(urth) So who is the child in Baldander's bed? [was: Juturna, the Missing Sister]

[Jerry Friedman]

From: Lee Berman <severiansola at hotmail.com>


>>Jack Smith- Severian uses the word "catamite" and so something must suggest a 
>>sexual
>>element to him.  But I like the idea that the child is Baldander's son (or
>>his Number Five).
>
>No reason he can't be both (though Baldanders is dark haired). The thing is the 
>word
>"catamite" is used. Severian is not a real person who might have meaningless 
>random 
>
>musings. This is a fictionally created person whose every word has been crafted 
>with
>a purpose. As Jack suggests, we are compelled, purposefully, by the author, to 
>think of
>pedophilia because that word is used.

I agree so far.

>Now if that big baby (it is a very large baby I think, not a retarded older 
>child) had 
>
>been found with a bottle and rattle in a giant crib, then perhaps we could doubt 
>that 
>
>Baldanders had sexual intentions. But this baby is adorned with fancy 
>accoutrements and
>is chained to Baldanders' bed, which itself is decked out like a sybaritic 70's 
>love nest.

Still agreeing.

>Severian may have doubts about the baby's catamite status, but we cannot. 

Of course we can.

What Severian says is, "The catamite beneath (if catamite he was)..." and "Large 
though he [the boy] was, I have never been able to believe that Baldanders 
practiced pederasty as that term is usually understood, though it may well be 
that he had hoped to do so when the boy grew larger still."

So there we have it.  Severian thinks the boy isn't a catamite yet but may well 
be intended for that purpose.  The reason for his doubt may be that the boy is 
still too small (or too immature?).

I cannot imagine why we should feel more sure that any part of this is right or 
wrong than Severian does.

> Other parts of the story suggest Severian is in a constant state of denial when 
>it comes 
>
> to pedophilia.

Not constant.  He does discuss it in reference to the young blood donor as well 
as here.

> We may live in a Michael Jackson world where pedophilia jokes can be part 
> of a comedian's monologue or a recurring character on Family Guy, but Gene 
>Wolfe didn't. 
>

I agree again.

> The Pelerines mention toleration of it,

Possibly.  Ava says, "'...some befriend children left homeless by the 
struggle.'"

"Remembering Casdoe's son, I said, 'I can see why you object to that.'"

"'We do not object--most certainly not to that, and not to things vastly less 
natural.'"

She may mean that they don't object when people take care of homeless children 
to sexually exploit them, or she may be referring to other "unnatural" practices 
but not that.  I doubt very much she means the Pelerines tolerate pedophilia 
when the children have other possibilities.  (To the extent that objecting to 
anything would do them any good.  Whatever the religion of Severian's time is 
like, we hear little or nothing of its moral doctrines or the idea that anyone 
might follow them.)

> but it is a very sore subject for Severian, for some reason.

A lot of people don't bring it up often.  However, as I said before, I agree 
with you that it's striking that Severian doesn't mention it in reference to the 
apprentices' lives in the Matachin Tower.  (As many here have probably found 
out, the name Matachin can suggest homosexuality, though not pedophilia.  
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mattachine_Society>.)
...

> I find the introduction of a rather fantastic, or unpleasantly outrageous 
>concept then 
>
> clouding it with doubt to be a recurring trope in Gene Wolfe's work. I think 
>the best
> example is the suggestion that VRT has Dr. Marsch being killed and replaced by 
>an abo. 
>
> Perhaps an abo who forgets his own true identity. There are many seeds of doubt 
>which are
> planted in the story to allow denial that this is what happened. Enough to 
>spark lively 
>
> debate in past years on this forum. But then it was discovered that Gene Wolfe, 
>in a rare
> departure from reticence, openly acknowledges that the replacement of Dr. 
>Marsch happened,
> in one of his interviews.
>
> From this, I deduce that Occam's Razor often does not work in trying to 
>understand Wolfe's
> work. Surely sometimes a flying building turns out to be simply a tent 
>cathedral playing hot 
>
> airballoon. But also often, a more fantastic interpretation is the best, 
>auctorially intended 
>
> one.At the least we are meant to consider fantastic explanations on an equal 
>par with mundane 
>
> ones.                           

I was wrong about "V. R. T." (though maybe not on this forum), but I think I was 
preferring the more elaborate explanation and Occam's Razor would have led me to 
the solution Wolfe gave.

No doubt you're right in general that we should consider fantastic explanations, 
but I don't see how it applies to the boy in Baldanders's castle.

Jerry Friedman