Questions

1. Transmission: In many ways, this is a story focused on the idea of transmission: “I have written this and committed it to the sea, in the hope that the ocean currents may bear it within the reach of civilized man” (De Mille 54). Does the manuscript reach “civilized man?” How much of the story is really understood? More broadly, how does the notion of transmission—of stories, knowledge, and values—recur throughout the narrative?
   • In what ways is A Strange Manuscript as much about the challenges of clear transmission—between people, cultures, and across time—as it is about the fantastical story? Choose specific events, images, or motifs to focus your discussion.
2. Ethnicity: As M. G. Parks observes in his article Strange to Strangers Only, much time is spent locating a linguistic and cultural origin for the Kosekin, which it is inferred connects to the ancient Judaic tribes. Parks suggests that this origin narrative is the root of a historical dichotomy between two trajectories, and illustrates the positive influence of Greco-Roman and Christian thought on Judaic society. Does this origin narrative then suggest an anti-Semitic tone to De Mille’s novel?
   • Compare and contrast Gwendolyn Guth’s analysis on page 50 in her article Reading Frames of Reference with M. G. Parks’ discussion on page 72. Which reading do you agree with? Explain your position.
3. The Critics’ Circle: The four men on the yacht act as critics of the strange manuscript. Stephen Milnes, Linda Lamont-Stewart, Gwendolyn Guth, and M. G. Parks all engage with this circle of critics. Compare and contrast the descriptions of these characters in the articles.
   • Literary Critics: Pick two or more articles to compare. How does each article flesh out our understandings of these characters and the strange manuscript?
   • Literary Yachtsmen: Pick a specific yachtsman and the various critical perspectives offered about him. Which critical interpretations do you prefer? Why?
4. Endings: Lamont-Stewart notes that “[d]ebate over the problem of Strange Manuscript’s abrupt ending has been a constant factor in the critical literature” (22). Do you feel that the novel provides an appropriate ending, or does it fall off too abruptly, leaving too many elements unresolved? Is the novel complete or incomplete? Why is it important which position you take?

Works Cited

• De Mille, James. A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder. Ed. Daniel Burgoyne. Peterborough: Broadview, 2011. Print.
• Guth, Gwendolyn. Reading Frames of Reference: The Satire of Exegesis in James De Mille’s A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder. Canadian Literature 145 (1995): 39–59. Print. (PDF)
• Lamont-Stewart, Linda. Rescued by Postmodernism: The Escalating Value of James De Mille’s A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder. Canadian Literature 145 (1995): 21–36. Print. (PDF)
• Milnes, Stephen. Colonialist Discourse, Lord Featherstone’s Yawn and the Significance of the Denouement in A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder. Canadian Literature 145 (1995): 86–104. Print. (PDF)
• Multineddu, Flavio. A Tendentious Game with an Uncanny Riddle: A Strange Manuscript Found in a Copper Cylinder. Canadian Literature 145 (1995): 62–81. Print. (PDF)
• Parks, M. G. Strange to Strangers Only. Canadian Literature 70 (1976): 61–78. Print. (PDF)