{ "export": { "source": "https://urth.darkrealm.vip/thread/urth/5534", "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": 5534, "subject": "Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "messages": 36, "voices": 12, "first": "2010-01-12T15:32:43+00:00", "last": "2010-01-19T14:32:50+00:00" }, "messages": [ { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tom Hopkins", "address": "topkins at hotmail.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-01-12T15:32:43+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": null, "reply_link": null, "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty understanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in the Short Sun books. I am unclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of the New Sun books, or his first\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant to accept that Severian did\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one would believe him as he\nstates, because Severian includes many wild adventures which seem even less\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency with Merryn appearing in the\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each other to a greater extent and I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention something in that regard in the\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another brief meeting between them as a\nchild. \n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and I am convinced there is\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more feasible explanation. As at the\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and unneeded yet I feel this must be a\nfault with my own understanding of the text, rather than Wolfe’s work. \n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of theories on the matter, even If it\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and he just fails to mention\nSilkHorn.\n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<8014.67.142.130.46.1263310730.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-12T15:38:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He hadn't planned it out, Tom.\n\nWhen he wrote the New Sun he had no idea there was going to be a Short Sun.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty understanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in the Short Sun books. I am\nunclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of the New Sun books, or his\nfirst\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant to accept that Severian\ndid\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one would believe him as he\nstates, because Severian includes many wild adventures which seem even\nless\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency with Merryn appearing in\nthe\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each other to a greater extent\nand I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention something in that regard in\nthe\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another brief meeting between them as\na\nchild.\n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and I am convinced there is\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more feasible explanation. As at\nthe\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and unneeded yet I feel this must\nbe a\nfault with my own understanding of the text, rather than Wolfe’s work.\n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of theories on the matter, even If\nit\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and he just fails to mention\nSilkHorn.\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nGot a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now\nhttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tom Hopkins", "address": "topkins at hotmail.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-01-12T15:47:45+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<8014.67.142.130.46.1263310730.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Sorry If I wasn't clear but I was more asking why he felt\nthe need to add him to the Short Sun books in the first place? As it goes it\nseems to me to be one of the worst ways to include him in the narrative, as it\nis in a way that comes close to contradicting the text of the New Sun; and then\ntoo explain it all away by saying he neglected to mention it, is either very\nshoddy writing, (which I highly doubt in Wolfe’s case) or something more." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:38:50 -0500\nFrom: brunians at brunians.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nCC: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nHe hadn't planned it out, Tom.\n\nWhen he wrote the New Sun he had no idea there was going to be a Short Sun.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty understanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in the Short Sun books. I am\nunclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of the New Sun books, or his\nfirst\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant to accept that Severian\ndid\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one would believe him as he\nstates, because Severian includes many wild adventures which seem even\nless\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency with Merryn appearing in\nthe\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each other to a greater extent\nand I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention something in that regard in\nthe\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another brief meeting between them as\na\nchild.\n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and I am convinced there is\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more feasible explanation. As at\nthe\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and unneeded yet I feel this must\nbe a\nfault with my own understanding of the text, rather than Wolfe’s work.\n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of theories on the matter, even If\nit\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and he just fails to mention\nSilkHorn.\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nGot a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now\nhttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<7666.67.142.130.46.1263312618.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-12T16:10:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He's making you think, isn't he?\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sorry If I wasn't clear but I was more asking why he felt\nthe need to add him to the Short Sun books in the first place? As it goes\nit\nseems to me to be one of the worst ways to include him in the narrative,\nas it\nis in a way that comes close to contradicting the text of the New Sun; and\nthen\ntoo explain it all away by saying he neglected to mention it, is either\nvery\nshoddy writing, (which I highly doubt in Wolfe’s case) or something more." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:38:50 -0500\nFrom: brunians at brunians.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nCC: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nHe hadn't planned it out, Tom.\n\nWhen he wrote the New Sun he had no idea there was going to be a Short\nSun.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty understanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in the Short Sun books. I\nam\nunclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of the New Sun books, or\nhis\nfirst\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant to accept that\nSeverian\ndid\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one would believe him as\nhe\nstates, because Severian includes many wild adventures which seem even\nless\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency with Merryn appearing\nin\nthe\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each other to a greater\nextent\nand I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention something in that regard\nin\nthe\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another brief meeting between\nthem as\na\nchild.\n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and I am convinced there\nis\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more feasible explanation. As\nat\nthe\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and unneeded yet I feel this\nmust\nbe a\nfault with my own understanding of the text, rather than Wolfe’s work.\n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of theories on the matter, even\nIf\nit\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and he just fails to\nmention\nSilkHorn.\n\n\n_________________________________________________________________\nGot a cool Hotmail story? Tell us now\nhttp://clk.atdmt.com/UKM/go/195013117/direct/01/_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4B4CAAAF.5000901@io.com>", "from": { "name": "Jeff Wilson", "address": "jwilson at io.com" }, "date": "2010-01-12T17:00:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On 1/12/2010 9:47 AM, Tom Hopkins wrote:\nSorry If I wasn't clear but I was more asking why he felt the need to\nadd him to the Short Sun books in the first place? As it goes it seems\nto me to be one of the worst ways to include him in the narrative, as it\nis in a way that comes close to contradicting the text of the New Sun;\nand then too explain it all away by saying he neglected to mention it,\nis either very shoddy writing, (which I highly doubt in Wolfe’s case) or\nsomething more." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "There is some precedent in that Wolfe began to say that he considers \nUrth to be in a previous universal cycle to ours, despite allowing the \nnigh-universal textev-based perception that it simply follows our \nparticular age in history to stand unchallenged for years; at least, \nthis is my impression, if someone else knows of some statement of \nwolfe's in the interim, please speak up!\n\nIt seems likely to me that this is because it slipped his mind until \nthen that the drowning of Urth otherwise belies G-d's promise to Noah to \nnever again destroy the world by water." }, { "kind": "sig", "depth": 0, "text": "Jeff Wilson - jwilson at io.com\nIEEE Student Chapter Blog at\n< http://ieeetamut.org >" } ] }, { "message_id": "<907652.74759.qm@web50707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Jerry Friedman", "address": "jerry_friedman at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-01-12T18:06:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "--- On Tue, 1/12/10, Tom Hopkins wrote:\n\nI agree completely. Wolfe said that astral projection\nmade the possibility of Silkhorn's meeting Severian a\n\"gun on the wall\", but I've felt since I first read the\npassage that the gun would have been better left\nunfired.\n\nIn addition to your criticisms, I have a superficial one:\nI was disappointed to read that torturers' cloaks have\nred linings.\n\nYes, Josh, it made me think, but not in any way that\nhelped me enjoy the book.\n\nJerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Sorry If I wasn't clear but I was\nmore asking why he felt\nthe need to add him to the Short Sun books in the first\nplace? As it goes it\nseems to me to be one of the worst ways to include him in\nthe narrative, as it\nis in a way that comes close to contradicting the text of\nthe New Sun; and then\ntoo explain it all away by saying he neglected to mention\nit, is either very\nshoddy writing, (which I highly doubt in Wolfe’s case) or\nsomething more." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:38:50 -0500\nFrom: brunians at brunians.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nCC: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance\n(Spoilers)\n\nHe hadn't planned it out, Tom.\n\nWhen he wrote the New Sun he had no idea there was\ngoing to be a Short Sun.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty\nunderstanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in\nthe Short Sun books. I am\nunclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of\nthe New Sun books, or his\nfirst\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant\nto accept that Severian\ndid\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one\nwould believe him as he\nstates, because Severian includes many wild\nadventures which seem even\nless\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency\nwith Merryn appearing in\nthe\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each\nother to a greater extent\nand I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention\nsomething in that regard in\nthe\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another\nbrief meeting between them as\na\nchild.\n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and\nI am convinced there is\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more\nfeasible explanation. As at\nthe\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and\nunneeded yet I feel this must\nbe a\nfault with my own understanding of the text,\nrather than Wolfe’s work.\n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of\ntheories on the matter, even If\nit\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and\nhe just fails to mention\nSilkHorn." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tom Hopkins", "address": "topkins at hotmail.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-01-12T18:47:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<907652.74759.qm@web50707.mail.re2.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think in some ways it could create some interesting\npossibilities. If it really is the Severian from New Sun he meets, then could\nit not possible mean everything from Silks initial enlightment to his gaining\nthe power of astral projection were simply given to him so he could influence\nSeverian into bringing the New Sun? We already know that the Severian we know\nhas multiple people who meddle in his timeline to help him bring the New Sun,\nwhat's one more? \n\n\n\nBut the main problem I have is that he doesn't mention meeting SilkHorn in New\nSun, which I'm certain he would do. For someone who claims to never forget to\nnot record something that important to his life, something that inspired the\nrecording of his life’s work would surely feature heavily in his musing. As we\nso often see Severian contemplate a range of ideas, I feel there can be no way\nhe would leave it out, as seeing an image of a seeming holy man who can shift\nthe world around him would surely play into his deepening consideration of the\nIncreate.\n\n\n\nBasically it is my view that the Severian included in Short Sun cannot be the\nsame Severian in New Sun, or rather the same iteration of him; even if it does\nheavily hint that it is. I'm sure some could argue that it could be related to\nSeverian saying in New Sun about how he thought he might be insane, but because\nmultiple people saw SilkHorn and surely the consequences of his actions would\nhave been widespread, It seems unlikely that Severian could attribute his\nappearance to his sanity. \n\n\n\nThe whole meeting between SilkHorn and Severian seems off to me; lots of little\nthings which are not the way they should be. The fact of Severian and Merryn\nwhich I mentioned earlier, and that she even says, \"He is my\nbrother,\" and does then go onto clarify that she meant about the relationship\nbetween the torturers and the witches. But after all these years of theories\nconcerning who Severians sister is, and so little hints, would Gene Wolfe who is renowned for his\ntricksy writing say something as crass as that? For me that seems far too\nobvious, so therefore must be misdirection, but to what purpose I'm unsure." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:06:38 -0800\nFrom: jerry_friedman at yahoo.com\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\n--- On Tue, 1/12/10, Tom Hopkins wrote:\n\nI agree completely. Wolfe said that astral projection\nmade the possibility of Silkhorn's meeting Severian a\n\"gun on the wall\", but I've felt since I first read the\npassage that the gun would have been better left\nunfired.\n\nIn addition to your criticisms, I have a superficial one:\nI was disappointed to read that torturers' cloaks have\nred linings.\n\nYes, Josh, it made me think, but not in any way that\nhelped me enjoy the book.\n\nJerry Friedman" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Sorry If I wasn't clear but I was\nmore asking why he felt\nthe need to add him to the Short Sun books in the first\nplace? As it goes it\nseems to me to be one of the worst ways to include him in\nthe narrative, as it\nis in a way that comes close to contradicting the text of\nthe New Sun; and then\ntoo explain it all away by saying he neglected to mention\nit, is either very\nshoddy writing, (which I highly doubt in Wolfe’s case) or\nsomething more." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Date: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 10:38:50 -0500\nFrom: brunians at brunians.org\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nCC: urth at urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance\n(Spoilers)\n\nHe hadn't planned it out, Tom.\n\nWhen he wrote the New Sun he had no idea there was\ngoing to be a Short Sun.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "One of the main problems I have difficulty\nunderstanding is\nwhy Wolfe felt the need to include Severian in\nthe Short Sun books. I am\nunclear\non whether this is meant to be the Severian of\nthe New Sun books, or his\nfirst\niteration or maybe another. I find I am reluctant\nto accept that Severian\ndid\nnot include SilkHorn in the books because no one\nwould believe him as he\nstates, because Severian includes many wild\nadventures which seem even\nless\nlikely. Also I think it creates an inconsistency\nwith Merryn appearing in\nthe\nNew Sun book, surely they would recognise each\nother to a greater extent\nand I\ncan't imagine Severian neglecting to mention\nsomething in that regard in\nthe\nnarrative; especially as he mentions another\nbrief meeting between them as\na\nchild.\n\n\n\nIn my mind It simply does not seem to add up, and\nI am convinced there is\nsomething I am missing which makes for a more\nfeasible explanation. As at\nthe\nmomment it comes across to me as shoddy and\nunneeded yet I feel this must\nbe a\nfault with my own understanding of the text,\nrather than Wolfe’s work.\n\n\n\nSo I'd greatly appreciate any thoughts of\ntheories on the matter, even If\nit\nhappens to be it is the Severian from New Sun and\nhe just fails to mention\nSilkHorn." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<44fb53d11001121112p33db7f25ge5fb2c045b3ab4e0@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Matthew Keeley", "address": "matthew.keeley.1 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-12T19:12:08+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Severian's a generally dishonest and unreliable narrator, but he does\ntell SilkHorn that he won't ever tell of their meeting. As Sev\nprobably doesn't completely understand how much SilkHorn influenced\nhim, he feels no need to break the \"promise\" he made in his casual\nstatement. In New Sun, Sev acknowledges that he has broken many\npromises, but that doesn't mean that he likes breaking them. I could\nsee him taking some satisfaction in not writing about SilkHorn.\n\nAnd surely Severian encounters all kinds of fascinating things that he\ndoesn't tell us about. His life as autarch was doubtless fascinating,\nbut we don''t hear too many details about things he did as ruler, his\ncourtship of his wife, etc. Other things Severian just doesn't feel\nlike writing about, i.e. most of the executions and excruciations he's\npaid to perform.\n\nBut yes, one does wish Sev had mentioned SilkHorn. Or that Wolfe had\ntranslated a manuscript with curious gaps and missing pages.\n\n-Matt" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1895.67.142.130.46.1263324013.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-12T19:20:13+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<44fb53d11001121112p33db7f25ge5fb2c045b3ab4e0@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Unreliable, certainly, but dishonest? I don't think he is particularly\ndishonest. When does he actually lie?\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Severian's a generally dishonest and unreliable narrator, but he does\ntell SilkHorn that he won't ever tell of their meeting. As Sev\nprobably doesn't completely understand how much SilkHorn influenced\nhim, he feels no need to break the \"promise\" he made in his casual\nstatement. In New Sun, Sev acknowledges that he has broken many\npromises, but that doesn't mean that he likes breaking them. I could\nsee him taking some satisfaction in not writing about SilkHorn.\n\nAnd surely Severian encounters all kinds of fascinating things that he\ndoesn't tell us about. His life as autarch was doubtless fascinating,\nbut we don''t hear too many details about things he did as ruler, his\ncourtship of his wife, etc. Other things Severian just doesn't feel\nlike writing about, i.e. most of the executions and excruciations he's\npaid to perform.\n\nBut yes, one does wish Sev had mentioned SilkHorn. Or that Wolfe had\ntranslated a manuscript with curious gaps and missing pages.\n\n-Matt\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<4B4CD11E.6000204@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-01-12T19:44:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1895.67.142.130.46.1263324013.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "First, apologies for posting the entire digest last time!\n\nI too had some trouble with that episode. But I'd respond with 2 comments:\n\n(1) Why would Silk/Horn be part of Severian's story of his rise to the throne/ascent to godhood? That is after all the rhetorical thrust of his narrative. Random meetings with gods and ghosts that he may not even understand would not necessarily belong in it. And if he already believes in such beings, why would he even comment?\n\n(2) Wolfe plainly wrote Urth to fill in gaps and make Book more accessible---he states this somewhere. With Merryn, I'd guess he wanted to tie up another loose end as well as clarify that Short Sun is in the same cycle as New Sun. Pretty mundane but important motives." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "------------------------------\n\nMessage: 6\nDate: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 18:47:17 +0000\nFrom: Tom Hopkins \nTo: \nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\nMessage-ID: \nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"windows-1252\"\n\n\n\n\nI think in some ways it could create some interesting\npossibilities. If it really is the Severian from New Sun he meets, then could\nit not possible mean everything from Silks initial enlightment to his gaining\nthe power of astral projection were simply given to him so he could influence\nSeverian into bringing the New Sun? We already know that the Severian we know\nhas multiple people who meddle in his timeline to help him bring the New Sun,\nwhat's one more? \n\n\n\nBut the main problem I have is that he doesn't mention meeting SilkHorn in New\nSun, which I'm certain he would do. For someone who claims to never forget to\nnot record something that important to his life, something that inspired the\nrecording of his life’s work would surely feature heavily in his musing. As we\nso often see Severian contemplate a range of ideas, I feel there can be no way\nhe would leave it out, as seeing an image of a seeming holy man who can shift\nthe world around him would surely play into his deepening consideration of the\nIncreate.\n\n\n\nBasically it is my view that the Severian included in Short Sun cannot be the\nsame Severian in New Sun, or rather the same iteration of him; even if it does\nheavily hint that it is. I'm sure some could argue that it could be related to\nSeverian saying in New Sun about how he thought he might be insane, but because\nmultiple people saw SilkHorn and surely the consequences of his actions would\nhave been widespread, It seems unlikely that Severian could attribute his\nappearance to his sanity. \n\n\n\nThe whole meeting between SilkHorn and Severian seems off to me; lots of little\nthings which are not the way they should be. The fact of Severian and Merryn\nwhich I mentioned earlier, and that she even says, \"He is my\nbrother,\" and does then go onto clarify that she meant about the relationship\nbetween the torturers and the witches. But after all these years of theories\nconcerning who Severians sister is, and so little hints, would Gene Wolfe who is renowned for his\ntricksy writing say something as crass as that? For me that seems far too\nobvious, so therefore must be misdirection, but to what purpose I'm unsure." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1bf4dd41001121552r6d24fdf0n65b2c846980200dd@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-12T23:52:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<4B4CD11E.6000204@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nWhy would Silk/Horn be part of Severian's story of his rise to the throne/ascent to godhood?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Isn't he a significant part of the story? Nobody has mentioned that\nSilk/Horn is identified by Severian as Malrubius. Indeed, the aquastor\nMalrubius of the BOTNS is probably strongly influenced by the memories of\nSilk/Horn as opposed to what the man himself was like. If Severian made no\ndistinction between them, his promise to write nothing about Silk/Horn was a\nlie, as we would expect from him.\n\nBut the Severian seen in BOTSS is probably an earlier iteration of the\nSeverian who wrote BOTNS. Inconsistencies abound:\n1) He keeps Triskele longer in BOTSS (into Spring).\n2) He knows Merryn better and earlier.\n3) His ambitions are better-defined at a young age (to become a guild head,\nand to write).\n\nThere would seem to be many iterations on the way to building the Severian\nwho can bring the New Sun. This one needed the early influence of Silk/Horn,\nand the next iterations will also (possibly replaced with an aquastor all\nthe way through)." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Tom Hopkins", "address": "topkins at hotmail.co.uk" }, "date": "2010-01-13T00:25:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001121552r6d24fdf0n65b2c846980200dd@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I always\nthought that Severian merely said he was not going to write about SilkHorn\nrather than promise it? \n\n\n\nAlso if we agree this is a previous iteration, surely that would mean that in\nour New Sun timeline something must happen to Silk or SilkHorn to prevent him\nfrom contacting Severian?\n\nI think one possible option is that in this iteration the Outsider does not\nenlighten Silk, however seeing as he acts as a more \"Godly\" presence,\nI don't think he would have made the mistake of enlightening Silk if it was the\nwrong decision. \n\n\n\nI propose it's more likely to do with the Mother figure or an agent of hers\n(Sea Wrack), she would have ample opportunity to dispatch of Horn on his\ninitial journey or even when he returns as SilkHorn. As the motivations\nconcerning the brides of Albaia are ambiguous and vague I don't see this as too\nunlikely an explanation if they feel the New Sun would benefit them. \n\n\n\nHowever it does raise the question that in doing so, they would be rebelling\nagainst the will of the Outsider himself. If he sent Silk (intially by the\nenlightenment) to contact Severian ( If we deem this an alternate Severian who\ndoes not bring the New Sun due to the inconstancies David Stockhoff mentioned)\nthen either his mission was to prevent the bringing of the New Sun which seems\nunlikely, or he is fallible which seems equally unlikely. So I'm not sure if\nthat is the correct theory after all.\n\n\nUnless\nthis was the creation of the First Severian who is created in such a way as to\ninfluence the creation of the Second Severian (who would then suceed in\nbringing the New Sun). This then implies that whilst Severian 1 was not special\nto the Hierogrammates or any of the other parties in TBNS, (In the fact he was\nwhat caused them to realise his potential for \"saving\" Urth,\nand as such they then influenced Severian 2 as they saw fit) , but he was in\nfact special to the Outsider himself. By this I mean the Severian 1 was\ninfluenced in such a way by the Outsider, that the other parties would see his\npotential and therefore create Severian 2 who goes on to fulfil his mission.\nSorry If I have presented this Idea poorly. \n\n\n\nI believe\nthat’s a viable explanation as long as we accept the Outsider is all knowing.\nIt also requires the least interference from the Outsider himself (simply Silks\nenlightenment, and his possible resurrection in the tunnel later) as he\nmanipulates the Hireogrammates and the other parties such as the Brides of\nAlbaia to do the work for him.\n\nDate: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:52:31 -0700\nFrom: davetallman at msn.com\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:\nWhy would Silk/Horn be part of Severian's story of his rise to the throne/ascent to godhood?\n\nIsn't he a significant part of the story? Nobody has mentioned that Silk/Horn is identified by Severian as Malrubius. Indeed, the aquastor Malrubius of the BOTNS is probably strongly influenced by the memories of Silk/Horn as opposed to what the man himself was like. If Severian made no distinction between them, his promise to write nothing about Silk/Horn was a lie, as we would expect from him.\n\n\nBut the Severian seen in BOTSS is probably an earlier iteration of the Severian who wrote BOTNS. Inconsistencies abound:\n1) He keeps Triskele longer in BOTSS (into Spring).\n2) He knows Merryn better and earlier.\n\n3) His ambitions are better-defined at a young age (to become a guild head, and to write).\n\nThere would seem to be many iterations on the way to building the Severian who can bring the New Sun. This one needed the early influence of Silk/Horn, and the next iterations will also (possibly replaced with an aquastor all the way through).\n\n\n \t\t \t \t\t " } ] }, { "message_id": "<4B4D15D5.40806@verizon.net>", "from": { "name": "David Stockhoff", "address": "dstockhoff at verizon.net" }, "date": "2010-01-13T00:37:41+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Well that not only answers the question but obliterates it! Well done. \n\nI didn't know Silk/Horn was Malrubius. Pray continue ..." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "----------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nMessage: 1\nDate: Tue, 12 Jan 2010 16:52:31 -0700\nFrom: Dave Tallman \nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\nMessage-ID:\n\t<1bf4dd41001121552r6d24fdf0n65b2c846980200dd at mail.gmail.com>\nContent-Type: text/plain; charset=\"iso-8859-1\"\n\nDavid Stockhoff wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Why would Silk/Horn be part of Severian's story of his rise to the throne/ascent to godhood?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": " \nIsn't he a significant part of the story? Nobody has mentioned that\nSilk/Horn is identified by Severian as Malrubius. Indeed, the aquastor\nMalrubius of the BOTNS is probably strongly influenced by the memories of\nSilk/Horn as opposed to what the man himself was like. If Severian made no\ndistinction between them, his promise to write nothing about Silk/Horn was a\nlie, as we would expect from him." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4B4EC2EF.9070309@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-14T07:08:31+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<4B4D15D5.40806@verizon.net>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "David Stockhoff wrote:\nI didn't know Silk/Horn was Malrubius. Pray continue ...\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The name Malrubius occurs two times in TRTTW. The first time, Severian \nis talking to Silk/Horn during the jump from the trial; he refers to \nMaster Malrubius as another person in the past tense, \"Master Malrubius \nused to make a scribe come and help him twice a week\" (p. 263). Since \nthis was unpaid extorted service, we can assume that was the real man \n(probably deceased).\n\nThe second time, a big heavy man (probably Master Gurloes), is about to \nbeat Severian and gets interrupted by Oreb calling \"Watch out! Watch \nout!\". When Gurloes questions why the bird is there, Severian says, \"It \nbelongs to Master Malrubius, Master.\" Then Silk comes up and puts his \nhand on the big man's shoulder, scaring him away -- reacting as if he \nhad seen a ghost.\n\nThe astral appearance of Silk/Horn is different in the two cases. In the \nlatter, he looks like Silk alone (the Horn soul-part seems to have died \nafter the encounter with the real Scylla). The Silk-alone projection \nlooks enough like Master Malrubius that Severian mistakes him for the \nghost of Malrubius, I believe.\n\nThe intense goodness of this Silk projection influenced Severian, I \nthink. It may be why there is an encounter in BOTNS where the aquastor \nMalrubius asks him about loyalty to God.\n\nWhy the similarity of appearance between Silk and Malrubius? Well, Silk \nis a from a genetically enhanced embryo, probably a clone of someone in \nTyphon's time. So might the real Master Malrubius have been.\n\nCan we conclude from the presence of the enlightened/good Silk helping \nSeverian that God is on the side of bringing the New Sun, despite the \ndestruction it caused? It would seem so. (The person who thought it was \na second Noah's flood has completely misread the nature of the \ncatastrophes brought by the New Sun -- land sinking in some areas, \nrising in others as a result of tidal forces, along with some ocean \nlevel rising due to icecaps melting)." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-14T22:29:15+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001121552r6d24fdf0n65b2c846980200dd@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Isn't he a significant part of the story? Nobody has mentioned that\nSilk/Horn is identified by Severian as Malrubius." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Severian thought the Rajan was Malrubius (Silk and Malrubius did both\nhad eyesight issues), and Silk thought the Rajan was Patera Pike (IMO\nthe description of events of the night \"Pike's Ghost\" appears leaves\nno other explanation).\n\nA rather easy extrapolation on Don Dogget's \"New Sun\" Clones theory\nprovides a ready explanation for these misidentifications.\n\nFWIW\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<4B50890C.5000202@gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-15T15:26:04+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nSeverian thought the Rajan was Malrubius (Silk and Malrubius did both\nhad eyesight issues), and Silk thought the Rajan was Patera Pike (IMO\nthe description of events of the night \"Pike's Ghost\" appears leaves\nno other explanation).\n " }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I absolutely agree about the explanation of the \"ghost of Patera Pike,\" \nbut Pike need not be another clone for this to work. Silk saw the older \nastral-projected Silk only briefly, under a single light at the top of \nthe stairs, and from bottom to top as he came up the stairs. The calotte \nseems to have been eye-concealing under these lighting conditions. (Silk \nselected the calotte for his burglary at Blood's because it would \n\"supply a certain concealment\" even if his straw hat blew off)." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-15T17:13:17+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<4B50890C.5000202@gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Ehh...okay, but I'm not convinced.\n\nIncidentally, understanding that the Rajan is time-traveling through\nViron makes viable my personal opinion about the identity of\nHyacinth's \"father\" (an employee at the Juzgado whom Silk mentions\nthat he met with but whom never makes an \"on-screen\" appearance--even\nat the wedding). It was the Rajan again. Silk's mother wanted him to\ntake that career path rather than the priesthood, and he himself muses\nthat that he should have gone that way. So the Rajan takes advantage\nof dream-travel to finally realize that hope.\n\nAnd that is why Wolfe played peak-a-boo with this apparently\nsignificant character.\n\nJ." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I absolutely agree about the explanation of the \"ghost of Patera Pike,\"\n[it was the Rajan from the Short Sun] but\nPike need not be another clone for this to work. Silk saw the older\nastral-projected Silk only briefly, under a single light at the top of the\nstairs, and from bottom to top as he came up the stairs. The calotte seems\nto have been eye-concealing under these lighting conditions. (Silk selected\nthe calotte for his burglary at Blood's because it would \"supply a certain\nconcealment\" even if his straw hat blew off).\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1bf4dd41001150956j3476d259t9f70d45a6c516fe3@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Charles Tallman", "address": "rocketsunner at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-15T17:56:05+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nIncidentally, understanding that the Rajan is time-traveling through\nViron makes viable my personal opinion about the identity of\nHyacinth's \"father\" (an employee at the Juzgado whom Silk mentions\nthat he met with but whom never makes an \"on-screen\" appearance--even\nat the wedding). It was the Rajan again. Silk's mother wanted him to\ntake that career path rather than the priesthood, and he himself muses\nthat that he should have gone that way. So the Rajan takes advantage\nof dream-travel to finally realize that hope." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "You mean to say that Silk/Horn was the father of the woman he loved\nand married? Not to mention the horrific bad parenting of sex-changing\nhis son Hyacinthus and\nselling him to someone for a career advancement.\n\nThis is too squicky for me to contemplate, especially from the\nenlightened/good Silk." } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f1001150958xf53eda7va7544670ff4f8f28@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-15T17:58:30+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001150956j3476d259t9f70d45a6c516fe3@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I think (I hope) that James simply means that the Rajan is the person who\nidentified himself as Hyacinth's father to Silk.\n\nNot that the Rajan actually fathered Hyacinth." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Fri, Jan 15, 2010 at 12:56 PM, Charles Tallman wrote:\n James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Incidentally, understanding that the Rajan is time-traveling through\nViron makes viable my personal opinion about the identity of\nHyacinth's \"father\" (an employee at the Juzgado whom Silk mentions\nthat he met with but whom never makes an \"on-screen\" appearance--even\nat the wedding). It was the Rajan again. Silk's mother wanted him to\ntake that career path rather than the priesthood, and he himself muses\nthat that he should have gone that way. So the Rajan takes advantage\nof dream-travel to finally realize that hope." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You mean to say that Silk/Horn was the father of the woman he loved and married? Not to mention the horrific bad parenting of sex-changing his son Hyacinthus and\n\nselling him to someone for a career advancement.\n\nThis is too squicky for me to contemplate, especially from the enlightened/good Silk.\n\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-15T18:53:35+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001150956j3476d259t9f70d45a6c516fe3@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "You mean to say that Silk/Horn was the father of the woman he loved and\nmarried? Not to mention the horrific bad parenting of sex-changing his son\nHyacinthus and\nselling him to someone for a career advancement.\n\nThis is too squicky for me to contemplate, especially from the\nenlightened/good Silk." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "1) I don't equate the Rajan with Silk. Silk died. He slashed his wrists in front\nof Hyacinth's coffin. What's left of Silk is his body and his memory.\nFor Horn, all that's left is the memory of his memories.\nThe Rajan is in love with Seawrack, not Hyacinth.\n\n2) I mean to say that the Rajan uses terms like \"father\", \"daughter\",\netc. very loosely.\nHe referred to Jahlee as his sister and daughter.\nHe told Hide (or Hoof, can't remember now) that Jahlee was his sister or aunt.\n\nAlthough I once postulated years ago on my first read that Hy might be\na male chem,\nI have happily rejected even the possibility of that since then.\nIt is true that Marc Aramini has postulated that Hy might be male, but\nI don't think so.\nThere's very good reasons to draw those conclusions but there are\nbetter explanations,\nI think.\n\nEverything we think we know about Hy's chidhood comes from Chenille, who seems\nto know more than she lets on but I don't think she knows everything.\n\nLet me offer an analogy. Remember when the Rajan and Jahlee and Hide (or Hoof)\ntravelled to Urth, and Jahlee --an inhuma in her dream-travel, fully\nhuman body--\nbegan wantonly coming on to the guard at the Torturer's keep? What do\nyou suppose\nwas the attitude of that guard to the Rajan? Whom he must have\nsupposed was her father\nor at least her protector? Probably not so great. But he wasn't really\nher father in the way\nthe guard thought and frankly there wasn't much to be done to control\nher anyway.\n\nChenille says Hy came to work for a commissioner to keep his kids\n(\"eight or nine sprats I guess\"). She sums things up with \"and you know what\nhappened then-she didn't have to work much\".\nEven Chenille doesn't claim her father sold her as a prostitute.\nThat's merely a conclusion\nthe reader tends to draw.\nWe don't know that it was \"her father's\" choice for her to take that\njob, and what\nthe job turned into might as well have been all Hy's doing,\n\nStrip out what we *think* Chenille is implying and what do we have?\n* Hy took a job.\n* The commissioner gave her \"father\" a job.\nNow imagine all the ways that scenario could be reinterpreted.\nWe're left with an insufficiently attentive father. But if her father\nwas the Rajan, then he almost\ncertainly wasn't her \"real\" father,and the Rajan doesn't force anyone\nto do anything. He just advises.\n\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1bf4dd41001151616n3a3237abye83496a8fbb643ba@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T00:16:52+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:\nChenille says Hy came to work for a commissioner to keep his kids\n(\"eight or nine sprats I guess\")." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The \"eight or nine sprats\" are actually Hyacinth's brothers and sisters.\nHere is the context. The commissioner said he wanted a maid, not a nanny.\nThe interjection about sprats suggests why her father could spare her, and\nhis desperation to have a better-paying job. It looks like a sale to me. And\nif this is the Rajan, what is his relationship to all these sprats?\n\n\"...One of the commissioners saw [Hyacinth] when she was maybe fourteen, and\nsaid, 'Listen, I need a maid. Send her up and she can live at my\nhouse'--they had eight or nine sprats, I guess--'and she can make a little\nmoney, too, and *you'll get a nice promotion.*' Hy's father was just a\n*regular* clerk then, probably.\"\n\nIt's interesting that the name Hyacinth has triple ambiguity in the\nViron naming system.\n1) A type of plant (female)\n2) A name for yellow zircon (chem)\n3) A species of pigeon (male)\n\nI go for transgendered male to female, for all the usual reasons (body\nlooks like a boy, except for artificial breasts, tougher fighter than\nshe looks) and also:\n1) The mural in her room that alludes to several other greek males in\nrelationships like Hyacynthus, without specifically naming him\n(emphasis of a clue by omission).\n2) The gay Blood would find it amusing to tempt the city officials\nwith a sex-changed boy." } ] }, { "message_id": "<9712.67.142.130.15.1263601816.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-16T00:30:16+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001151616n3a3237abye83496a8fbb643ba@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "James Wynn wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Chenille says Hy came to work for a commissioner to keep his kids\n(\"eight or nine sprats I guess\")." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"eight or nine sprats\" are actually Hyacinth's brothers and sisters.\nHere is the context. The commissioner said he wanted a maid, not a nanny.\nThe interjection about sprats suggests why her father could spare her, and\nhis desperation to have a better-paying job. It looks like a sale to me.\nAnd\nif this is the Rajan, what is his relationship to all these sprats?\n\n\"...One of the commissioners saw [Hyacinth] when she was maybe fourteen,\nand\nsaid, 'Listen, I need a maid. Send her up and she can live at my\nhouse'--they had eight or nine sprats, I guess--'and she can make a little\nmoney, too, and *you'll get a nice promotion.*' Hy's father was just a\n*regular* clerk then, probably.\"\n\nIt's interesting that the name Hyacinth has triple ambiguity in the\nViron naming system.\n1) A type of plant (female)\n2) A name for yellow zircon (chem)\n3) A species of pigeon (male)\n\nI go for transgendered male to female, for all the usual reasons (body\nlooks like a boy, except for artificial breasts, tougher fighter than\nshe looks) and also:\n1) The mural in her room that alludes to several other greek males in\nrelationships like Hyacynthus, without specifically naming him\n(emphasis of a clue by omission).\n2) The gay Blood would find it amusing to tempt the city officials\nwith a sex-changed boy.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T04:08:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001151616n3a3237abye83496a8fbb643ba@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "The \"eight or nine sprats\" are actually Hyacinth's brothers and sisters.\nHere is the context. The commissioner said he wanted a maid, not a nanny.\nThe interjection about sprats suggests why her father could spare her, and\nhis desperation to have a better-paying job. It looks like a sale to me. And\nif this is the Rajan, what is his relationship to all these sprats?" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "The number of sprats were the commissioner's.With 7 or 8 brothers and\nsisters, I would think one of them would make an appearance or a the\nvery least get named. I admit the way Chenille put it is ambiguous,\nbut it makes the narrative rather weird if Hy has lots of siblings. I\nmean, their sister married the Calde'. Don't you think they'd want to\nreconnect with her after that?" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "It's interesting that the name Hyacinth has triple ambiguity in the Viron\nnaming system.\n\n1) A type of plant (female)\n2) A name for yellow zircon (chem)\n3) A species of pigeon (male)" }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, I noted for some time that there was grist for arguing that she\nis female, male, and chem. So a male chem made sense to me once upon a\ntime. Each of them has backing frommore than the name. Mainly, though,\nthey are all hints that there's something not quite right about her as\na woman.\n\nHere's another reference via name, though:\n\nHyacinth and Fava are both beans.\n\nJ." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T04:10:46+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<9712.67.142.130.15.1263601816.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "He's got no one to blame but himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "Pedro Pereira", "address": "domus_artemis at hotmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T11:47:53+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "LOL" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Date: Fri, 15 Jan 2010 22:10:46 -0600\nFrom: crushtv at gmail.com\nTo: urth at lists.urth.net\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nHe's got no one to blame but himself." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<1bf4dd41001161124g47e457b2p58aeebcff7d55ba7@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T19:24:11+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "brunians wrote:\nIn 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Of course, since \"male chem\" and \"once male\" are two entirely\ndifferent things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at\nall." } ] }, { "message_id": "<1bf4dd41001161149xcc9355dla527961f10222564@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "Dave Tallman", "address": "davetallman at msn.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T19:49:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001161124g47e457b2p58aeebcff7d55ba7@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "subject", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Dave Tallman wrote:\n1) The mural in her room that alludes to several other greek males in\nrelationships like Hyacynthus, without specifically naming him\n(emphasis of a clue by omission)." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I found the reference. It was actually twin icons of Ganymedia and Catamitus\non either sides of the doors of the entrance to the wing where Hyacinth\nresided. Ganymede and Catamitus are the Greek and Roman names of the same\nminor god, a young boy who was taken by Zeus to be his beloved and the\ncupbearer to the gods. Hyacinthus was also a beautiful boy in Greek\nmythology, quarreled over by Apollo and the wind-god, which led to the boy\ndying and being made a demigod also." } ] }, { "message_id": "<11031.67.142.130.15.1263672798.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-16T20:13:18+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<1bf4dd41001161124g47e457b2p58aeebcff7d55ba7@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Maybe for you, who was not there, it doesn't.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "brunians wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, since \"male chem\" and \"once male\" are two entirely\ndifferent things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at\nall.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<140757.72425.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "from": { "name": "Craig Brewer", "address": "cnbrewer at yahoo.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T20:51:14+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<11031.67.142.130.15.1263672798.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "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,\n 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.\n\n(And with that, I step down from an undergraduate-styled-podium-of-Foucault-ness...heh...)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sat, January 16, 2010 2:13:18 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nMaybe for you, who was not there, it doesn't.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "brunians wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was bouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Of course, since \"male chem\" and \"once male\" are two entirely\ndifferent things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at\nall.\n_______________________________________________\nUrth Mailing List\nTo post, write urth at urth.net\nSubscription/information: http://www.urth.net" } ] }, { "message_id": "<11363.67.142.130.15.1263677578.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-16T21:32:58+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<140757.72425.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Gene Wolfe is not exactly homophobic; as far as I know, he loves the\nsinner and thinks that the sin is no worse than a lot of things hetro\npeople get up to. There are many gay characters in his works, and they are\noften presented sympathetically. I do not, however, believe that Hyacinth\nis or was intended to be transgendered. I note that all of his gay\ncharacters (at least the ones I call to mind right now) have something\nseriously wrong with them, even if some of them are not actively evile.\n\nI certainly intend to clarify this if I should meet him again.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not to bring up the old \"authorial fallacy\" here, but if he wrote the\nbooks in such a way that they support the \"male chem/once male\"\npossibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact makes it a\ncompelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said after the fact.\nGranted, we're talking about a potential plot point which is different\nthan a reader's interpretation. But with a writing style that often works\nby indirection and suggestion, he runs the risk of this kind of thing\ngetting out of his control. He may know how it all adds up in his head,\nbut, as the rest of us know, there are *vastly* different readings of his\nbooks that are out there and that all claim to have \"solved\" various\npuzzles in jaw-droppingly idiosyncratic ways. If his books lend themselves\nto this kind of reaction, then I wonder if Wolfe is really always the best\nreader of Wolfe, if that means we have to divine exactly what he thought\nin order to \"get\" the books. I mean,\n any book that requires the author to explain it or to verify things\nbeyond the covers of the book seems like a failed book. I'd rather deal\nwith the text than with what Wolfe thought it meant before (or even\nafter) he published it. Once it's out there (barring a revision), the\ntext is definitive, not Wolfe.\n\n(And with that, I step down from an\nundergraduate-styled-podium-of-Foucault-ness...heh...)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sat, January 16, 2010 2:13:18 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nMaybe for you, who was not there, it doesn't.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "brunians wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was\nbouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Of course, since \"male chem\" and \"once male\" are two entirely\ndifferent things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at\nall.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<93d4039f1001161422s33212ce0uecd5f54f255533eb@mail.gmail.com>", "from": { "name": "John Watkins", "address": "john.watkins04 at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-16T22:22:44+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<11363.67.142.130.15.1263677578.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Whether or not Hyacinth is intended to be transgendered, there is clearly\nsomething \"seriously wrong with\" her." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "On Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM, wrote:\nGene Wolfe is not exactly homophobic; as far as I know, he loves the\nsinner and thinks that the sin is no worse than a lot of things hetro\npeople get up to. There are many gay characters in his works, and they are\noften presented sympathetically. I do not, however, believe that Hyacinth\nis or was intended to be transgendered. I note that all of his gay\ncharacters (at least the ones I call to mind right now) have something\nseriously wrong with them, even if some of them are not actively evile.\n\nI certainly intend to clarify this if I should meet him again.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not to bring up the old \"authorial fallacy\" here, but if he wrote the\nbooks in such a way that they support the \"male chem/once male\"\npossibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact makes it a\ncompelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said after the fact.\nGranted, we're talking about a potential plot point which is different\nthan a reader's interpretation. But with a writing style that often works\nby indirection and suggestion, he runs the risk of this kind of thing\ngetting out of his control. He may know how it all adds up in his head,\nbut, as the rest of us know, there are *vastly* different readings of his\nbooks that are out there and that all claim to have \"solved\" various\npuzzles in jaw-droppingly idiosyncratic ways. If his books lend\nthemselves\nto this kind of reaction, then I wonder if Wolfe is really always the\nbest\nreader of Wolfe, if that means we have to divine exactly what he thought\nin order to \"get\" the books. I mean,\n any book that requires the author to explain it or to verify things\nbeyond the covers of the book seems like a failed book. I'd rather deal\nwith the text than with what Wolfe thought it meant before (or even\nafter) he published it. Once it's out there (barring a revision), the\ntext is definitive, not Wolfe.\n\n(And with that, I step down from an\nundergraduate-styled-podium-of-Foucault-ness...heh...)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" \nTo: The Urth Mailing List \nSent: Sat, January 16, 2010 2:13:18 PM\nSubject: Re: (urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)\n\nMaybe for you, who was not there, it doesn't.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "brunians wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 4, "text": "In 2002, when I met Gene Wolfe, I mentioned the theory that was\nbouncing\naround the list at the time, that Hyacinth was a male chem.\n\nHe remarked that it was a good thing that he wasn't on the list." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Of course, since \"male chem\" and \"once male\" are two entirely\ndifferent things, this doesn't help prove or disprove the theory at\nall.\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "<13534.67.142.130.15.1263682354.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-16T22:52:34+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<93d4039f1001161422s33212ce0uecd5f54f255533eb@mail.gmail.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Very well taken, John.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Whether or not Hyacinth is intended to be transgendered, there is clearly\nsomething \"seriously wrong with\" her.\n\nOn Sat, Jan 16, 2010 at 4:32 PM, wrote:" }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Gene Wolfe is not exactly homophobic; as far as I know, he loves the\nsinner and thinks that the sin is no worse than a lot of things hetro\npeople get up to. There are many gay characters in his works, and they\nare\noften presented sympathetically. I do not, however, believe that\nHyacinth\nis or was intended to be transgendered. I note that all of his gay\ncharacters (at least the ones I call to mind right now) have something\nseriously wrong with them, even if some of them are not actively evile.\n\nI certainly intend to clarify this if I should meet him again.\n\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 3, "text": "Not to bring up the old \"authorial fallacy\" here, but if he wrote the\nbooks in such a way that they support the \"male chem/once male\"\npossibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact makes it a\ncompelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said after the fact.\nGranted, we're talking about a potential plot point which is different\nthan a reader's interpretation. But with a writing style that often\nworks\nby indirection and suggestion, he runs the risk of this kind of thing\ngetting out of his control. He may know how it all adds up in his\nhead,\nbut, as the rest of us know, there are *vastly* different readings of\nhis\nbooks that are out there and that all claim to have \"solved\" various\npuzzles in jaw-droppingly idiosyncratic ways. If his books lend\nthemselves\nto this kind of reaction, then I wonder if Wolfe is really always the\nbest\nreader of Wolfe, if that means we have to divine exactly what he\nthought\nin order to \"get\" the books. I mean,\n any book that requires the author to explain it or to verify things\nbeyond the covers of the book seems like a failed book. I'd rather\ndeal\nwith the text than with what Wolfe thought it meant before (or even\nafter) he published it. Once it's out there (barring a revision), the\ntext is definitive, not Wolfe.\n\n(And with that, I step down from an\nundergraduate-styled-podium-of-Foucault-ness...heh...)\n\n\n\n----- Original Message ----\nFrom: \"brunians at brunians.org\" " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-18T04:09:59+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<11363.67.142.130.15.1263677578.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "There are many gay characters in his works, and they are\noften presented sympathetically. I do not, however, believe that Hyacinth\nis or was intended to be transgendered. I note that all of his gay\ncharacters (at least the ones I call to mind right now) have something\nseriously wrong with them, even if some of them are not actively evile.\nI certainly intend to clarify this if I should meet him again." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "After banging together (what I believed to be) every conceivable theory of \nHyacinth's \"true\" nature, I am now confident (as I implied) that she is \nFava.\n\nThose that only see in her a post-feminist character will not be impressed.\n\nJ. " } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-19T07:20:38+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<140757.72425.qm@web37605.mail.mud.yahoo.com>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Not to bring up the old \"authorial fallacy\" here, but if he wrote\nthe books in such a way that they support the \"male chem/once\nmale\" possibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact\nmakes it a compelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said\nafter the fact." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "Yeah, but (for me) puzzling over Wolfe's stories is interesting because I \nbelieve there is a \"right\" answer. I don't think it matters to the basic \nplot of the story whether Hyacinth is a male chem or not (my old theory, not \nyours). Nor whether Incus is a woman or Tussah and Horn are a clones of \nTyphon. These details only matter because we think they mattered to the \nauthor. When I decided that I would never be able to prove important details \nabout An Evil Guest to *my own* satisfaction, I lost interesting in trying \nto find the answers. But I still like the universe Wolfe imagined.\n\nHowever, I suppose it is cheating to for Josh to declare the \"transgendered\" \ntheory is dead because of a reaction that he *inferred* from Wolfe's \nresponse. Especially since his reaction was to *my* theory about Hy being a \nmale chem (my attempt to pull all of --what I understood to be-- the loose \nthreads together into one neat little explanation). I mean, the problem as I \nsee it is that Josh doesn't need to counter with any evidence. He just says, \n\"I heard Wolfe say something indeterminant and I divined this and that.\"\n\nIt reminds me of *some* of the resistance I faced on this list when I \nposited the \"male chem\" theory. One person said that Wolfe would never have \na \"moral exemplar\" character involved in a homosexual relationship...even \nthough a relationship with a transgendered male chem would not be homosexual \nor heterosexual since their sexes are strictly formal (or at least I thought \nso at the time). Nor would a man having sex with a \"female\" robot be any \nmore or less perverse than doing it with a so-called \"male\" robot. And Wolfe \ndid have a character have sex with a robot in \"Counting Cats In Zanzibar\". \nAnyway, it's frustrating to face that kind of resistance. At least, Josh's \nresponse was better than that. He made a serious attempt to check it out.\n\nStill, \"Hy is a transgendered male chem\" is a pretty wild theory. But I \ndidn't walked away from it because of Josh's report. I continued to roll it \naround in my mind with other theories for a long time like Captain Queeg and \nhis ball bearings (it was fun) until I decided I had latched onto one that \nwas solid enough to make all the others irrelevant. The thing is, I know \nthat Gene misdirects about his stories all the time. He seems to enjoy \ndropping hints that don't mean what we often think they do. I remember when \nMarc Aramini reported that Wolfe had told him [in response to his \"Blue \nUshas\" theory] \"No, Urth is Green!\". Then a short time later, Wolfe \nreportedly just sighed and said \"I should just keep my mouth shut\". Some \npeople still like the Blue Ushas theory, even though Marc (last I heard) had \ndiscarded it because of what Wolfe told him. I don't think Urth is Green nor \nthat the Short Sun is Sol even though I toyed for a good while after that \nwith Blue being Verthandi (I even scoured a map of Mars looking for a \nmountain range that might qualify as Lizard Island)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I mean,\nany book that requires the author to explain it or to\nverify things beyond the covers of the book seems\nlike a failed book." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I would be the one most likely to agree with this in most cases, yet I don't \nin the case of Wolfe's novels. For example, consider Auk kidnapping \nHyacinth. There's no way we would know emphatically why he had done that and \nwhy he let her go if Wolfe had not explained it. I had four or five possible \nexplanations in mind for Tussah's prediction \"The son not of my body shall \nbe Calde after me.\" But it took an answer to a question posed to Wolfe for \nme to settle on one. Still, I find this 7 volume novel to be one of Wolfe's \nmost satisfying. If Wolfe had not confirmed that Dorcas was Severian's \ngrandmother, it would still be a highly controversial theory. Does that make \nThe Book of the New Sun a failed work?\n\nAnd in many cases the questions thought to be unresolvable merely haven't \nbeen considered with enough intensity. Many people seem to find the basic \nplot of \"Peace\" (How did everyone die? What's the deal with the guy slamming \noranges against the big metal doors? etc?) to be inscrutable. But it was \nclear to me, the first time I read it--after I thought about it a few days.\n\nRegards,\n\nJames,\nThe Absolute Lord of Unpopular Theories " } ] }, { "message_id": "<6985.67.142.130.48.1263886103.squirrel@brunians.org>", "from": { "name": "brunians at brunians.org", "address": "brunians at brunians.org" }, "date": "2010-01-19T07:28:23+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "BTW, James, you are exactly right that Wolfe said something indeterminate\nand that I assumed some on top of that. I still *think* I am correct in\nthinking that Hyacinth is genetically female, but I no longer believe that\nWolfe confirmed that.\n\nShould I meet him again I shall ask him in more detail.\n\n." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "Not to bring up the old \"authorial fallacy\" here, but if he wrote\nthe books in such a way that they support the \"male chem/once\nmale\" possibility in a way that doesn't contradict it and in fact\nmakes it a compelling possibility, it doesn't matter what he said\nafter the fact." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "Yeah, but (for me) puzzling over Wolfe's stories is interesting because I\nbelieve there is a \"right\" answer. I don't think it matters to the basic\nplot of the story whether Hyacinth is a male chem or not (my old theory,\nnot\nyours). Nor whether Incus is a woman or Tussah and Horn are a clones of\nTyphon. These details only matter because we think they mattered to the\nauthor. When I decided that I would never be able to prove important\ndetails\nabout An Evil Guest to *my own* satisfaction, I lost interesting in trying\nto find the answers. But I still like the universe Wolfe imagined.\n\nHowever, I suppose it is cheating to for Josh to declare the\n\"transgendered\"\ntheory is dead because of a reaction that he *inferred* from Wolfe's\nresponse. Especially since his reaction was to *my* theory about Hy being\na\nmale chem (my attempt to pull all of --what I understood to be-- the loose\nthreads together into one neat little explanation). I mean, the problem as\nI\nsee it is that Josh doesn't need to counter with any evidence. He just\nsays,\n\"I heard Wolfe say something indeterminant and I divined this and that.\"\n\nIt reminds me of *some* of the resistance I faced on this list when I\nposited the \"male chem\" theory. One person said that Wolfe would never\nhave\na \"moral exemplar\" character involved in a homosexual relationship...even\nthough a relationship with a transgendered male chem would not be\nhomosexual\nor heterosexual since their sexes are strictly formal (or at least I\nthought\nso at the time). Nor would a man having sex with a \"female\" robot be any\nmore or less perverse than doing it with a so-called \"male\" robot. And\nWolfe\ndid have a character have sex with a robot in \"Counting Cats In Zanzibar\".\nAnyway, it's frustrating to face that kind of resistance. At least, Josh's\nresponse was better than that. He made a serious attempt to check it out.\n\nStill, \"Hy is a transgendered male chem\" is a pretty wild theory. But I\ndidn't walked away from it because of Josh's report. I continued to roll\nit\naround in my mind with other theories for a long time like Captain Queeg\nand\nhis ball bearings (it was fun) until I decided I had latched onto one that\nwas solid enough to make all the others irrelevant. The thing is, I know\nthat Gene misdirects about his stories all the time. He seems to enjoy\ndropping hints that don't mean what we often think they do. I remember\nwhen\nMarc Aramini reported that Wolfe had told him [in response to his \"Blue\nUshas\" theory] \"No, Urth is Green!\". Then a short time later, Wolfe\nreportedly just sighed and said \"I should just keep my mouth shut\". Some\npeople still like the Blue Ushas theory, even though Marc (last I heard)\nhad\ndiscarded it because of what Wolfe told him. I don't think Urth is Green\nnor\nthat the Short Sun is Sol even though I toyed for a good while after that\nwith Blue being Verthandi (I even scoured a map of Mars looking for a\nmountain range that might qualify as Lizard Island)." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 2, "text": "I mean,\nany book that requires the author to explain it or to\nverify things beyond the covers of the book seems\nlike a failed book." }, { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "I would be the one most likely to agree with this in most cases, yet I\ndon't\nin the case of Wolfe's novels. For example, consider Auk kidnapping\nHyacinth. There's no way we would know emphatically why he had done that\nand\nwhy he let her go if Wolfe had not explained it. I had four or five\npossible\nexplanations in mind for Tussah's prediction \"The son not of my body shall\nbe Calde after me.\" But it took an answer to a question posed to Wolfe for\nme to settle on one. Still, I find this 7 volume novel to be one of\nWolfe's\nmost satisfying. If Wolfe had not confirmed that Dorcas was Severian's\ngrandmother, it would still be a highly controversial theory. Does that\nmake\nThe Book of the New Sun a failed work?\n\nAnd in many cases the questions thought to be unresolvable merely haven't\nbeen considered with enough intensity. Many people seem to find the basic\nplot of \"Peace\" (How did everyone die? What's the deal with the guy\nslamming\noranges against the big metal doors? etc?) to be inscrutable. But it was\nclear to me, the first time I read it--after I thought about it a few\ndays.\n\nRegards,\n\nJames,\nThe Absolute Lord of Unpopular Theories\n\n_______________________________________________" } ] }, { "message_id": "", "from": { "name": "James Wynn", "address": "crushtv at gmail.com" }, "date": "2010-01-19T14:32:50+00:00", "subject": "(urth) Severians Later Appearance (Spoilers)", "in_reply_to": "<6985.67.142.130.48.1263886103.squirrel@brunians.org>", "reply_link": "header", "blocks": [ { "kind": "quote", "depth": 1, "text": "BTW, James, you are exactly right that Wolfe said something indeterminate\nand that I assumed some on top of that. I still *think* I am correct in\nthinking that Hyacinth is genetically female, but I no longer believe that\nWolfe confirmed that. Should I meet him again I shall ask him in more detail." }, { "kind": "text", "depth": 0, "text": "I will be very surprised if you are wrong about Hyacinth.\n\nJ." } ] } ] }