{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/3899", "note": "Exported from an unofficial mirror of a public mailing list. Copyright in each message remains with the person who wrote it. Email addresses are obscured as `user at host`, the form the original archive published. This file was rebuilt from parsed fields rather than retained headers, so it is faithful in content but not byte-exact.", "addresses": "obscured as 'user at host'" }, "archive": "urth", "thread": { "id": 3899, "subject": "My boy Hyacinth and Textual Analysis", "messages": 2, "voices": 2, "first": "2003-03-14T17:01:45+00:00", "last": "2003-03-15T01:56:25+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at hotpop.com" }, "date": "2003-03-14T17:01:45+00:00", "subject": "RE: (urth) My boy Hyacinth and Textual Analysis", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Charles Reed admonishes:\nNow you're verging on slandering those of us who prefer to analyze the\ntext on its own merits first and foremost.\n\nCrush tries to mend some bridges:\nLooking at the way my e-mail ended up finally being formatted (after\nconversion to pure text) I see my bullets suggest a different thrust than I\noriginally intended.\n\nWhat I intended was:\n\"\no All characters are telling the truth unless the narrator says otherwise\no No characters are wrong in observations unless the narrator says otherwise\no All things are as they are presented unless the narrator says otherwise\no Ignore extra-textual plot-lines regardless of how closely they may seem to\nfollow the story unless the narrator says otherwise\n\"\nDoes that approach a fair analysis? Perhaps there is still some hyperbole\nthere. I certainly haven't discoursed with anybody on this list that I would\ncall a 'lazy reader'. But it is not hyperbole to say that I latched on to\nthe \"male-Hyacinth\" theory solely from clues in the text, and that I now\nconsider it to have been a mistake for purely thematic reasons.\n\nAnd since I find myself serendipitously discoursing with you, Charles, and\nsince the posting of mine that you referenced regarded the surety of Wolfe's\n\"unambiguous\" answers, I think it is a good time talk about how important it\nis for one to count his change when Wolfe is being \"clear\".\n\nFor that purpose I'd like to bring up the \"Quetzal on Urth\" theory that you\nso long ago smote. This was the text:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Here's a quote of interest from that transcript for\neverybody that's been following this Quetzal-on-Urth discussion:\n\n Question: In the Long Sun books, is Quetzal the only\n one of his kind on the Whorl? Was he an original\n passenger or a late arrival?\n\n Gene Wolfe: He was a late arrival. He is not the only\n one of his kind, but the Inhumi are rare on the Whorl.\n\nI still believe it to be relatively clear from the text that Quetzal is\na late boarder, but maybe this will convince some of the doubters.\nCrush, don't you have to give in now? Or do you believe Gene Wolfe to\nbe so sadistic as to outright lie about his own books?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I conceded then, but I must confess to recidivism. Quetzal was never on Urth\nbut Wolfe's answer does not preclude **any** Inhumi being there. I\nthick-headedly associated only Quetzal with Dionysus when of course I was\naware that it is the entire race that Wolfe has so associated. You no doubt\nassume he was being frank. I do not and I point out that he promised to try\nto dodge questions. Does it not bother you that with the large number of\nterse and obviously ambivalent answers he gave, that for this one, he\nrelatively droned on and on?\n\nNow I recommend you get Graves' \"The Greek Myths\" and look up the entry\nentitled 'Midas'. Read the first section and tell me that is not the story\nof the Whorl.\n\nI've explained, how Quetzal and Typhon are the 'two horned ones' mentioned\nby Graves and other Wolfean sources. So I ask you this? Why did Quetzal\nplant a tamarind tree under his window? Of all the trees he could have\nplanted, why that? Well, darn it there are a lot of reasons, but to\nreference one important reason, I recommend you check out the South Asian\nversion of the \"Midas-receiving-donkey-ears\" story. In that story, the King\ngrows **horns**. Oops! Nevermind, I googled for it:\nhttp://www.vrindavan.org/vrindakunja/sukamr/english-amrita/Trees.htm\n\nSo, independently, I've rummaged around and followed several trails to the\nsame place, all leading to Dionysus and Midas, with the same characters and\ncritters popping up in the same roles. This is DEFINITELY thematic rather\nthan textual analysis, but it is based on names, choices and clues provided\nby Wolfe. I'm not writing my own novel here.\n\nAnd while it's appealing to me to use Noah to connect Quetzalcoatl with\nDionysus (through the Inhumi) I would never have considered it until I saw\nhow closely Wolfe was following Graves' retelling of Midas. What are the\nodds, that it is all coincidental, really.\n\nAs it is, I just can't see any point in waiting for Wolfe to break down and\nconfess; I think the evidence is all there.\n\nHmmm. On the other hand there is the Neighbors....\n;-)\n-- Crush" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Lisa Schaffer-Doggett", "address": "harlekin at earthlink.net" }, "date": "2003-03-15T01:56:25+00:00", "subject": "Re: (urth) My boy Hyacinth and Textual Analysis", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Friday, March 14, 2003, at 09:01 AM, James Wynn wrote:\n\nSo, independently, I've rummaged around and followed several trails to \nthe\nsame place, all leading to Dionysus and Midas, with the same \ncharacters and\ncritters popping up in the same roles. This is DEFINITELY thematic \nrather\nthan textual analysis, but it is based on names, choices and clues \nprovided\nby Wolfe. I'm not writing my own novel here.\n\nAnd while it's appealing to me to use Noah to connect Quetzalcoatl with\nDionysus (through the Inhumi) I would never have considered it until I \nsaw\nhow closely Wolfe was following Graves' retelling of Midas. What are \nthe\nodds, that it is all coincidental, really.\n\nAs it is, I just can't see any point in waiting for Wolfe to break \ndown and\nconfess; I think the evidence is all there." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Don offers his opinionated opinion:\n\nIt is relatively easy to see Graves in Wolfe because of his relative \nunorthodoxy regarding myths and their connections. I'm not saying that \nWolfe is rewriting Graves, nor is he falling into allegory (it is \nobvious that the needs of story are paramount to all other elements) \nbut the Sun books are steeped in Gravesian symbolism and it is a very \nuseful tool." } ] } ] }