Castle DreamsJohn DeChanciee-reads2002Texttext/html0-7592-6263-2en-usen-usCopyright © 1992 by John DeChancie{23CCA442-6465-11D
gracious host as well, he cherishes his Guests and makes them eternally welcome.
What is the castle, exactly, and why does it exist? That is a long story. The tales of Castle Perilous are as
endless as the worlds it contains. Only a relative few of them have been set down.…
… Which brings us up to this present volume.
This is the sixth installment of a work which bears the overarching title The Eidolons of the King, and,
although past volumes have presented some problems regarding textual exegesis, this is the first book
that, bids fair — if its numerous puzzles continue to resist critical explication — to become that bane of
scholars down through the ages: the apocryphal work.
For all of the castle adventures thus far have been based to some extent on truth. The tales told in
preceding books were in fact true stories, so far as this castle scribe has been able to ascertain. Indeed,
some of the castle’s more harrowing events are forever etched in acid on the copperplate of my memory.
But this is not the case with the “events” related in this particular castle book. No such happenings have
been recorded in Perilous’s annals. No such drama ever unfolded within its dark purlieus.
What, then, to make of this book? Is it simply a spurious work, written by some plagiarist with an eye
toward a quick advance on royalties and sold to the hapless publisher, who might know the real author
— say he is a reclusive crank — only by correspondence? I think this unlikely. Yet I have no
explanation for this volume’s being different in style and content from the previous ones. Conundrums
abound. What are we to make of its (if you will forgive the term) “postmodernist” touches: for instance,
the chapters labeled “Spot Quiz No. —— ” and numbered accordingly? How to explain the spurious
“footnotes,” most of which make no sense? Are these mere japes? Why is the vernacular used so
extensively in the eschatological sections? Indeed, why is it that some of the questions in the “quizzes”
have nothing to do with the text? These purported study exercises seem to be mockeries. We must
conclude as much, for it is hard to credit the notion that this highly romantic bit of light entertainment
was actually intended as a serious text for the study of literature. Diverting it may be; Art it certainly is
not, despite its ham-handed pretensions.
Questions, questions. I, for one, harbor no hope that they will eventually be answered. For like the castle
itself, the Castle series is an enigma. Of doubtful provenance, it provokes as much as it entertains.
Analyze, explicate, and interpret as is your wont, but do all at your peril, for these books seem to justify
the claims of the “deconstructionist” critics, who hold that, at bottom, any given text is not susceptible of
reduction to any unambiguous meaning. In short: all texts are at once meaningful and meaningless, and
there is no final sorting out of their uncertainties, for all the critical acumen we bring to bear on them.
Like it or not, we must face the fact that there is an intrinsic uncertainty principle even in the humanistic
field of belles-lettres.
All of the above notwithstanding, this is an entertaining book, like its predecessors. Setting aside its
stylistic crudities, it reads well; the pace is quick, and we are compelled to turn its pages to see what
file:///K|/eMule/Incoming/John%20DeChancie%20-%20Castle%2006%20-%20Castle%20Dreams.html (5 of 190)23-12-2006 0:25:09