"No, no couldn't be, Blinky's a natty dresser, whereas Professor Morley's attire is said to exhibit a certain tendency to the informal. . . ."
* * * * * * * * * *
Ed Addle's on the right track trying to disprove Merle's theory which lacks any evidence other than two guys have bushy mustaches. But to attack their difference on the way they dress? Is he getting at yet another aspect that resonates between the two figures? How does one come to terms with these divergent theories, one which states they're, according to Merle, so obviously the same person and the other, according to Ed, that they differ in so many (or just one: the way they dress) ways? Could this be a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde allusion? The scientist and the violent criminal are one and the same, the two halves of the human condition, one light ray split into two parallel beams. Ed's argument that they can't be separate people because they dress so differently could hardly be said to be a literal argument that would hold any scientific water. So it must be figurative: they dress differently only because they represent different halves of the whole. Blinky's vulgar nature must be hidden behind fancy dress while the scientist cannot be bothered with appearance, too focused within the workings of the mind.
No comments:
Post a Comment