From: "James Wynn" 
Subject: RE: (urth) Hyacinth Not A Boy
Date: Thu, 13 Mar 2003 08:27:43 -0600

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




--