The equation has only one unknown — at this point, just for a moment, the image of my old maths teacher Bennmann comes into my mind: he was anything but magical, and used to pooh-pooh any problem that didn’t have at least two unknowns. Toss his head and adjust his bow-tie that was always askew underneath his pointed goatee beard, and either red with white dots or blue with white dots. But I don’t want to be disturbed by him at this stage, and I send him back to the cemetery in central Sweden where no doubt he is lying by now.
One unknown, then, and this is the question I must sort out with both patience and precision. If my suspicions turn out to be justified, and my husband in some miraculous way or other managed to crawl out of that damned bunker, that hell-hole I can’t bear to think about any more. . if against all the odds he survived both the cold and the rats, then the fact is that the game is up. More or less in any case, depending on exactly what one means by the word up.
But enough of that. Let me go on instead. If the conclusions I have drawn from various experiences — pheasants, hire cars, missing dogs, written messages on filthy car doors, false e-mails and all the rest of it — if those conclusions are really true, then I can state that. . Well, what exactly can I state? Mr Bennmann rolls over in his grave and tries to fix me with his gaze through six feet of solid earth — there’s something for you to think about, you berk, I think, and remember now that I had him in philosophy as welclass="underline" logic and argumentation analysis, for Christ’s sake.
Away with Bennmann for the last time. In any case, there is. . yes, that’s the fact of the matter, and I can feel something positive and hopeful stirring in my mind as I come to this simple and obvious conclusion: there is only. . there can be only two beings who know the truth, the solution to the equation — apart from Martin himself, of course: my dog and Professor Soblewski not far from Miȩdzyzdroje in Poland.
Castor and Soblewski.
That’s right, isn’t it? That really must be the fact of the matter. These are the two paths to clarity that are being offered to me. A dog and a professor of literature.
I start with the dog and an acceptable dose of magical thinking. Kneel down on the floor in front of him, look him straight in the eye and say: ‘The boss?’
He puts his head on one side.
‘Have you been with the boss lately?’ I ask. ‘The boss? You know who I mean.’
He leans his head on the other side.
‘If you’ve been with the boss, hold out your right paw.’ This is magical thinking of a calibre I’ve never tried out before.
He thinks for a while, then holds out his left paw.
I can’t make up my mind what that means. I try another approach.
What would be the point of my undead husband stealing Castor from me, keeping him for a couple of days and then returning him? Where’s the logic in that?
Where’s the logic in silver-coloured hire cars and dead pheasants and prowling around in the background all this long time? Where’s the logic in anything at all?
But I brush this aside as well. Shove it down into Bennmann’s grave and return to square one. I try to think of what point there would be in stealing Castor.
It takes a while, but then the penny drops.
A message.
Some sort of indication on my dog that makes me understand where he’s been.
Precisely, I think, and feel the buzzing inside my head change key. That is exactly how Martin Emmanuel Holinek would think. I look hard at Castor. Why haven’t I thought of that before? It’s more than a week since he went missing and then came back.
How do you leave an indication on a dog? What would I do?
It’s not many seconds before the thought strikes me. His collar. That’s the only possibility. You attach something small to his collar, perhaps a rolled-up scrap of paper under a piece of Sellotape. . Or you write something.
I remove Castor’s collar. Examine it closely. I can’t see anything new and different on it. Nothing taped onto it, or fastened in some other way. I examine the inside, check it meticulously centimetre by centimetre: this is how I would do it, I think, just like this. Write Death or whatever I would want to note down and pass on, and that is also what Martin would do. I know him. We’ve spent a lifetime together.
Nothing.
No letter, no sign of any kind.
I slide the collar back over Castor’s head and thank him. Tell him to go and lie down in front of the fire and think about something else. To forget the boss.
I move on to Professor Soblewski.
The buzzing inside my head has died down: instead a sad little creature raises its head and tells me that I’m mad. And that I should be grateful that I don’t have to submit to a mental examination today.
I tell the creature to shut up, and that I need to concentrate.
‘Mark Britton?’ it says even so. ‘And how do you intend to deal with that little problem?’
‘Shut your gob,’ I tell it. ‘Crawl back to wherever you’ve come from. Mark Britton has nothing at all to do with this. He’s just a way of spending the time.’
‘Huh, kiss my arse,’ says the creature. But then it has enough sense to keep quiet. I wish I had a cigarette, which is not a good sign of course, and it soon passes.
Then I get no further. Not a millimetre further.
Much later that evening:
Bach. Wrong.
Handel. Wrong.
Brahms. Wrong.
46
It’s Alfred Biggs who’s on duty. It’s morning, and there are no other customers in the centre, tapping away at their keyboards. He brightens up when I come in and wishes me a Happy New Year. I return the compliment. He goes out into the kitchen to make tea without even asking if I want any. I’ve forgotten to bring biscuits with me yet again.
I start with Martin’s inbox and find that I’m in luck: there actually is a message from Soblewski, just as I had been hoping. He wishes Martin a Happy New Year and attaches the short story he had mentioned in his previous message. ‘Change of Wind’ by Anna Słupka. He points out that the translation probably needs a bit more revision, but he wants Martin to read it and give his opinion of it.
And he asks Martin to pass on greetings to fru Holinek.
I read the ten lines twice, very carefully, and open the attachment: it strikes me that sending the text of a short story like this suggests that my theory about Soblewski being an accomplice is over the top. Why would they need to go to such lengths if it is all a fake?
Change of Wind? I drop the idea — at least until I’ve read fröken Słupka’s text properly. I also recall that the Swedish short story they had talked about had been written by a young author called Anderson, Anderson with only one s, but I make up my mind not to overdo the interpretation. The world is full of possible messages, and one way of going mad is to try to read all of them.
Nevertheless I have to be very careful of course when it comes to my (Martin’s) reply to Soblewski’s message, and it takes a whole cup of tea and twenty minutes before I’m satisfied with what I’ve written. I wish him a Happy New Year and say thank you for the short story. I promise to read it as soon as possible, and get back to him with a judgement within a week (Alfred Biggs helps me to print out the twelve pages); and with a minimum of fuss I describe how we have celebrated Christmas and the New Year down here in Morocco. In the end I write:
And I sincerely hope no new bodies have turned up in your village. Have they identified the last one yet?
Best, Martin
I was going to put ‘on your beach’ but I changed it to ‘in your village’. There was nothing about a beach in the previous e-mail — and nothing about a village either, come to that, but I can’t think of a better way of expressing it. I also think that my (Martin’s) tone is exactly right: a bit jokey but even so sufficiently serious for him to answer the question in his next message.