(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)

brunians at brunians.org brunians at brunians.org
Sat Jan 16 13:32:58 PST 2010


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
>





More information about the Urth mailing list