luggage a
"briefcase". I don't know the particulars and realize that we're dealing
with translations into English, but the classic "briefcase" isn't the
lightweight satchel often called a briefcase today, that won't hold much more
than a few file folders and lunch. The classic "briefcase" is still sold,
and used by some conductors. It got its name because attorneys use it to
carry bulky briefs and other documents into court. The briefcase ranges from
the size of an overnight case to that of a small suitcase, constructed of
heavy, rigid leather (like saddle leather) in the style of a doctor's bag, or
of covered wood in box-style. I just weighed my husband's mid-20th century
briefcase, a small "meatbox" by modern standards, 18" long x 11" tall x 5"
deep. It's slightly over 7 lbs.. After opening the main compartment, one
must unsnap two additional leather pockets, to view all the contents. The
leather is so thick and stiff that it's impossible to tell by looking at the
closed compartments whether or not there's anything inside them. If someone
carelessly failed to look into the case or check both of the compartments,
the weight of a thick sheaf of paper could easily go unnoticed in a case that
heavy. Lifting the case, I don't *perceive* a difference in weight between
the case empty and the case with four issues of _The New Yorker_ in it.
Pre-20th century briefcases, designed to hold folio-sized papers, are
considerably larger than this one and more heavily constructed.

Dan, for fictional purposes, I think you can tell readers that the Stadler
theory is true or that it partly true or that it is false, without hurting
your credibility a bit, as long as *your* story hangs together plausibly.
Those "lost object" mysteries make wonderful fiction, the moreso because such
bizarre finds turn up in real life that almost anything seems possible. Kevin
and I saw and *passed up* that Maltese Falcon statuette sold at the
Renninger's Extravaganza in Pennsylvania a few years back. We each looked at
this bird carefully and figured it had to be a fake. Something like that
surely wouldn't turn up at an outdoor flea for a cheap price, right? Later,
we changed our minds and decided to go back and buy the falcon anyway,
because even a replica would look so cool in the (w)rec(k) room. By then
someone else had bought the bird. One of the big auction houses later
authenticated the falcon as one of the three original props made for the
Bogart movie (although that particular statuette was a spare, not filmed).
Oops.

And then there was the ugly oil painting that we almost bought for its good
frame. Someone else *did* buy it for the good frame. While separating the
frame from the nearly worthless painting, a restorer discovered a signed,
original (and subsequently authenticated) copy of the Declaration of
Independence used as filler between the canvas and the back board. I need
better totems....

Research can be dangerous, though, because too much detail, no matter how
historically accurate, can stall the narrative. Willing suspension of
disbelief doesn't work like "clean and jerk" weightlifting, IMHO. It's more
like a teeter-totter with the author on one end and the reader on the other.
Credible -- Incredible. Up -- Down. Is it insufficient weight on one end of
the board that stalls it, or is it too much weight on the other end? It all
depends on your point of view. Once I wrote a short story called, 'The
Vampires Don't Believe in You, Either." (Good idea, bad story --
unpublished.)

Remember that so-called diary of Jack the Ripper, published a few years ago?
I reviewed it in _Scarlet Street_, along with two other books about the
Ripper that were much better, IMHO. I don't think anybody waited to review
the diary until all the lab tests came in, because the perpetrator(s?) made
historical errors in the text itself that proved the book a hoax -- but at
least the forger bothered to use iron gall ink on paper of the appropriate
age. If only the publisher had sold this book *as fiction*, the errors might
have passed as artistic license, although I doubt that I'd consider the book
a good historical novel even then. Yet, despite the overwhelmingly scathing
reviews, such is the public eagerness to believe that on web sites where one
finds global conspiracy theories, accounts of alien abduction and "Elvis is
alive!" stories, some people still accept this pitiful Jack the Ripper
counterfeit as nonfiction. Dan, I'll bet you can write something better than
that!

Lelia
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I took an IQ test and the results were negative.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

---------------------------------------------------------------------
Unsubscribe from Klarinet, e-mail: klarinet-unsubscribe@-----.org
Subscribe to the Digest: klarinet-digest-subscribe@-----.org
Additional commands: klarinet-help@-----.org
Other problems: klarinet-owner@-----.org