From: "James Wynn"
Subject: RE: (urth) Crush's Page and Quetzal Date: Thu, 29 Aug 2002 18:05:38 -0500 Regarding essays at http://www.visualclick.com/~jwynn/GeneWolfe/LongSun/ Robert Borski said: I fear you've misread alga's comments, which were intended not as a suggestion that you and I actually meet, but that your work, like mine, is neither valid nor substantive...In other words expect a certain amount of ridicule, scorn, and derision to your Long Sun exegeses... My response: Unfortunately, I'm not so harassed by fraternal greetings and compliments that I can afford to exegete them when they come my way. I'll presume until textually proven otherwise that by "imagination plus" Alga meant merely "...plus imagination" rather than "...plus something-else-not-so-wonderful." As for receiving derision, I should HOPE to converse with someone who feels so strongly about the Long Sun series - that's why I published the essays on a website. So deride away! It's up to the derider however to engage me enough to respond. I purpose that no shots will be "cheap", I'll do all I can to see that they are hard won. ------------------------------------------------------------------------ Robert Borski said I thought I'd ask you a few questions about your Hyacinth essay. My response: I'm working on a response to your questions, but I can't finish until can check my sources. Still I've received a couple emails offline on the chem-Hyacinth theory that follow the same tack, and I'd like to respond to that "tack" first. First if people are responding off-list because they feel more comfortable for some reason, yet *really* want to discuss some point, that's fine. But if someone responds off-list to keep from *humiliating* me, their concern is misdirected. The purpose of this list, I would guess, is to exchange opinions. Second, no matter WHAT one believes about Hyacinth, her impressive bosom is bursting with lies and slight-of-hands about her *true* nature. As I say in "Thelxepeia's Mirrors," the Hyacinth citation is not really finished and won't be until after I re-read the books. I currently ONLY cite the clues that she IS a chem rather than explain the (IMO) mis-directions that she is NOT a chem. My conviction currently rests only on affirmative proofs. That's only half the ballgame, I know. Consequently, while I think I allay certain general concerns like those Mr. Borski is asking. I can't really address specific problems like "if Hyacinth is a chem, how does she cry? or "then why is she CLAIM to be a junkie?" or "why does she stuff her face with nectarines?" At the end of Silk's discussion with Horn on the airship, Silk says of his reasons for trying to kill himself, "Isn't it obvious [after all I've told you]?" Well it isn't "obvious." It IS (to me at this point), however, inexorable. Still, I welcome all challenges to anything I've published on my site, including this. Just understand that I can't answer everything.....yet. Third, as to my need to read the Short Sun, I guess I will have to read this one if only to have the credentials to discuss Hyacinth. But I've paid enough attention to the Urth list discussion to know she's dies and there is some ambiguity as to how. This is not a spoiler for me because: Since Silk and Hyacinth are Apollo and Hyacinthus -- and there is more reason than just her name to suggest they are - it is necessary that Silk will directly cause her death - the only question is how. I'm inclined to disbelieve, though obviously without evidence, that the manner of her death insists that she's bio since every person whose brought this up, felt the need to supply other (less persuasive?) proofs. Unless there is blood all over the walls, it's hard to imagine that it will present in more difficult puzzle than why does she produce snot when she cries and why is her breath warm. Does the event in question take place in "On Blue's Waters?" I do have that one already. Curiously, I kind of expected my other (I thought) controversial theory, that Incus is a woman, to provoke at least as many challenges as Hyacinth's. I feel much on much better ground to defend it. Then again, perhaps I *have* defended it better since no one has yet offered a detailed challenge on that. A sole-proprietor in flakiness, -- Crush --