Hyacinth Not A Boy

When I met Gene Wolfe at the last WorldCon, I mentioned this theory to him, and that there were people who supported it on this mailing list. His response - which was not in any way ambiguous - was to say "It is probably a good thing that I am not on that mailing list.". It is importamnt to keep in mind the fact that every story has at least two authors. .

Regarding the "male hyacinth" theory, Josh Geller said: When I met Gene Wolfe at the last WorldCon, I mentioned this theory to him, and that there were people who supported it on this mailing list. His response - which was not in any way ambiguous - was to say "It is probably a good thing that I am not on that mailing list.". It is importamnt to keep in mind the fact that every story has at least two authors. Crush responds: That's an unambiguous answer? Well, maybe for Wolfe it is. Less so, I'd say, than "Urth is green," and you know how far that has gotten us. I've never spoken to Wolfe, but based on his answers to direct questions from this list, I recommend all beware of "unambiguous" answers from that Delphic oracle. As I said recently, I no longer hold to this theory for purely thematic reasons. However, IF I were **what some consider to be** a purely "text evidence" reader... (that is, to presume: o All characters are telling the truth o No characters are wrong in observations o All things are as they are presented o Ignore extra-textual plot-lines regardless of how closely they may seem to follow the story unless the narrator says otherwise) ...then, I would still hold this theory. Since every story, as you say, "has two authors", that is true even when the reader decides he will only read into the text the literal meaning of every word. Since no original author can write that way (language and story being, in part, metaphors), to read in such a way changes the text as well. Keeping this law "in mind", does not deliver the reader from it, but it can fool a reader into thinking he has -- like a man who dreams he has awoken from a dream. -- Crush

The words might perhaps be ambiguous. His manner, vocal tone and body language made it unambiguous. This is why I was careful to add the words between the - -.

That one is perfectly clear, I think.

Perhaps you should, then. .

Just a couple of thoughts about "text-evidence" readers:

A "text evidence" reader would hold no such view if the text indicated that the character were lying or speaking something false out of ignorance.

Same comment. If the text shows that a character is wrong in his observations, then that's what it shows. If there is no textual evidence for a character's observations being wrong, though, then the "text evidence" reader would accept such statements as true. It's a generally positive view of humanity, I suppose, to believe what a character says until proven (proven by the text) otherwise, but I find that such an outlook serves me well.

Now you're verging on slandering those of us who prefer to analyze the text on its own merits first and foremost. We're very much aware that many things are not as they are presented, and that we must dig deep and think hard -- about the text -- to figure out what's really going on behind the "false presentation." Just because we don't rush out to see how Wolfe's work aligns with Robert Graves or with some Greek/Egyptian/Whatever myth, that doesn't mean that we're lazy readers, or that we don't think deeply about what's going on. It also doesn't mean that we're accepting of every bit of drivel that happens to come from the narrator's pen as God-ordained absolute truth. You're painting with a recklessly broad brush, Crush, and I hope that you're at least mostly kidding.

This is the only accurate "text-first" characterization that you've made. Charles