E M Farrell writes:

 

Hi, another lurker posting for the first time. I hope I do this correctly and don't break anything.

 

 

 

I don't believe they are mistakes by VN. I believe the inconsistencies are deliberate.

 

For the surface story, the inconsistencies (including the commentator's remark about Sybil hating the wind (poem line 656) and his referring to Shade being sixty in comments to lines 431 and 167) seem to not only to indicate that the commentator is not writing his story in a linear manner but he is also pulling information, for his story, from the poem. The commentator writes three comments to the poem, lines 167, 181 and 431, about Shade being sixty then, actually reading (?) line 181 of the poem, corrects only the comment to line 167. Strange he didn't go back to correct the comments for lines 181 and 431 but maybe, as with line 12, he had "no time for such stupidities".

 

If the comments mean anything else or are part of the warp and weft game the commentator seems to be playing, I don't know. The only thing they appear to have in common is being written, by Shade, on days the commentator had an unpleasant experience with the Shades. Line 181 on July 5 (day of the birthday party), line 275 on July 7 (meets Shades in town), line 431 on July 10-11 (knocks over Shade's garbage can. Vague in poem and commentary as to exact date) and line 656 on July 15 (meeting in Shade's kitchen).

 

 

 

I'm leaning towards anamorphosis being the commentator and John Shade's poem. I do believe John Shade is dead when the commentator writes his version of events, so only Shade's shade, his autobiographical poem, can contribute to the reveal.