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

[Jack Smith]

Thanks for the link to the Mattachine Society--has some good info even if
homosexuality is not the issue.


On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 11:16 AM, Jerry Friedman
<jerry_friedman at yahoo.com>wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Urth Mailing List
> To post, write urth at urth.net
> Subscription/information: http://www.urth.net
>



-- 
Best wishes,
Jack
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.urth.net/pipermail/urth-urth.net/attachments/20100729/d4567d02/attachment-0003.htm>