The Thackery T. Lambshead Cabinet of Curiosities Read online

  The

  Thackery T. Lambshead

  Cabinet of Curiosities

  Exhibits, Oddities, Images, and Stories from Top Authors and Artists

  Edited by

  Ann & Jeff VanderMeer

  Dedication

  Dedicated to the memory of Kage Baker,

  a wonderful writer and a good friend of Dr. Lambshead.

  You are not forgotten.

  Contents

  Cover

  Title Page

  Dedication

  Introduction: The Contradictions of a Collection: Dr. Lambshead’s Cabinet

  Holy Devices and Infernal Duds: The Broadmore Exhibits

  The Electrical Neurheographiton—Minister Faust

  St. Brendan’s Shank—Kelly Barnhill

  The Auble Gun—Will Hindmarch

  Dacey’s Patent Automatic Nanny—Ted Chiang

  Honoring Lambshead: Stories Inspired by the Cabinet

  Threads—Carrie Vaughn

  Ambrose and the Ancient Spirits of East and West—Garth Nix

  Relic—Jeffrey Ford

  Lord Dunsany’s Teapot—Naomi Novik

  Lot 558: Shadow of My Nephew by Wells, Charlotte—Holly Black

  A Short History of Dunkelblau’s Meistergarten—Tad Williams

  Microbial Alchemy and Demented Machinery: The Mignola Exhibits

  Addison Howell and the Clockroach—Cherie Priest

  Sir Ranulph Wykeham-Rackham, GBE, a.k.a. Roboticus the All-Knowing—Lev Grossman

  Shamalung (The Diminutions)—Michael Moorcock

  Pulvadmonitor: The Dust’s Warning—China Miéville

  The Miéville Anomalies

  The Very Shoe—Helen Oyeyemi

  The Gallows-horse—Reza Negarestani

  Further Oddities

  The Thing in the Jar—Michael Cisco

  The Singing Fish—Amal El-Mohtar

  The Armor of Sir Locust—Stepan Chapman

  A Key to the Castleblakeney Key—Caitlín R. Kiernan

  Taking the Rats to Riga—Jay Lake

  The Book of Categories—Charles Yu

  Objects Discovered in a Novel Under Construction—Alan Moore

  Visits and Departures

  1929: The Singular Taffy Puller—N. K. Jemisin

  1943: A Brief Note Pertaining to the Absence of One Olivaceous Cormorant, Stuffed—Rachel Swirsky

  1963: The Argument Against Louis Pasteur—Mur Lafferty

  1972: The Lichenologist’s Visit—Ekaterina Sedia

  1995: Kneel—Brian Evenson

  2000: Dr. Lambshead’s Dark Room—S. J. Chambers

  2003: The Pea—Gio Clairval

  A Brief Catalog of Other Items

  Artist and Author Notes

  Story Contributors

  Artists

  Catalog Contributors

  About the Editors

  Acknowledgments

  Credits

  Other Books by Ann & Jeff VanderMeer

  Copyright

  About the Publisher

  Introduction:

  The Contradictions of a

  Collection: Dr. Lambshead’s Cabinet

  By the Editors

  A photograph of just one shelf in Lambshead’s study displaying the “overflow” from his underground collection (1992). Some items were marked “return to sender” on the doctor’s master list.

  To his dying day, Dr. Thackery T. Lambshead (1900–2003) insisted to friends that he “wasn’t much of a collector.” “Things tend to manifest around me,” he told BBC Radio once, “but it’s not by choice. I spend a large part of my life getting rid of things.”

  Indeed, one of Lambshead’s biggest tasks after the holiday season each year was, as he put it, “repatriating well-intentioned gifts” with those “who might more appropriately deserve them.” Often, this meant reuniting “exotic” items with their countrymen and -women, using his wide network of colleagues, friends, and acquaintances hailing from around the world. A controversial reliquary box from a grateful survivor of ballistic organ syndrome? Off to a “friend in the Slovak Republic who knows a Russian who knows a nun.” A centuries-old “assassin’s twist” kris (see the Catalog entries) absentmindedly sent by a lord in Parliament? Off to Dr. Mawar Haqq at the National Museum in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia. And so on and so forth.

  He kept very little of this kind of material, not out of some loyalty to the Things of Britain, but more out of a sense that “the West still has a lot to answer for,” as he wrote in his journals. Perhaps this is why Lambshead spent so much time in the East. Indeed, the east wing of his ever-more-extensive home in Whimpering-on-the-Brink was his favorite place to escape the press during the more public moments of his long career.

  Regardless, over time, his cabinet of curiosities grew to the point that his semipermanent loans to various universities and museums became not so much philanthropic in nature as “acts of self-defense” (LIFE Magazine, “Hoarders: Curiosity or a New Disease?,” May 19, 1975). One of the most frenzied of these “acts” occurred in “divesting myself of the most asinine acquisition I ever made, the so-called Clockroach”—documented in this very volume—“which had this ridiculous habit of starting all on its own and making a massacre of my garden and sometimes a stone fence or two. Drove my housekeeper and the groundskeeper mad.”

  Breaking Ground

  This question of the cabinet’s growth coincides with questions about its location. As early as the 1950s, there are rather unsubtle hints in Dr. Lambshead’s journal of “creating hidden reservoirs for this river of junk” and “darkness and subterranean calm may be best for the bulk of it,” especially since the collection “threatens to outgrow the house.”

  In the spring of 1962, as is well-documented, builders converged on Lambshead’s abode and for several months were observed to leave through the back entrance carrying all manner of supplies while removing a large quantity of earth, wood, and roots.

  Speculation began to develop as to Lambshead’s intentions. “If even Dr. Lambshead despairs of compromise, what should the rest of us, who do not have the same privilege, do?” asked the editor of the Socialist Union Guild Newsletter that year, assuming that Lambshead, at the time a member, was building a “personalized bomb shelter with access to amenities many of us could not dream to afford in our everyday lives, nor wish to own for fear of capitalist corruption.” In the absence of a statement from Lambshead, the Fleet Street press even started rumors that he had discovered gold beneath his property, or ancient Celtic artifacts of incredible value. Whatever Lambshead’s motivations, he must have paid the builders handsomely, since the only recorded comment from the foreman is: “Something’s wrong with the pipes. Full stop.” (Guardian, “Avowed Socialist Builds ‘Anti-Democracy’ Bunker Basement,” April 28, 1962)

  Floor plan found in Lambshead’s private files, detailing, according to a scrawled note, “the full extent of a museum-quality cabinet of curiosities that will serve as a cathedral to the world, and be worthy of her.”

  Throughout the year, Lambshead ignored the questions, catcalls, and bullhorn-issued directives from the press besieging his gates. He continued to entertain guests at his by-now palatial home—including such luminaries as Maurice Richardson, Francis Bacon, Molly Parkin, Jerry Cornelius, George Melly, Quentin Crisp, Nancy Cunard, Angus Wilson, Philippe Jullian, and Violet Trefusis—and, in general, acted as if nothing out of the ordinary was occurring, even as the workmen labored until long after midnight and more than one guest reported “strange metallic smells and infernal yelping burps coming up from beneath the floorboards.” Meanwhile
, Lambshead’s seemingly preternatural physical fitness fueled rumors involving “life-enhancing chambers” and “ancient rites.” Despite being in his sixties, he looked not a day over forty, no doubt due to his early and groundbreaking experiments with human growth hormone.

  Why the secrecy? Why the need to ignore the press? Nothing in Lambshead’s journals can explain it. Indeed, given the damage eventually suffered by this subterranean space, there’s not even enough left to map the full extent of the original excavation. We are left with two floor plans from Lambshead’s private filing cabinet, one of which shows his estate house in relation to the basement area—and thus two contradictory possibilities. One of them, oddly enough, corresponds in shape to a three-dimensional model of an experimental flying craft. This coincidence has led to one of the stranger accusations ever leveled against Lambshead (not including those attributed to contamination scholar Reza Negarestani and obliteration expert Michael Cisco). Art critic Amal El-Mohtar, who for a time attempted to research part of Lambshead’s cabinet, claimed that “It became obvious from Thackery’s notes that he was creating a kind of specialized Ark to survive the extermination of humankind, each item chosen to tell a specific story, and his particular genius was to have all of these objects—this detritus of eccentric quality—housed within a container that would eventually double as a spaceship.” However, it must be noted that this theory, leaked to various tabloids, came to El-Mohtar during a period of recovery in Cornwall from her encounter with the infamous singing fish from Lambshead’s collection. Not only had her writings become erratic, but she was, for a period of time, fond of talking to wildflowers.

  Floor plan of what Amal El-Mohtar called “a nascent spaceshop nee Ark,” with a front view of Lambshead’s house beneath it.

  The most popular of other apocryphal theories originated with the performance artist Sam Van Olffen, who, since 1989, has seemed fixated on Lambshead and staged several related productions. The most grandiose, the musical The Mad Cabinet of Curiosities of the Mad Dr. Lambshead, debuted in 2008 in Paris and London, well after Lambshead’s death. Perhaps the most controversial of Van Olffen’s speculations is that Lambshead’s excavations in 1962 were meant not to create a space for a cabinet of curiosities but to remodel an existing underground space that had previously served as a secret laboratory in which he was conducting illegal medical tests. A refrain of “Doctor doctor doctor doctor! / Whatcher got in there there? A lamb’s head?” is particularly grating.

  Certainly, nothing about the flashback scenes to the 1930s, or the hints of Lambshead’s affiliation with underground fascist parties, did anything to endear Van Olffen’s productions to fans of the doctor, or the popular press. The Mad Cabinet of Curiosities closed on both Les Boulevards and the West End after less than a month. The combined effect of media attention for this “sustained attack on the truth,” as Lambshead’s heirs put it in a deposition for an unsuccessful lawsuit in 2009, has been to distort the true nature of the doctor’s work and career.

  A Deep Emotional Attachment?

  Despite irregularities and bizarre claims, one fact seems clear: Lambshead, especially in his later years, formed a deep emotional attachment to many of the objects in his collection, whether repatriated, loaned out, or retained in his house or underground cabinet.

  A close friend of Lambshead, post–World War II literary icon Michael Moorcock, who first met the doctor in the mid-1950s at a party thrown by Mervyn Peake's family, remembered several such attachments to objects. “It became especially acute in the 1960s,” Moorcock recalled in an interview, “when we spent a decent amount of time together because of affairs related to New Worlds,” the seminal science fiction magazine Moorcock edited at the time. “For a man of science, who resolutely believed in fact, he could be very sentimental. I remember how distraught he became during an early visit when he couldn’t find an American Night Quilt he had promised to show both me and [J. G.] Ballard. He became so ridiculously agitated that I had to say, ‘Pard, you might want to sit down awhile.’ Then he felt compelled to tell me that he and his first—his only—wife, Helen, who had passed on two or three years before, had watched the stars from the roof one night early in their relationship, and had snuggled under that quilt. One of his fondest memories of her.” (Independent, “An Unlikely Friendship?: The Disease Doc and the Literary Lion,” September 12, 1995)

  One of Sam Van Olffen’s stage sets for the supposed laboratory of Dr. Lambshead, taken from the Parisian production of the musical The Mad Cabinet of Curiosities of the Mad Dr. Lambshead and supposedly inspired by Van Olffen’s own encounter with the cabinet several years before. (Le Monde, March 2, 2008)

  The “secret medical laboratory” stage set for The Mad Cabinet of Curiosities of the Mad Dr. Lambshead. A much less grandiose version of the musical was eventually turned into a SyFy channel film titled Mansquito 5: Revenge of Dr. Lambshead, but never aired. (Le Monde, March 2, 2008)

  One of Lambshead’s few attempts at art, admittedly created “under the influence of several psychotropic drugs I was testing at the time.” Lambshead claims he was “just trying to reproduce the visions in my head.” S. B. Potter (see: “1972” in Visits and Departures) claimed the painting provided “early evidence of brain colonization.”

  A fair number of the artifacts in the cabinet dating from before 1961 would have reminded Lambshead of Helen Aquilus, a brilliant neurosurgeon whom he appears to have first met in 1939, courted until 1945, and finally married in 1950 (despite rumors of a chance encounter in 1919). She had accompanied him on several expeditions and emergency trips, as a colleague and fellow scientist. She had been present when Lambshead acquired many of his most famous artifacts, such as “The Thing in the Jar,” a puzzler that haunted Lambshead until his death (see: Further Oddities). She also helped him acquire a number of books, including a rare printing of Gascoyne’s Man’s Life Is This Meat. Some have, in fact, suggested that Lambshead turned toward the preservation of his collection and building of a space for it as a distraction from his grief following Helen’s death in an auto accident on a lonely country road in 1960.

  Other items had significance to Lambshead because he had had a hand in their discovery, like St. Brendan’s Shank, or in their creation, like the mask for Sir Ranulph Wykeham-Rackham, a.k.a. Roboticus. Perhaps most famous among these is the original of his psychedelic painting The Family from 1965, which for a time hung in the Tate Modern’s exhibit “Doctors as Painters, Blood in Paint.” In the painting, Death stares off into the distance while, behind it, a man who looks like Lambshead in his twenties stands next to a phantasmagorical rendering of Helen and her cousins.

  In many cases, too, these objects, as he said, “remind me of lost friends”—for example, St. Brendan’s Shank, which he came to possess during World War II, and which, as he wrote in his journal, “I spent many delightful days researching along with my comrades-in-arms, most of them, unfortunately, now lost to us from war, time, disease, accident, and heartbreak.”

  One of the few museum exhibit loans ever to have been photographed (Zurich, 1970s)—presented as evidence to support Caitlin R. Kiernan’s accusations of Lambshead using artifacts to convey secret messages. She claims that Russian artist Vladimir Gvozdev, the creator of the mecha-rhino above, does not exist, and is a front for the “Sino-Siberian cells of a secret society.”

  Dr. Lambshead’s Personal Life

  In searching for a theme or approach to the cabinet, it may be relevant to return to the subject of Lambshead’s wife. Throughout his life, and even after her death, Lambshead kept his attachment to Helen almost as secret as his cabinet, and The Thackery T. Lambshead Pocket Guide to Eccentric & Discredited Diseases never mentioned her, or referenced the marriage. Aquilus, a Cypriote Greek, came from a long line of dissenters and activists, and had originally left Athens to go to school at Oxford. She was and, at first, often seen as a beard for the doctor, since he was known to be bisexual and somewhat hedonistic in his appetites.

 
Aquilus, though, was a force and a character in her own right: a groundbreaking neuroscientist and surgeon in an era when females in those fields were unheard of; a researcher who worked for the British government during World War II to perfect triage for traumatic head wounds on the battlefield; and a champion at dressage who combined such a knack for negotiation with forcefulness of will that for a time she entered the political sphere as a spokesperson for the Socialist Party. Possessed of prodigious strength, she could also “shoot like a sniper” and “pilot or commandeer any damn boat, frigate, sampan, freighter, destroyer, or aircraft carrier you care to name,” Lambshead wrote admiringly in a late 1950s letter to Moorcock.