(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)

[John Watkins]

Whether or not Hyacinth is intended to be transgendered, there is clearly
something "seriously wrong with" her.

On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM, <brunians at brunians.org> wrote:

> Gene Wolfe is not exactly homophobic; as far as I know, he loves the
> sinner and thinks that the sin is no worse than a lot of things hetro
> people get up to. There are many gay characters in his works, and they are
> often presented sympathetically. I do not, however, believe that Hyacinth
> is or was intended to be transgendered. I note that all of his gay
> characters (at least the ones I call to mind right now) have something
> seriously wrong with them, even if some of them are not actively evile.
>
> I certainly intend to clarify this if I should meet him again.
>
>
> .
>
> > Not to bring up the old "authorial fallacy" here, but if he wrote the
> > books in such a way that they support the "male chem/once male"
> > possibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact makes it a
> > compelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said after the fact.
> > Granted, we're talking about a potential plot point which is different
> > than a reader's interpretation. But with a writing style that often works
> > by indirection and suggestion, he runs the risk of this kind of thing
> > getting out of his control. He may know how it all adds up in his head,
> > but, as the rest of us know, there are *vastly* different readings of his
> > books that are out there and that all claim to have "solved" various
> > puzzles in jaw-droppingly idiosyncratic ways. If his books lend
> themselves
> > to this kind of reaction, then I wonder if Wolfe is really always the
> best
> > reader of Wolfe, if that means we have to divine exactly what he thought
> > in order to "get" the books. I mean,
> >  any book that requires the author to explain it or to verify things
> > beyond the covers of the book seems like a failed book. I'd rather deal
> > with the text than with what Wolfe thought it meant before (or even
> > after) he published it. Once it's out there (barring a revision), the
> > text is definitive, not Wolfe.
> >
> > (And with that, I step down from an
> > undergraduate-styled-podium-of-Foucault-ness...heh...)
> >
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message ----
> > From: "brunians at brunians.org" <brunians at brunians.org>
> > To: The Urth Mailing List <urth at lists.urth.net>
> > Sent: Sat, January 16, 2010 2:13:18 PM
> > Subject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)
> >
> > Maybe for you, who was not there, it doesn't.
> >
> >
> > .
> >
> >
> >> brunians wrote:
> >>
> >>> In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was
> >>> bouncing
> >>> around the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.
> >>>
> >>> He remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list.
> >>>
> >> Of course, since "male chem" and "once male" are two entirely
> >> different things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at
> >> all.
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> Urth Mailing List
> >> To post, write urth at urth.net
> >> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urth Mailing List
> > To post, write urth at urth.net
> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Urth Mailing List
> > To post, write urth at urth.net
> > Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
> >
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100116/dc3e56af/attachment-0002.htm>