ATDTDA (9): 239-242

[Paul Nightingale]

Lew’s first speech, in response to something CC has
said about Renfrew remaining unrecognised at the pub,
is ignored. Upon meeting Renfrew, their further
progress is delayed by the ritual (“three obligatory
rounds”, 240) of beer-drinking; only now does CC
depart separately and Lew go off with Renfrew. Again,
there is a delay as they smoke cigars, after which
Renfrew brings up “the ward of Auberon Halfcourt”.
Identifying Yashmeen, Lew speaks of his “[r]outine
chaperoning job”; Renfrew, however, continues to speak
of AH as though Lew has said nothing. Renfrew asks him
if he has a contract with the TWIT; Lew says no, it’s
“[b]etter for everybody”. A contract would signify a
formalised relationship, or series of interactions
with his employers; without, he is only employed—ie
exist as an employee—when actually doing one of the
“muscle jobs” he alludes to (none of which we know
about, of course).

CC has apparently told Renfrew that Lew “can be
confided in”. Viewing the “photograph of a shadowy
figure”, Lew is unable to identify the subject: he
manoeuvres “till it [comes] more in focus”. It
doesn’t, of course: he has to make himself believe
that he can recognise the “blurred” features. He
denies it, but “ha[s] a gastrically dismal feeling”
when Renfrew—again ignoring what Lew has actually
said—insists that he does recognise the figure (241).
Subsequently, he has to listen to “the same story he’d
heard from CDB about the mystery gas-bomb thrower”.
Repetitive, but different now he has had a “dismal
feeling” inspired by the photo.

Subsequently, Lew’s reference to Werfner might be
designed (“unable to resist”) to provoke a response he
can call significant, something similar perhaps to his
own response when looking at the photo. If Lew has
given himself away, Renfrew might have also: his
“reaction might have included as much as a blink, but
too quickly for Lew to be sure”. The emphasis here has
been on the way characters read each other; any
advantage gained, or disadvantage suffered, is
dependent on such understanding.

And then Renfrew’s discourse on Werfner’s obsession
with railways (242) describes a kind of reading at
odds with his own. For Renfrew’s top-down version, the
northern hemisphere is dominant; in terms of
“control[ling] the planet” the southern hemisphere
hardly counts, a continuation (or “appendage”) of the
north. However, for Werfner, according to Renfrew,
there is an alternative reading, one based on
connections: “... the primary geography of the planet
is the rails, obeying their own necessity,
interconnections, places chosen and bypassed, centers
and radiations therefrom ...” etc. Pretty much how we
read a novel, of course: the connections are what make
the reading, which is always one among many. The
current section opens (239) by juxtaposing newspaper
headlines to graffiti: different forms of
communication, one that is sanctioned formally, and
one that isn’t. The writer of graffiti refuses to
accept the news values of the newspaper editor: each
“obey[s] their own necessity”. Moreover, that graffiti
 is imposed on “ancient walls” is might be considered
an act of terrorism. By the end of the section,
Renfrew is “lecturing” Lew, who acquiesces. Cf. the
lecturing style (“Let us imagine a lateral world ...)
of the Cohen, earlier (230-231).

Even though the rail network might be read as a map,
the emphasis is on interaction. Renfrew needs the
globe in his hands: he “took up the orb in both hands
like a brandy snifter, and rotated it with
deliberation, as if weighing the argument he wished to
make” (241). The demonstration is vital to his
“argument”. However, the network, as a network, has no
such string-pulling centre; and “massive troop
movements” becomes another precognition of war.