(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)

[brunians at brunians.org]

Very well taken, John.

.


> 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
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net