"Oh, boy!" cried Darby Suckling, as he leaned over the lifelines to watch the national heartland deeply swung in a whirling blur of green far below, his tow-colored locks streaming in the wind past the gondola like a banner to leeward.
* * * * * * * * * *
Darby is only the second character introduced so it might not be that revealing when I say that he's my favorite character so far! The name "Randolph St. Cosmo" makes me think of tucking in my shirt and getting my knuckles rapped by a ruler for not tucking in my shirt like I was supposed to. But the name "Darby Suckling" makes me think of shoe polish and baby pigs! And those things remind me of totally untucked shirts which is a huge part of my life's philosophy.
The term "national heartland" seems like one of those terms that people never really thought much about and used it in such a cavalier way that it grew into a monstrous mutant that now threatens all of our political discussions. The problem is that the definition of heartland is both "the central part of the US" and "the central or most important part of a country." That seems like a mistake, right? It's like if the definition of "genius" was "a super smart person with tons of smarts" and another definition of "genius" was "Grunion Guy." It wouldn't mean I, Grunion Guy, were automatically both definitions just because the second definition defined me. But over time, how could you not simply equate Grunion Guy with a super smart person with tons of smarts? It couldn't be helped! Well, that's what's happened here! A bunch of media jerkos think "the central part of the US" is equivalent to "the most important part of a country" and now we get a never-ending cycle of articles about how important they are to the United States! No wonder some smart mouth came up with the term "flyover states" to replace "the heartland." That guy was a genius! No, it wasn't me! I meant the first definition of genius!
Darby is blond. That might become important later. Or it was just to help flesh out the colorful description of this boy about to fall to his death because he's so excited about visiting the Columbian Exposition. He also might have long hair since it's streaming past the gondola and as long as a banner. But were young boys allowed to have long hair in 1893? I bet it was almost a demand of the Victorian Era to not cut young boys hair until they reached a certain age. That seems like the kind of thing I imagine about the Victorian Era that nobody ever corrects me on because I never discuss my non-researched and totally ignorant vision of that time. Most of what I know about the Victorian Era I learned from The Age of Innocence, Oscar Wilde, and The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen.
Never let it be said that I never ever do any research (even if it's me who is always saying that)! Here is a picture I found on a Tripod website which describes the picture as having been taken at exactly the time Darby is hanging halfway over the side of the Inconvenience. The site (which I'm sure has been rigorously researched by top academicians) also states of Victorian and Edwardian times, "Some mothers might wait until a boy was 10 or even 11 before allowing him to have his long curls cutting." So I'm convinced! Darby has super cute long blond hair and his character has advanced even further in my estimation!
Bonus: if you visit that Tripod site, there is a picture of a young Thomas Wolfe with beautiful sausage curls. The caption doesn't expressly state that it's Thomas Wolfe but it looks just like him so I think the implication that it is him must stand.
