Subject: Re: The Kindly Ones (was Delight and Despair 1)
From: Sorcha <sorcha_obrien@esatclear.ie>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Fri, 18 Jun 1999 23:12:52 +0100

Morgan Thomas wrote:
> <snip>
> The Fates, Kindly Ones, Three Sisters, ect. are the same entity, more or less,
> as far as I know. They're simply different aspects of the same being, much like
> the facets that Morpheus was refering to at the end of the Kindly Ones. The
> Kindly Ones arn't just sitting around waiting for a summons, but at the same
> time they arn;t running around trying to fuffill they're role in the other
> aspects as well. They exist when and where they need to exist, in whatever form
> that may need to be, wether it be muses, furies, gorgons, or fates.

Right. For some reason, I got distracted and forgot to type in the next line, which was something along the lines of 'Unless you want me to start wittering about the aspects of the triple goddess...' It sounds completely different without that, doesn't it? 8<
Speaking of which - anyone care to speculate on the connection between Chantal and Zelda, the gorgons and the aforesaid triple goddess?

Sorcha

Subject: Re: The Kindly Ones (was Delight and Despair 1)
From: Morgan Thomas <Morgan_Thomas@bc.sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 09:54:48 -0700

Sorcha wrote:

> Morgan Thomas wrote:
> > <snip>
> > The Fates, Kindly Ones, Three Sisters, ect. are the same entity, more or less,
> > as far as I know. They're simply different aspects of the same being, much like
> > the facets that Morpheus was refering to at the end of the Kindly Ones. The
> > Kindly Ones arn't just sitting around waiting for a summons, but at the same
> > time they arn;t running around trying to fuffill they're role in the other
> > aspects as well. They exist when and where they need to exist, in whatever form
> > that may need to be, wether it be muses, furies, gorgons, or fates.

> Right. For some reason, I got distracted and forgot to type in the next
> line, which was something along the lines of 'Unless you want me to
> start wittering about the aspects of the triple goddess...' It sounds
> completely different without that, doesn't it? 8<
> Speaking of which - anyone care to speculate on the connection between
> Chantal and Zelda, the gorgons and the aforesaid triple goddess?

Well, I'm pretty sure the Gorgons are just another, weaker aspect of the tri-goddess, but as for Chantal and Zelda, I'm not quite sure. There are only two of them, which sort of prevents them from being a tri-goddess, but perhaps if we add Rose into the equation (as the maiden) it could work.

Subject: Re: The Kindly Ones (was Delight and Despair 1)
From: Sorcha <sorcha_obrien@esatclear.ie>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sat, 19 Jun 1999 21:55:03 +0100

Morgan Thomas wrote:

> Sorcha wrote:
> >
> > Speaking of which - anyone care to speculate on the connection between
> > Chantal and Zelda, the gorgons and the aforesaid triple goddess?

> Well, I'm pretty sure the Gorgons are just another, weaker aspect of the tri-goddess,
> but as for Chantal and Zelda, I'm not quite sure. There are only two of them, which
> sort of prevents them from being a tri-goddess, but perhaps if we add Rose into the
> equation (as the maiden) it could work.

Mmmn, I was thinking about the two gorgons who appeared in TKO, actually, the ones that Lyta meets when she is searching for the ladies. There's only two of them and they speak about a dead third sister, whom they call Medusa. The resemblance with the veils and the spiders is very strong, so I suppose Chantal and Zelda are another layer of shadow or echo.

One thing I just noticed is that Zelda also appears in #61, so that with Stethno and Euryale that would make three...

Sorcha

Subject: Re: Delight and Despair 1
From: Jennifer Reinhart <delirium@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Tue, 22 Jun 1999 19:41:50 GMT

Jim Heckman wrote:

> > I think it's fairly weak to take his saying "I did not plan this," and then
> > just toss it off with some pop-psychology excuse...

> I don't think I "just toss[ed] it off." :) In fact I've spent quite a bit of
> time pondering all this. And maybe I'm misreading you, but are you saying
> that the concepts of denial, and different levels of consciousness, are just
> "pop-psychology" (whatever that means)? They've been around explicitly since
> at least Freud, and implicitly pretty much since literature began (actually,
> probably since story-telling began). Further, I'm not aware of any credible
> theory of the human psyche that denies their existence.

I'm not saying they're not viable psychological concepts...I'm just saying that he could actually be telling the truth, that he *didn't* plan it, and given my disagreement with your other points, we don't really have evidence for declaring that he's in denial.

> > > "*Don't* you start blaming Nuala for this. You didn't *have* to leave.
> > > You didn't *have* to do anything." - "No... you are right, of course...
> > > It has nothing to do with Nuala. It has everything to do with me."
> > > [finally coming out of denial] ...

> > Everything to do with him, exactly. Him and his inability to break
> > promises, even at the cost of his life.

> I guess it's pretty clear by now that I'm reading a (psychologically)
> deeper meaning into most of Morpheus' statements during this whole
> exchange with his Sister than you are -- which is not to say either of us
> is wrong (that great literature thing again). But now I'm curious as to how
> you interpret Death's statements: (1) "There's *personal* responsibility,
> too, y'know? Not only the kind you're always talking about." (2) "You
> didn't *have* to leave..." and going on to compare his situation to
> Destruction's. Do you consider Morpheus' "inability to break promises"
> *internally*, or *externally* imposed?

Can you give me the personal responsibility quote in context? That's an interesting one, but I don't have my books here to look it up...

As for your final question...I'm not sure. It might well be something that cropped up during his imprisonment in the glass bubble...I would say that this particular change in himself was brought about by circumstances beyond his control, and in that sense, it's externally imposed, but I think it was his own decision to abide by his promises, and in that sense, it's internal. However, just because he made the rule himself doesn't make it any less mandatory.

> > > - "*Destruction* simply *left* ... *You* could have done *that*." -
> > > "No. I could not." (while hanging head) - "No, you couldn't, could
> > > you?" (her arm around his shoulders)

> > This is where Death admits that *she* was wrong, that Morpheus did
> > the only thing he could do given his nature.

> Oops, I guess you've already addressed my question (2) above. (But I'd
> still be interested in your opinion on my question (1)). As to Death being
> wrong, do you really believe that? "I've known you longer than
> *anybody*." And my take on Death has always been that she's the least
> neurotic, and most perceptive, of the Endless (well, Destruction, too, as
> I've said in other threads). *My* interpretation of the above is that she
> was being *literally*, *objectively* true up until she said: "No, you
> couldn't, could you?" -- when she switched to saying the *subjective*,
> *psychological* truth about Morpheus himself. In this sense, she was
> admittedly in denial herself at the beginning of the conversation --
> understandable, IMHO, even for someone as (relatively) mentally
> healthy as herself, in that she had been watching her brother commit
> suicide for quite some time.

So...what's the problem? The "subjective, psychological" truth about Morpheus is
what makes the story tick...

> > > - "I have made all the preparations necessary." - "Hmph. You've
> > > been making them for *ages*. You just didn't let yourself know that
> > > was what you were doing." - "If you say so." [his final words!! - a
> > > feeble return to denial, but with ultimate resignation]

> > Yeah, he was making preparations. I've admitted that. He knew this
> > day was coming, and knowing it, it was his responsibility to make
> > *sure* that the necessary preparations were made...like finding a
> > successor.

> And? And? What *other* preparations were they talking about? What
> did Death mean by: "You just didn't let yourself know that was what you
> were doing"? Are you suggesting Morpheus "didn't let [himself] know
> that" he was making Daniel his successor? IMHO, that's one of the few
> things he *was* doing completely consciously all along!

Well, what preparations do you think they *were* talking about?

> > I think it does the work itself a great disservice to say that Morpheus
> > wanted to die, that the reason he let all this happen was just because
> > he was depressed and suicidal or something;

> It's a great disservice for a work to be about a depressed and/or
> suicidal person, per se?!

No...I just think The Sandman is more complicated than that. I think saying Morpheus wanted to die lets you ignore the things that made it so he *had* to die...responisibility, for example, which I'll admit is a pet issue of mine. :-)

I guess what I don't see is *why* he would actually want to kill himself. What are your thoughts on that?

> As a recovering suicidal depressive myself
> (leading a relatively happy, full life for several years now, thank God), I
> couldn't disagree more strongly... And again, I'm not arguing "that the
> reason he let all this happen was *just* [emphasis mine] because..." --
> I'm saying it was *one* of the reasons.

Granted, it may be one of the reasons...although frankly, I don't see Morpheus as actually being depressed to the point of wanting to end his life. He's still very attached to the world...damn, I wish I had my books! But take the passage in TKO where we see him go about his business in various dreams...you know, the issue not illustrated by Hempel. :-) He does his work, and he enjoys a meal...I think he still derives quite a bit of satisfaction from his life and work. I really don't think he wants to die.

> > to me, the very essence of the work is responsibility itself, the
> > necessities and consequences of following the rules.

> I certainly agree that this is *one* of the work's essences -- I just don't
> think it precludes there being others (that great literature thing, yet
> again).

I guess I still think it's the most important one.

> > This includes the responsibility of compassion, which Morpheus didn't
> > have before his imprisonment. His suffering changed him, and that
> > was the real begining of his death, when he began acting for people
> > other than himself, going to rescue Nada,

> I couldn't *agree* more with all of this. Nor do I see how it negates any
> of *my* analysis -- in fact, IMHO, it bolsters it.

I thought your argument was that he wanted to die...my point with this was that he began to want to be compassionate, despire the possibility of death.

> I'm *really* trying not to put words in your mouth here, but I'm having a
> lot of trouble reading your last few points without getting the impression
> that you believe the development of compassion in someone precludes
> their being depressed and/or suicidal.

Not at all!

> If that is indeed your belief, I can
> only assure you you're wrong -- if that is *not* your belief, I apologize for
> jumping to this conclusion (and would be interested in your further
> expounding upon your beliefs vis-a-vis all this, so that I may better
> understand them).

I'm just saying that I don't see Morpheus as *being* suicidal. The development of compassion in him is a separate thing.

> > and at the end, finally keeping his promise to Nuala.

> Well... I really think you're reading too much into the "keeping his
> promise" part, which I personally believe was just the final instrument in
> his self-immolation

Well, okay. Agree to disagree and all that. :-)

> > > BTW, I notice now that I haven't even touched on how Morpheus
> > > manipulated Lyta to hate him ever since 'The Doll's House' -- but it's
> > > getting *really* late and I'm getting too punchy...

> > Hmm, enlighten us.

> ?!?! This is a joke, right? EVERY SINGLE INTERACTION between
> Morpheus and Lyta (well, until the final one in his throne room after
> she had already "'[powered] this aspect" of TKO) had the effect of
> increasing her hatred, distrust and paranoia of him -- and EVERY
> SINGLE ONE of these was due solely to Morpheus' actions and
> demeanor in her presence -- when he could just as easily have shown
> her the compassion you mentioned above, and which I agree he was
> developing by this time.

I am trying to remember instances of this...how many interactions did he actually have with Lyta Hall? There was the Doll's House, at which time I think he was still basically clueless...he wasn't manipulating her, he was just being his chilly, businesslike, spooky bastard self.

> > > > The truth is, he did all that he could do to *prevent* his death
> > > > within the rules that bind him.

> > > Yes -- *after* having set in motion the very events that would *not*
> > > allow him to "prevent his death within the rules that bind him."

> > Which he did because he had no choice.

> ?!?! I think we have a disconnect here. Are you saying "he had no
> choice" as far back as antagonizing Lyta, freeing Loki, and going to
> search for Destruction?

I don't recall that he actually did antagonize Lyta, and remember that at first he did not actually intend to find Destruction, but feigned the effort to please Delerium. He only got serious about it when it became evident that it really *was* important to find him. As for Loki, I agree he had to know that it would have consequences, but I don't think we know what he thought they would be.

And maybe I'm being totally dense, but how did going in search of Destruction cause his death?

> Those are the events I meant.

The chief event I was thinking of was killing Orpheus.

--Jenny Jo

Subject: Re: Delight and Despair 1
From: lunavudu@aol.com (Luna Vudu)
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: 22 Jun 1999 23:36:41 GMT

Jenny Jo wrote:
>I really don't think he wants to die.

Maybe I fall sort of inbetween the camps on this. It's not so much, IMHO, that the wanted to die, as that he made the choice between changing the way he dealt with his self-imposed rules and responsibilities and facing and accepting his death. Or maybe, he made the choice to die when he killed Orpheus, knowing that, although he was doing the right thing, it would cause his death. He couldn't live without changing and he refused to change. He didn't want to die, but he chose it over the other options.

philosophically, luna

Subject: Re: Delight and Despair 1
From: Jennifer Reinhart <delirium@uclink4.berkeley.edu>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Wed, 23 Jun 1999 00:47:17 GMT

Luna Vudu wrote:

> Jenny Jo wrote:
> >I really don't think he wants to die.

> Maybe I fall sort of inbetween the camps on this. It's not so much, IMHO, that
> he wanted to die, as that he made the choice between changing the way he dealt
> with his self-imposed rules and responsibilities and facing and accepting his
> death. Or maybe, he made the choice to die when he killed Orpheus, knowing
> that, although he was doing the right thing, it would cause his death. He
> couldn't live without changing and he refused to change. He didn't want to
> die, but he chose it over the other options.

That's what I've been saying!

--Jenny Jo

Subject: Re: Question About Ishtar
From: Jim Heckman <jheckman@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Mon, 21 Jun 1999 03:43:56 GMT

In article <7k9pke$5uk$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>, "S&W" <andhoff@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> And the Kindly Ones themselves. This was discussed a while ago, but
> I couldn't understand how they could have used the rationale "He
> killed his own son," as a rationale to attack the Dreaming and
> Morpheus when Orpheus *wanted* to die, *should* have died long
> before he did, and was even told "Your death is your own." I
> understand that Morpheus may have set up his own death, but I still
> don't see how killing Orpheus, under the circumstances, warranted
> the brutal attack by the Kindly Ones. It was illogical and, if you'll
> pardon the pun, overkill. Morpheus's own desire to die
> notwithstanding, the punishment did not fit the crime, IMO.

You say this was discussed a while ago, and I certainly believe you, but since I never read that discussion, I'll put in my two cents...

IMHO, you've left out some key clues:

From 'Orpheus':

Persephone: "Thou hast made the Furies weep, Orpheus. This is unheard of." - ... - "Thou has made the Furies cry, Orpheus. They will never forgive you for that."

From 'TKO', chapter 11:

TKO: "And we hated his son." - ... - "He made us *weep*..."

After pondering the very questions you raised above, and re-reading (many times :) the quotes *I* raised above, I came to the conclusion that TKO' "brutal attack" was precisely *because* Orpheus wanted to die, and his father finally granted that wish. What better revenge on Orpheus than to destroy the one who was responsible for giving him what he most desired? And since the spilling of family blood brought Morpheus within their purview, TKO finally had all of 'motive, means, and opportunity' (to borrow from criminology) to take their long-sought vengeance... Imagine how Orpheus must have felt, from wherever he was in the Sunless Lands, watching all this unfold...

Like I said, just my 2¢.

~~ Jim Heckman ~~

Subject: Re: Question About Ishtar
From: Jim Heckman <jheckman@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 04:37:33 GMT

In article <7kkcdr$vil$1@nnrp1.deja.com>, Jim Heckman <jheckman@my-deja.com> wrote:

> In article <7k9pke$5uk$1@nntp1.atl.mindspring.net>,
> "S&W" <andhoff@mindspring.com> wrote:
> >
> > And the Kindly Ones themselves. This was discussed a while ago,
> > but I couldn't understand how they could have used the rationale
> > "He killed his own son," as a rationale to attack the Dreaming and
> > Morpheus when Orpheus *wanted* to die, *should* have died long
> > before he did, and was even told "Your death is your own." I
> > understand that Morpheus may have set up his own death, but I still
> > don't see how killing Orpheus, under the circumstances, warranted
> > the brutal attack by the Kindly Ones. It was illogical and, if you'll
> > pardon the pun, overkill. Morpheus's own desire to die
> > notwithstanding, the punishment did not fit the crime, IMO.

> You say this was discussed a while ago, and I certainly believe you,
> but since I never read that discussion, I'll put in my two cents...
>
> IMHO, you've left out some key clues:
>
> From 'Orpheus':
>
> Persephone: "Thou hast made the Furies weep, Orpheus. This is
> unheard of." - ... - "Thou has made the Furies cry, Orpheus. They will
> never forgive you for that."
>
> From 'TKO', chapter 11:
>
> TKO: "And we hated his son." - ... - "He made us *weep*..."
>
> After pondering the very questions you raised above, and re-reading
> (many times :) the quotes *I* raised above, I came to the conclusion
> that TKO' "brutal attack" was precisely *because* Orpheus wanted to
> die, and his father finally granted that wish. What better revenge on
> Orpheus than to destroy the one who was responsible for giving him
> what he most desired? And since the spilling of family blood brought
> Morpheus within their purview, TKO finally had all of 'motive, means,
> and opportunity' (to borrow from criminology) to take their long-sought
> vengeance... Imagine how Orpheus must have felt, from wherever he
> was in the Sunless Lands, watching all this unfold...

Hmm... Thinking about all this some more, it occurs to me there's another explanation. Rather than looking at TKO' "brutal attack" on Morpheus as their revenge on Orpheus, perhaps they considered the very fact that he once seemed destined to live forever, unwillingly, to be sufficient punishment -- and became incensed with M. for cheating them of their eternal, on-going vengeance. In either case, they would have ample reason to be upset with M., and thus a motive to hound him to his death when he broke "the oldest rule".

In this light, perhaps my earlier conclusion is an over-analysis of the situation (although still my personal preference) -- something that I'm sure Jenny Jo would never accuse me of doing! :-)

~~ Jim Heckman ~~

Subject: Re:Question About Ishtar
From: Morgan Thomas <Morgan_Thomas@bc.sympatico.ca>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sun, 27 Jun 1999 23:05:41 -0700

Jim Heckman wrote:

> Hmm... Thinking about all this some more, it occurs to me there's
> another explanation. Rather than looking at TKO' "brutal attack" on
> Morpheus as their revenge on Orpheus, perhaps they considered the
> very fact that he once seemed destined to live forever, unwillingly, to be
> sufficient punishment -- and became incensed with M. for cheating them
> of their eternal, on-going vengeance. In either case, they would have
> ample reason to be upset with M., and thus a motive to hound him to
> his death when he broke "the oldest rule".
>
> In this light, perhaps my earlier conclusion is an over-analysis of the
> situation (although still my personal preference) -- something that I'm
> sure Jenny Jo would never accuse me of doing! :-)

Perhaps the reason was vengence, but it seems more likely to me that the Furies "brutal attack" on Morpheus stemmed ultimatly from the fact that they are, in another incarnation, the Fates, and so they were simply fuffiling what needed to happen, for Morpheus to die and Daniel to take his place. I don't know if that made any sense, 'cause it is late and I'm rather tired.

Subject: Re:Question About Ishtar
From: Jim Heckman <jheckman@my-deja.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Mon, 28 Jun 1999 09:09:11 GMT

In article <377710B5.40764B33@bc.sympatico.ca>, Morgan_Thomas@bc.sympatico.ca wrote:

> Perhaps the reason was vengence, but it seems more likely to me that
> the Furies "brutal attack" on Morpheus stemmed ultimatly from the
> fact that they are, in another incarnation, the Fates, and so they were
> simply fuffiling what needed to happen, for Morpheus to die and
> Daniel to take his place. I don't know if that made any sense, 'cause it
> is late and I'm rather tired.

That's a possibility I never thought of before, but IMHO, it doesn't completely square with Persephone's and TKO' quotes above, not to mention TKO' other statement: "*Then* -- IF WE WISHED [emphasis mine] -- we could *hound* him; ... " Personally, I'm still holding out for at least some degree of vengeance motive on the part of TKO.

And since it *is* late, it looks like I'm not going to get around to my next volley with Jenny Jo in the 'Desire and Despair 1" thread tonight -- have to wait 'til another time. :-(

~~ Jim Heckman ~~

Subject: Re: _The Kindly Ones_ gripe
From: lordjulius@geocities.com
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Fri, 09 Jul 1999 23:15:35 -0500

christinemarie wrote:

> Gideon Hallett wrote:>
> <snip>>
> > Lyta herself stops being the instrument of the Furies when she realizes
> > that Daniel is still alive; however, the Furies are already dispatched and
> > will not be called off; their purpose is to hound Morpheus to his death.
> >
> > I think that the Furies are shown as taking it too personally; even when
> > Lyta relents, they insist that revenge is what they do, even if Morpheus
> > didn't kill Daniel. I think that's what Morpheus is referring to when he
> > warns the Furies that they are taking an unwise course of action; they are
> > taking their job too personally.

> But, (she says nervously, not having gotten into any of these debates
> before) the reason the Furies can deal with Morpheus is that he killed
> Orpheus, his son, not Daniel. Lyta cares about Daniel, but the Furies
> can't--they can only care about killing one's relatives.

Don't be nervous. We're all friends here (more or less). This is a very good point, and one too often forgotten: by their very nature, the Furies can only touch Morpheus when he spills family blood.

> I mean, definitely they are out for Dream, since they were (as I remember)
> pretty darn thrilled when he killed his son.

This is a quite perceptive point, and one Neil never explained (and I'm afraid his relationship with Warner Communications has deteriorated to the point where he probably never will now). Just why did the Furies want to kill Morpheus even before he'd killed his son?

> But for them it wasn't really
> about Daniel--Daniel was just a way to get Lyta to work with them--to be
> their whip.

Yes. Gideon's basic "Lyta=whip" analysis seems perfectly right on to me.
Somehow, even though he'd spilled family blood, Morpheus was impervious to the Furies within his own realm. It took Lyta to make a breach and make him"touchable." Since Dream is an anthropomorphic representation of an idea in the first place, the idea of his vulnerability becomes manifest as the Furies whipping him with a scorpion.

> Chris
> who is going to act like she has a spine and not end any of her sentences
> with "right?"

You did very well for a first-timer.

Subject: Re: _The Kindly Ones_ gripe
From: "christinemarie" <christinemarie.nospam@mciworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 05:36:41 GMT

<lordjulius@geocities.com> :

> Chris wrote:
>> I mean, definitely they are out for Dream, since they were (as I remember)
>> pretty darn thrilled when he killed his son.

> This is a quite perceptive point, and one Neil never explained (and I'm afraid
> his relationship with Warner Communications has deteriorated to the point where
> he probably never will now). Just why did the Furies want to kill Morpheus even
> before he'd killed his son?

The thing I keep thinking about is the Furies talking about how Orpheus made them cry--when he was singing. Clearly they were not interested in being that vulnerable, so I can see why they wanted Orpheus finally dead, but I can't quite make the leap as to why they wanted Dream so bad, as well. It seems a little too easy, to have it just be that Dream was Orpheus' father.

Ah, well, life has to have some mystery, after all...

Chris
who appreciates the support ( =) ), and isn't so much nervous about being
treated badly, as nervous about looking like a complete idiot. Probably I
shouldn't worry about that so much--a lot of wasted energy.

Subject: Re: _The Kindly Ones_ gripe
From: COLT <Henning.Schaefer@stud.uni-hannover.de>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 22:20:50 +0000

Hi!

Cue me in again as to where it actually is said that they were after him before Orpheus´ Death?

Colt

Subject: Re: _The Kindly Ones_ gripe
From: "christinemarie" <christinemarie.nospam@mciworld.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.neil-gaiman
Date: Sat, 10 Jul 1999 21:09:59 GMT

COLT wrote:
> Hi!
>
> Cue me in again as to where it actually is said that they were after him
> before Orpheus´ Death?

Blast and damn. I don't have all my own copies of stuff yet. So I can't give you page #s just now--just my strong remembrance, after a couple of readings, that the Furies were not displeased to find out that they had a legitimate reason to pursue him, once Orpheus was dead. Can I take a rain check?

Chris