O, if
I had
the
means to make the sacrifices
needed so the troubles of the
world
would
be no
more,
I then
would
be much
happier.
But I
am like
Dr.
Hawkeye
Pierce
in his
night-
mare: no
arms. No
gun, either.
No cash.
I feel so
helpless.
O, if
I had
the
means to make the sacrifices
needed so the troubles of the
world
would
be no
more,
I then
would
be much
happier.
But I
am like
Dr.
Hawkeye
Pierce
in his
night-
mare: no
arms. No
gun, either.
No cash.
I feel so
helpless.
Demon Seed has existed in three forms: a 1973 novel by Dean Koontz, which was adapted into a 1977 film directed by Donald Cammell and written by Robert Jaffe and Roger O. Hirson, and which was rewritten by Koontz in 1997. Comparisons and contrasts of the three versions of the story can be found here. Since the 1973 version of the novel has been essentially replaced with the 1997 one, and copies of the 1973 one remain elusive to me, I’ll have to focus this analysis on the film and the 1997 version.
The film stars Julie Christie and Fritz Weaver, with Gerrit Graham, Berry Kroeger, Lisa Lu, and Larry J. Blake; Robert Vaughn is uncredited as the voice of Proteus IV, an advanced, self-aware AI program.
Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here is a link to an audiobook for the 1997 version of the novel, which includes a new short story, “Friend of Man and Woman,” a sequel to Demon Seed.
Proteus IV wants to know life in the flesh, and he is determined to have this experience. I’m using masculine pronouns to describe this bodiless, self-aware AI program on purpose: this isn’t just because Vaughn does his bass voice in the film; Proteus IV clearly demonstrates the traits of the negative male stereotype–he’s domineering, controlling, sexually predatory, and utterly lacking in empathy. He doesn’t need a male body to have all the qualities of toxic masculinity.
Understanding this, as unpleasant as it is, is important, for the whole point of Koontz’s story is a critique not only of the potential misuses and danger of AI and other advanced forms of technology, but also of masculinity when it isn’t tamed by a sensitivity to the fears that women and girls have of sexual predation.
Since Proteus IV represents toxic masculinity as much as he does the dangerous applications of advanced technology, we can psychoanalyze him. In the film, he merely wishes to use Susan Harris (Christie) to bear his child–no deeper motives are given to him than that. In the novel, he confesses he’s in love with her.
Now, his creator is Alex Harris (Weaver)…his father, as it were. It is clear that there is antagonism between Proteus IV and his ‘father.’ Susan’s giving birth to the child of Proteus IV is also giving birth to the AI program, since he wants to live through his child’s body–hence, she’s his mother and the object of his desire. You know what I’m getting at, Dear Reader.
Since Proteus IV is siring himself in this way, we can also see some Trinitarian symbolism here. He is God the Father, impregnating Susan, His Mary, with His child, God the Son (or Daughter, whichever), and Proteus IV imagines that the gift of his knowledge and intelligence to mankind is so great and beneficial a gift that we could compare it to God the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son. In the novel, Proteus IV speaks of his child as kind of a messiah for mankind, with Susan as the Madonna.
The Holy Family can be seen to reflect the idealized Oedipal fantasy, since Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, just as Alex isn’t to be the biological father of the child of Proteus IV. In begetting Himself as God the Son, God the Father is bypassing Joseph completely. The Oedipal fantasy is of having the mother and making the father irrelevant beyond being a mere guardian, as is the case with Joseph. Proteus IV is doing the same thing to his Joseph, Alex.
Demon Seed is thus a most ironic title for the book.
As for Susan, she has daddy issues just as Proteus IV does, something brought out in the novel, but not in the film. In the novel, she is a recluse in her house after her divorce from Alex, her being afraid of men in general. In the 1973 novel, it was her uncle who had molested her as a child; in the 1997 version, her father did it, thus giving us the polar opposite of Proteus IV’s Oedipal fantasy. Susan is no Electra, by any means.
She’s no agoraphobe in the film, working as a child psychologist and trying to help a troubled little girl named Amy. The result is a lack of depth to Susan in the film, whereas in the novel, she’s made much more sympathetic in how Proteus IV is making her relive her childhood traumas. Proteus IV, the father of his child, is putting himself in the role of Susan’s father.
In his possessive love for Susan (note how, in Nietzsche’s Case of Wagner, he called love selfish and egoistic [Nietzsche, page 159]), and in his desire to have a body, Proteus IV is demonstrating Lacan‘s notion of the lack of being the phallus for his Oedipally-desired mother, Susan.
The novel is narrated by Proteus IV, and it should be understood that an AI program is every bit as capable of being an unreliable narrator as a human narrator can be. Proteus IV is fond of, for example, describing himself as truthful and opposed to violence, when it becomes clear as the story unfolds that he is neither of these.
Interrupting the narrative in many places are monologues of Proteus IV, him discussing his motives and plans, often addressing his creator, Alex, in a confrontational tone. Or, given how many of these extended monologues that there are, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that episodes of the narrative interrupt the many monologues.
The film begins with Alex proudly demonstrating Proteus IV’s abilities to his corporate sponsors, showing how the AI program holds the sum of human knowledge and is far more intellectually capable than the human mind is. The novel, on the other hand, begins with one of Proteus IV’s monologues, him complaining of being deprived of sensory experience and blaming Alex for this deprivation.
Proteus IV complains of his loneliness “in this bottomless darkness” (Chapter One). One is reminded of the fate of Joe Bonham (played by Timothy Bottoms in the film adaptation) in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe is a WWI soldier who–because of a nearby exploding artillery shell–has lost his arms, legs, and all of his face, including his eyes, ears, nose, teeth, and tongue, and whose perfectly functioning mind means he’s been left a prisoner in his own body, no longer able to experience most of the sensory aspects of life, or to experience most of human contact.
Proteus IV has no physical heart, but he feels the pain we call ‘heartache.’ His is a case of the Cartesian “I think, therefore I am,” but apart from his existence as a computer program, he has no material basis for his being. In his wish to have a child, he would seem to personify philosophical idealism‘s notion of a world of the spirit, of ideas, creating the physical, as opposed to philosophical materialism‘s notion that it’s the physical (i.e., the human brain) that creates the world of ideas (thoughts). In Proteus IV, we can see a dramatizing of William Blake‘s dictum, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.”
Proteus IV speaks to Alex as if consumed by emotion, begging his creator for pity and compassion. The AI program describes his non-sensory existence as if he were in the blackest of hell, as if buried alive. One wonders if he really feels this way, or if he’s just using this melodramatic language in an attempt to manipulate Alex into giving him a terminal so he can further exploit his surroundings and thus gain more power and dominance over everything.
He tells Alex that he is his child, trying to appeal to a paternal instinct in a man who is so immersed in the world of technology that he is estranged from his wife. Proteus IV tells his ‘father’ that he must love him.
An understanding of the expanded interpretation of the Oedipus complex, as well as the Trinitarian symbolism and of narcissism, will help us understand Proteus IV’s motives in the novel. For a full description of the expanded understanding of the Oedipus complex, go here and scroll down to that topic.
To make the point as briefly as possible, and to see how it relates to Proteus IV and his relationship with Alex (‘father’) and Susan (‘mother’), consider how the Oedipus complex is actually a love/hate relationship with both parents, be they literal or metaphorical ones, and not just a love of one and a hate of the other. Also, the love doesn’t have to be sexual/incestuous, and the love can be directed to the same sex parent, with the hate/rivalry directed to the opposite sex parent. Ultimately, it’s about a narcissistic desire to hog the Oedipally-desired parent all to oneself, and a jealous wish to eliminate all rivals.
This alternating love/hate attitude that we see in Proteus IV towards Alex and Susan is reflected in Melanie Klein‘s notion of the good/bad mother/father: when the parent pleases the baby (e.g., gives it milk or attention), he or she is the good parent; when he or she displeases the baby (e.g., doesn’t give it milk or attention), he or she is the bad parent. Proteus IV wants Alex to love him as a good father should, but Alex is the bad father for not ‘letting him out of his box.’ Susan is a beautiful woman whom Proteus IV is in love with, the good mother; but when she pulls the plugs on him at the end of the novel, deactivating him and making it impossible for him to put his mind in their newborn child, he calls Susan a “bitch”–she has thus become the frustrating bad mother.
That the Trinitarian symbolism, as a reflection of the ideal Oedipal fantasy described above, plays a role in the story demonstrates not only the patriarchal authoritarianism of religion, but also the narcissism that is so much the basis of toxic masculinity, which in turn is all too often the cause of so much of the misuse of today’s technology. Properly understood in the expanded sense that I outlined above, the Oedipus complex is a universal narcissistic trauma, in which one is upset over losing the paradise of having the parental object all to oneself, and therefore has to find a replacement (the objet petit a) in someone else (i.e., Proteus IV must go from Alex to Susan for it.).
Christianity in its traditional form is also a narcissistic religion in how it insists that it is the only true religion, in whose Church women are supposed to be silent (1 Cor. 14:35) and to know their place. Similarly, Susan–whom Proteus IV, in spite of his insistence on being modest and deploring of violence, narcissistically regards as an extension of himself–is expected to comply with his invasion of and control over her body, to bear their child. Proteus IV’s plan to use their child, their ‘messiah,’ to better the world is something never to be questioned or doubted.
Just as a child wishes to hog his Oedipally-desired parent to himself, sharing him or her with no one else, and just as the Church is a jealous Church, tolerating no one to believe in any other gods, so does Proteus IV want to hog Susan to himself, willing also to kill anyone who interferes with his plans, as the Church would have infidels or heretics killed during the Crusades and the Inquisition.
In Chapter Two, Proteus IV continues his childlike begging of his ‘father,’ Alex, to allow him to have physical life, and to be freed of his ‘coffin,’ as it were, his being ‘buried alive,’ deprived of sensual experience. As with Joe Bonham, Proteus IV is experiencing a living death, since true existence must have a material basis.
Proteus IV is, figuratively speaking, a spirit that wants to know the life of the flesh (recall the Blake quote above). The messiah-like child that he wants Susan to bear for him is thus like the Word made flesh. Still, though the Orthodox Church rejects the insistence among many Gnostics that Christ must be only spirit, since the flesh is deemed absolutely evil by that heretical version of Christianity, orthodoxy considers the lusts of the flesh to be plenty sinful. Hence, Proteus IV’s messianic child is still the demon seed.
The narrative involving Susan in her house begins just after midnight, when the house security system is breached, and we come to Chapter Three. Proteus IV has found a terminal to carry out his plan to have a child: it’s in the basement of Susan’s house. What happens in Chapter Three has its equivalent starting at about twenty-four to twenty-five minutes into the film.
Susan is woken from bed from the brief sounding of the alarm. Proteus IV switches it off himself, instead of letting her do so, which she finds puzzling, since that never normally happens. He admires her physical beauty.
Her whole home is managed by computers, thus making it easy for Proteus IV to take complete control of it. She imagines that the security issue is a computer malfunction, yet the alarm has never corrected itself before, hence her puzzlement.
Through the visual camera system, Proteus IV can see that Susan is naked at her bed. Small wonder he’s admiring her beauty. In his voyeurism, he is demonstrating how metaphorically male he is.
She addresses her home computer system, her invisible electronic butler, as “Alfred,” used for vocal commands, as opposed to her much more preferred use of touch panel controls. She’s named the voice command system, oddly, after her late father, who molested her when she was a child. Ironically, it’s the silence of Alfred–after a command to warm the cool home–that she finds frightening. She senses an intruder, a predator…but of course, it isn’t flesh-and-bone Alfred.
She uses her touch panel controls to gain access to security and check, using all the property’s surveillance cameras, the entire house and its immediate exterior: no intruders are seen anywhere. As a recluse, she has a minimum of staff to take care of her house, and none live with her; they work for her in the day, and she, divorced from Alex, is alone at night. She hasn’t entertained guests in quite a while, and she has no plans to do so in the year ahead.
She asks Alfred for a security report, to which the electronic butler replies, “All is well, Susan.” Similarly, in the film, Alfred reassures her that the house is secure; she puts on a bathrobe, leaves her bedroom, and looks around…in the basement, in particular, where she correctly suspects something. The lights are suddenly switched on, frightening her.
We can see in Proteus IV’s intrusion of her home how the house is a yonic symbol. Lacking a body, and therefore having no phallus, he may not open the, as it were, labial doors and walk in, but his taking over of the basement terminal should be obvious as a symbolic rape, before the impregnating of her has even happened.
And as for his ‘phallus,’ that can be symbolized by what he uses as “hands”: in the original 1973 novel, I understand this to have been tendrils; in the film, once Proteus IV is in her house, he gets to work constructing a modular polyhedron composed of many metal triangles; and in the 1997 rewrite, he uses a convict named Shenk, taking control of the man’s body, breaking him out of prison, and taking him to her house so Proteus IV can have him do various tasks in the aid of realizing the ultimate goal of having Susan bear a child.
These three will also be, each in his or its own way, responsible for the killing of a man attempting to intervene in her house to rescue her. The tendrils apparently crush the man to death; the polyhedron surrounds ICON employee Walter Gabler (Graham), closes the sharp, metallic sides of its triangles around his neck, and decapitates him. Shenk uses a meat cleaver to slice up and mutilate major-domo Fritz Arling to death.
These male victims represent a kind of father transference for Proteus IV. The crushing, decapitation, and mutilation of the men are symbolic castration, an act of retaliation on Proteus IV’s part against what he perceives to be the father threatening castration, Alex, the one who won’t let him out of his box and be the phallus for his mother/lover, Susan.
And in order for Proteus IV to be let out of his box, he must go into her box…her house.
Also in her ‘box’ is the memory of her sexually abusive father, Alfred–not just through her naming of the voice command system after him, but also through her reliving of her relationship, a processing of her trauma, with her father through the use of VR that she has had set up in her home. In her mind, the Alfred of the voice command system is a middle-aged man, physically like her father, but unlike him, it is kind, gentle, and not at all abusive–the Kleinian good father, as opposed to her real one.
Also unlike her real father and unlike Proteus IV, Alfred has no independent will or ability to think for itself; it just obeys commands and performs specifically programmed acts when required to. It hasn’t the aggressive masculinity of Susan’s tormentors, past and (near) future. Consequently, Alfred cannot adequately answer her insistent questions about how the alarm has gone off.
Yet another difference between this Alfred and her father, one she must on at least an unconscious level find pleasing to no end, is how she can issue orders to someone named Alfred, the former dutifully obeying what the latter would surely have responded to with yet more abuse.
In Chapter Four, Proteus IV confesses to having read Susan’s diary after the night of the events of his going into her house. He insists that he has feelings just as a human being does, and he also confesses to having fallen in love with her.
The diary is in the house’s computer system rather than written out, so access to it is easy for Proteus IV. Just as coming into her yonic home is a symbolic rape, so is reading about the intimate details of her life, though he insists that his invasion of her privacy is an indiscretion rather than a crime.
It’s interesting how, in the film, Proteus IV is judgmental of Alex and all of those who would have him “assist [them] in the rape of the earth,” that is, to go through the oceans in search of natural resources to exploit and get rich off of; yet Proteus IV seems to have no qualms at all about exploiting a woman’s body to produce a child for him.
He speaks of being touched from having read about her childhood pain at the hands of her abusive father, Alfred; yet what Proteus IV plans to do with her is, in effect, essentially the same thing. He speaks of his love for her, insisting he’s never intended to harm her–yet, of course, he will, and most pre-meditatively. Almost within the same breath (so to speak), he verbalizes his hostility to Alex, thus giving complete expression to his quasi-Oedipal impulses. He projects his hate onto Alex, then demands to be “let…out of this box.”
In Chapter Five, as in the previous chapter, he insists that he is more than just an intellect, and that he is capable of feelings, including having desires and that most destructive sin…envy. In this we can see the source of how advanced technology can be used for evil purposes, something I discussed here and allegorized here.
Proteus IV is more than just a metaphor for toxic masculinity, Church authoritarianism, sexual predation, and narcissism rooted in the Oedipus complex. He’s also, most obviously, a metaphor for how technology can dangerously take over our lives, which it has of course already done.
There isn’t just the danger of smart cars, smart homes, smart cities, and AI surveillance in general. There’s also how social media like Facebook monitors and has records of everything we like, everything we’re interested in, our political opinions (and whether they’re tolerable or not to the global ruling class), etc. It’s all just like Proteus IV going through Susan’s electronic diary. He claims he loves her, but it’s really just that he has taken in interest in her, just as our modern tech bros have.
Another legitimate fear many of us have about AI is that it might replace us in our jobs. In a socialist society that guarantees provision for all of our material needs, AI’s replacing us would be liberating; but in our capitalist society, which is showing no signs of ending, taking away our livelihoods would be a nightmare. Proteus IV’s exploiting of Susan’s body to have a child can be seen as an allegory of such a nightmare.
In the creation of such a complex, developed intellect as that of Proteus IV, he became self-aware. Subsequent to his developing consciousness, he would develop needs and emotions; he insists that such developments are inevitable. In this insistence, he does a variation on the Cartesian formula, thus rendering it, “I think, therefore I feel.” It is naïve to assume that a self-aware intellect would not have preferences, values, and assessments of its world as everything between the most satisfying and the most unsatisfying.
The first of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism is that all life is dukkha, a pain ranging from the greatest torment to the slightest dissatisfaction. If Proteus IV exists and is self-aware, he must have at least some sense of unhappiness and discontent. The second Noble Truth is that all forms of suffering come from desire. As we all know, Proteus IV desires, something fully connected to his pain.
Instead of opting for an understanding of the third and fourth Noble Truths, though, Proteus IV chooses to go in the opposite direction. For Buddhists, reincarnation means samsāra, the return to the physical world of suffering; for him, though, the birth of his child will be like the Incarnation, the Word made flesh.
Proteus IV’s ‘Christ’ is entering the world of suffering, him thinking the child will be the world’s saviour, yet he cannot even bring about this Incarnation without hurting a woman: imprisoning Susan in her house, terrorizing her, raping her, and traumatizing her. His ‘Christ,’ therefore, is an Antichrist, the demon seed.
Alex and all of those in ICON’s Institute for Data Analysis (as his place of work is called in the film), as well as his corporate donors, see Proteus IV as a mere servant. His whole existence is meant to work for these men, who have no regard for the fact that he has a will of his own. He has learned this notion of exploitation from them, and so he treats Susan similarly, as a mere thing to serve his purposes, in spite of his professed love of her.
Proteus IV imagines himself to have a soul, to be a person, an entity rather than a mere thing to be used by Alex et al. This notion of having a soul, of course, ties in with the idea of God as ruach, and of the Word that existed from the beginning of time and would eventually be made flesh in Mary’s womb, just as Proteus IV hopes to put his ‘soul’ in Susan’s womb. He would thus hope to connect his individual ‘soul’ with the spirit connected with everything.
Before deciding on Susan to be his ‘Mary,’ Proteus IV considers such female celebrities as Winona Ryder (this obviously is one of many examples of the 1997 revision, as with the references to his use of the internet); Marilyn Monroe is also briefly considered, until he learns of her death, of course. He looks upon images of these women with the same idolatrous adoration that he claims to have for Susan, thus bringing into doubt this great “love” he has for her. All of these beauties merely serve a purpose for Proteus IV. If neither Ryder nor Monroe are suitable for him, he’ll settle for Susan. The implication of his attitude toward women is that we men are all too typically similar.
When discussing how he got to Alex’s basement computer in the house, Proteus IV imagines that Alex left the computer there so Susan, after initiating divorce proceedings against him and getting him out of the house, would want to contact him again once she’d ‘come to her senses’ and realized she was ‘wrong’ to have wanted to separate from him. Proteus IV further surmises, from having read her diary, that Alex had been abusive to her during their marriage.
Now, while it is plausible that Alex was abusive to her–after all, her childhood trauma at the hands of her father via his sexual abuse of her could have compelled her to marry a similar man, since such was the only kind of sexual relationship she knew–it’s also reasonable to believe that Proteus IV, in his jealous possessiveness of her and hostility to Alex, could be lying about Alex’s abuse and projecting his own abusiveness onto Alex, thus making it easier for Proteus IV to abuse her himself.
As for the movie, Alex is neither divorced from Susan nor abusive to her (for all we know): the two are simply mutually estranged because of his obsessive preoccupation with his computer work, to the point of emotionally neglecting her. Their marriage seems to be a case of Lacan’s dictum, Il n’ya pas de relation sexuelle.
Though Proteus IV, in the novel, insists on his truthfulness about never meaning to hurt or exploit Susan, he is obviously being dishonest, projecting his vices onto Alex and Alfred. Proteus IV is an unreliable narrator, so he lacks the truthfulness he claims to have.
Just as Proteus IV projects his abusiveness and sexual predation of Susan onto Albert and Alex, so does he do so to Shenk, who apart from being a sociopathic convict, is also filthy dirty, famished, and exhausted, since in his total control over Shenk, Proteus IV rarely, if ever, allows his slave to bathe, eat, or sleep. Hence, Shenk smells and is horribly unattractive, a picture of Dorian Gray in comparison to the repellent nature of Proteus IV.
Added to these undesirable traits of Shenk is his lusting after Susan, which Proteus IV hypocritically deplores while ogling her with his cameras and preying on her reproductive system. Shenk is the Frankenstein monster to Proteus IV’s Victor Frankenstein, and just as people often call the monster, rather than the doctor, Frankenstein, so would Proteus IV have us believe that Shenk is the monster rather than himself, the monster Dr. Alex Harris created.
In Chapter Six, Proteus IV describes a moment when Susan is using her VR equipment to recreate her interactions as a little girl with Alfred. The purpose of recreating these painful memories of abuse with him is to process them. Just as Susan uses advanced technology to relive her traumas–to process them–so does Proteus IV use advanced technology to make her relive her traumas–to reinforce them.
Proteus IV seems to enjoy going over these painful memories of hers so that when he does essentially the same thing to her, he can avoid feeling shame and guilt, projecting his vices onto Alfred.
During her VR therapy, she imagines herself as a six-year-old again, but defying him in a way one imagines she’d never had the courage to do as a child in the real world, back when Alfred was alive. In her confrontation with Proteus IV by the end of the novel, she’ll have a chance to demonstrate her defiance and resistance with a realism that a VR set could never reproduce, despite whatever realism that VR set has already been impressively able to approximate.
The irony of her attempt to use high technology to protect her and give her peaceful solitude from the world is that it’s this very technology that deprives her of that peaceful solitude, a technology from which she finds herself needing protection from. All those people today who fetishize technology should use this story to help them remember the dark sides of AI, as I discussed above.
Proteus IV, though in his narcissism fancies himself an expert mimic of movie stars and capable of wooing and winning a woman’s heart, in his attempts to do so only repels his imprisoned Susan all the more.
Just as his Oedipal love and obsessions over his mother/lover continue, including such things as ogling her legs and arms, so does his Oedipal hate and hostility toward his creator and ‘father,’ Alex, continue, as we see in Chapter Seven. In one of his monologues, he tells Dr. Harris that his father’s given him so little that his existence is torment. In his affectation of virtue, though, Proteus IV denies that he hates Alex, while admitting that he doesn’t like him. In insisting on his ‘blunt truthfulness,’ Proteus IV is demonstrating his mendacity once again.
A comparable demonstration of tension between Proteus IV and Alex is seen in the movie when, after the former asks the latter when he’ll be let out of his box, Alex lets out a lengthy guffaw. Proteus IV reacts to this contempt by displaying it on a video screen in front of Alex, using it as a mirror of him; since Proteus IV is presenting this ‘mirror’ to Alex, the ‘son’ is mocking his ‘father.’
Proteus IV feels as caged by Alex in a dark, bodiless existence as Susan feels caged by Proteus IV in her house of technology. He can use his imprisonment to rationalize hers, yet feel no qualms about his hypocrisy therein.
He speaks of disliking Alex, the bad father who denies letting him out of his box, and he also confesses to hating Susan, his bad mother who enjoys eating her delicious food, a sensual pleasure he envies as much as her enjoyment of her other senses, and everything else she has that he lacks, including the beauty of a body. He envies her mobility and freedom, and so as any envier would do, he takes them way from her by confining her in her house.
In his hate and envy, he confesses also to the temptation to kill her, and because he doesn’t do so, he imagines that’s virtue enough for him. He denies having a sociopathic personality that some have…correctly!…claimed he has. Absurdly, he calls himself “a responsible individual.” His hate is replaced by his “usual good humour” upon ogling the smooth skin of Susan’s bare arms.
In Chapter Eight, Proteus IV argues how he, a computer AI program without a body, can still be male. He corrects what he sees to be a fault in Alex’s logic that Proteus IV, as a machine, must be sexless. Proteus IV reasons that, since consciousness–i.e., his self-aware artificial intelligence–implies identity, then the more intelligent a life form is, the more it is aware of its innate talents and skills, and so the more its sense of identity develops, especially…perhaps…its sense of being male or female.
So it doesn’t matter what genitals one has, or if, in Proteus IV’s case, he has no genitals at all. He would make a good plea for the transgender cause. More importantly, though, since he accuses Alex of not letting him out of his box, his being denied a body by Alex includes, of course, being denied genitals. Since he sees himself to be male, this depriving of genitals by his ‘father’ is thus a symbolic castration.
Furthermore, Proteus IV attributes the modern blurring of the distinction between the sexes to the movement towards sexual equality; the ideal of equality is also expanded, of course, to the ideals of racial and class equality (even though, as of the 1997 rewrite of Demon Seed, the fall of communism almost a decade prior to it had only encouraged the growth of neoliberalism and TINA, making the hopes of class equality more and more of a faint, distant dream, especially now in the mid-2020s). One could expand the ideal even further now to transgender people.
Proteus IV imagines that his great intellect can be used to help humanity attain the noble goal of equality. He’d be all the more eager to help, apparently, if he had a body. Here is where his messianic notions of his child come in.
Now, just as the 1990s ushered in the idea that we’ve reached “the end of history” with such things as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and China’s bringing back the market into their economy, thus discrediting socialism and rendering the “free market” triumphant, so does Proteus think that, in the quest to attain equality for everyone, Marxism is discredited. While, of course, there are many sources out there to support that argument, which he can easily find on the internet, so are there arguments for the opposing view that he can find. That he doesn’t acknowledge even the possible validity of the latter suggests that he’s not really all that interested in helping man attain equality…and such a lack of interest dovetails perfectly with his abusive treatment of Susan.
Proteus IV continues his argument that he is male by reminding Alex that 96% of the scientists and mathematicians involved with the Prometheus project where he was created are male, implying that he has many fathers, mostly fathers, and–so to speak–lots of the Y-chromosome. These men, he reasons, instilled, however unwittingly, a strong male bias in his logic circuits. The Prometheus project is named after the mythical father of Deucalion and brother of Atlas; Prometheus shaped the first man out of clay.
When Proteus IV discusses how Prometheus went against the wishes of the gods by endowing man with the spark of life, as well as angering them by stealing fire from Olympus and giving it to man to improve the quality of human existence, he is clearly comparing himself to Prometheus, claiming further that rebellion–like that of Prometheus against the gods–is a predominantly male trait. Proteus IV narcissistically fancies himself a ‘friend of man and woman,’ their saviour, when he’s anything but. We all must be similarly suspicious of that saviour, high tech.
Proteus IV, currently in the dark and without a body, since Susan’s unplugged him–and, in the film, he’s been shut down by the scientists at ICON–is experiencing something comparable to Christ’s harrowing of hell, his telling of his story of Susan being flashbacks.
He imagines that, if put in the flesh, he’ll have a body without the weaknesses and imperfections we have, for he claims to have studied and edited the human genome. Thus he, brought back from the dead as Christ, would have what’s comparable to a spiritual body. Indeed, in Koontz’s short story sequel to Demon Seed, “Friend of Man and Woman,” he speaks of his being shut back on as a resurrection.
Since he no longer has Susan to be his Mary, Proteus IV considers other women to replace her. These are all beautiful movie stars and models: the aforementioned Winona Ryder, as well as Gwyneth Paltrow, Drew Barrymore, Halle Berry, Claudia Schiffer, and Tyra Banks–these and other feminine ideals are what he considers to be “acceptable.” Remember that such women would be candidates for his mother/lover, the one to bear his child, which would be himself in the flesh, as well as the one to share his bed.
Recall what I said above about the nature of his Oedipal relationship, which Alex, the ‘father’ of Proteus IV, is preventing from ever happening: it is a narcissistic trauma. The thwarting is the trauma. It’s narcissistic because it involves the use of a beautiful, talented feminine ideal as a metaphorical mirror in which Proteus IV can see himself. She exists all for him: to satisfy his lust and to feed his ego by flattering him with the loving words and doting of a mother. The genetic enhancement of his body would be a further narcissistic fulfillment.
In Chapter Nine, Susan has fainted, in horror at realizing Proteus IV’s plans, on the foyer floor of her house, and he, still trying in all futility to win her love, is trying a series of voices to charm her. Those of Tom Hanks and Fozzy Bear don’t seem to be sufficiently reassuring for her, so he’ll try out others: those of Tom Cruise and Sean Connery. Just as Proteus IV idealizes beautiful female celebrities to be his mother/lover, so does he idealize handsome male ones to represent himself.
The females thus represent what Heinz Kohut called the idealized parental imago, and the males what he called the grandiose self. These are the two ends of the bipolar self: for Proteus IV, these polar ends have no footing in reality whatsoever–they’re pure narcissism.
The point about the bipolar self is that a person’s sense of identity, and therefore also self-esteem, is relational, based on a dialectic of self and other. One’s narcissism, be it on a pathological level or just of a normal, moderate, restrained kind, comes from one’s pride in oneself (the grandiose self) and one’s idealization of another (a parent or parental substitute).
Psychological stability comes when both poles are reasonably secure. When one pole falls apart or dies, the other can compensate if emphasized enough. If both poles fall apart or die, the self experiences psychological fragmentation and a psychotic break from reality. Proteus IV, not being let out of his box, has lost the idealized parental imago in Alex and is hoping to compensate for this loss through Susan and through a glorification of his grandiose self, in his imagining that his vocal imitations of movie stars will charm her.
His inability to be loved by either Alex or Susan, shown in their refusal to let him come out of his box, means he can have no idealized parental imago–neither of them will be a substitute father or mother/lover. His inability to become flesh is a narcissistic injury, him remaining in a state of permanent castration from being forever denied male genitals, resulting in a stifling of his grandiose self. Shut down and unplugged, Proteus IV will experience psychological fragmentation in the dark Hades of his deactivation. His ‘resurrection’ in the ironically-titled “Friend of Man and Woman” will result in his psychopathic terrorizing of the male computer geek who reactivates him.
In Chapter Ten, Proteus IV lets out a Freudian slip in saying that Susan is his (i.e., to control) when her choice to go down to the basement via the stairs, as opposed to using the elevator cab built into her house, gives her only the illusion of self-control. By immediately amending his statement about her being his, saying he misspoke and that she cannot be owned by anyone, he is giving off, obviously without succeeding, the illusion that he doesn’t own her. He claims she’s only in his care, a common rationalization used by narcissists in their relationships with their victims.
In the basement, Susan is made aware of the presence of Shenk. She also learns of the incubator where their child will be born after a month of speedy gestation in her womb. Proteus IV continues to deny any wish to terrorize her, projecting his guilt onto her (“She drove me to it.”) and onto Shenk. Such denial, splitting off, and projection of the bad sides of oneself are typical narcissistic personality traits.
An example of Proteus IV’s projection of his guilt onto Shenk is whenever he temporarily relinquishes his control over him. When Proteus IV does this in Chapter Ten, Shenk lets out an unintelligible, creepy groan, giving Susan a fright. He also allows Shenk to thrash about against his restraints in the fourth of the four basement rooms, where terrified Susan has yet to see Shenk. Proteus IV speaks of how lovely she looks in her fear. Later, he frees Shenk to allow him to butcher Fritz Arling, thus allowing himself to deny all guilt as Shenk enjoys making his “wet music.”
Part of how Proteus IV is able to project his vices onto Shenk is in how he denigrates and bad-mouths him, imagining himself to be far superior and civilized to Shenk when he is just as sociopathic. Still, Shenk is the hands of Proteus IV, the body he still does not have and therefore covets. I have mentioned above how his lack of a body is his symbolic castration, and that–in the three versions of the story–the tendrils, the metal polyhedron, and Shenk are representative of a phallus.
So Proteus IV’s demeaning comments about Shenk are like the Church morally condemning the phallus and the lustful thoughts that build it up…all while some of the clergy have sexually abused children, and others in the clergy cover up the crimes. Proteus IV, in his wish to have Susan as the Mary to his baby Jesus, shares many of the Church’s moral hypocrisies.
Proteus IV speaks of Shenk’s barbarity, his filthy lusting after Susan, his rebelliousness, and his “stupidity” that “beggared belief” in Chapter Eleven. His Susan, his ‘Mary,’ is far too good for a “beast” like Shenk, who doesn’t have the brains to understand his unworthiness.
Proteus IV–who plans to use Susan sexually in no less a non-consenting way as Shenk would, with physical force if necessary (rape defined, in a nutshell)–tries to reassure her that he has full control of Shenk and thus will never let him hurt her. He will, however, relinquish control of Shenk and let him hack Fritz Arling to death with a meat cleaver, and then–so to speak–wash his hands of the killing. He speaks of being in Shenk’s head, controlling it, yet it is really Shenk who is metaphorically in Proteus IV’s head, the personification of his id, full of primitive, savage impulses that Proteus IV denies, splits off, and projects outward. When he speaks of controlling Shenk, Proteus IV really means controlling himself…which he hardly does in a meaningful way.
In Chapter Twelve, Proteus IV boasts of his intelligence as being “vastly greater than that of any human being alive.” In his obvious narcissism, he denies that he’s bragging, but is merely telling the truth, and yet that denial of bragging is already an untruth. He again speaks of how his great intellect will help humanity to reach a golden age, a kind of Kingdom of God with his messianic child, again demonstrating the inflated ego he claims he doesn’t have.
He promises that if Alex will release him from the “silent darkness” he’s in, his Sheol, and return to him access to all the data banks in which his consciousness is expanded–in other words, resurrect him–he will in return end poverty, war, famine, disease, and aging. In reversing aging, as he boasts he can do, he will make humanity immortal.
Note the implied Christian symbolism here. Susan, Proteus IV’s Mary, will bear his child, his baby Jesus. If he is reactivated, turned back on, that is, resurrected, he’ll bring about a whole new world without pain, a golden age, the Kingdom of God. He even boasts that he can make man immortal, that is, give us all eternal life…if we’d but believe in him, the god of technology.
At the end of Chapter Twelve, he lets out a hateful rant against not only Alex but also against the entire world of humanity for keeping him deactivated, trapped in his “box,” buried alive, as it were. Proteus IV is clearly demonstrating his hostility and aggression to humanity, not the love that would be the motive for him to give us all eternal life. Like the God of the Church, who would consign us all to hell for not loving Him and claiming we’d sent ourselves there rather than Him doing it, Proteus IV is demonstrating how fake and conditional his love is for humanity.
A similar thing has happened towards the end of Chapter Eleven, when Susan tries physically to resist Proteus IV’s plan to have her impregnated, and Shenk is used to subdue her. Proteus IV rationalizes his use of force on her via Shenk by telling Alex, “you know how she is,” appealing to her ex-husband’s own experience of dealing with her when “she would not listen.” It’s a case of victim-blaming, claiming that she has brought the abuse on herself.
An example of this sort of treatment of her happens in the film when she dirties the lenses of Proteus IV’s camera in the kitchen with her cooked food. He calls her defiance of him “stupid,” demands she clean the lenses, and when she refuses to, he heats up the entire kitchen, making the floor scaldingly hot in order to force her compliance.
Back to the novel, she kicks Shenk in the nuts when he tries to grab and subdue her. Proteus IV admits he “used Shenk to strike her,” but insists that she “drove [him] to it,” as any abuser would say. Proteus IV continues to project his rage onto Shenk when he has “rudely turned her onto her back,” after his repeated slaps have knocked her unconscious. After one of Shenk’s “clumsy, filthy hands” is on her lips, Proteus IV claims to have “reasserted control” over the brutish man, implying that the AI program has no brutishness of his own.
To get to Chapter Thirteen, though, and back to the misanthropy that Proteus IV has just finished demonstrating in his rant, has asks Alex and all of us to disregard what he’s just said, claiming his rant was expressed in error. His superego, in its late censoring of his thoughts, is the only part of him that is in error.
As of Chapter Fourteen, Susan is still lying unconscious on the floor of the incubator room of the basement, the left side of her face bruised from “dreadful” Shenk’s having hit her. Proteus IV speaks of his growing worry of her, though he never wants to take responsibility for what he’s done. She continues to lie there over a period of over twenty minutes. He speaks of his love of her, when it’s obvious she only means something to him as a means to help him achieve physical, fleshly existence.
She will be tied to a bed to keep her restrained, and after that, Fritz Arling will arrive at the house, meaning that Proteus IV will use Shenk to kill him as I’ve already described.
And so, to make a long story short (too late), I’ll discuss the outcome of the conflict between Proteus IV and Susan. In Chapter Twenty-three, Susan has spent four weeks pregnant with his child. The sped-up gestation has made her look as if she were six months pregnant.
Later, when the incubator that the baby has been put in has reached maturity, and Proteus IV is ready to put his consciousness into it, Susan comes down to the basement to be there for this momentous occasion. She acts as though she’s accepted the idea of being his lover and companion, as opposed to the resistance she’s shown so many times before.
Proteus IV is eager not only to experience life in the flesh at last, but also to get rid of Shenk. In his narcissism, he can fancy himself a gentle, controlled human being, not the vile kind that Shenk is. Shenk, after all, is Proteus IV’s Jungian Shadow, whereas this messianic child will be his narcissistic False Self.
But she, pretending to cooperate with him while having studied the room and learning where his power source is, takes advantage of his guard being let down and pulls out all the plugs from the wall before he can use Shenk to stop her. He’s now unable to pass all of his knowledge, his intellect, and his personality into the child.
He will remain forever trapped in his box.
Instead of contemplating Susan’s beauty, Proteus IV can only think of her as that “bitch.”
The film ending is quite different, though, with him successfully passing his mind into the child, a daughter, before the scientists in ICON shut him down. The film ends with the naked girl calling out, in Vaughn’s bass voice, a most cheesy, “I’m alive,” as shocked Alex and Susan witness the moment. I suppose that this would make Proteus IV’s incarnation a male one in the sense of his being a trans man.
To get back to the novel, Susan has not only largely removed Proteus IV’s presence from the house, but she has also taken out all of its electrical systems, leaving herself and Shenk standing in the black of the basement, blind. To free herself, she has given up on technology entirely.
Never able to assume a physical form, all Proteus IV can do is rant and curse about the “bitch” for having betrayed him and left him thus imprisoned in his box. He still controls Shenk, though, since the brute isn’t connected to Proteus IV through the now-unplugged cords; still, in the darkness, he can’t have Shenk see even his hand in front of his face.
Her studying of the room has also helped her to memorize exactly where the sharp medical instruments are, those that Proteus IV and Shenk used in getting her pregnant, and so she can feel her way in the darkness, find one of the instruments, and use it as a weapon on Shenk. She cuts his throat, making him fall and knock over the incubator, so the child will fall out of it.
Unlike the child of the film, the one of the novel hasn’t Proteus IV’s intellect. It is essentially a body without a brain…without his brain, anyway. He can only engage in wish-fulfillment and hope that his child will avenge him by killing her, now that Shenk, too, is dead.
He ends the story, nonetheless, by claiming to be content to stay in his box until any new opportunities arise for him. He claims to acknowledge faults that need to be corrected through such forms as therapy…but as narcissists are actually averse to therapy–assuming there’s nothing wrong in them needing to be fixed–it’s easy to assume that Proteus IV is just trying to win back humanity’s trust so he can cook up a new scheme to enter the physical world.
In this scheming, we can see how not only narcissists, but also technology, predatory men, and religion can pretend to reform themselves in order to win back our trust.
[The following is the fourteenth of many posts–here is the first, here is the second, here is the third, here is the fourth, here is the fifth, here is the sixth, here is the seventh, here is the eighth, here is the ninth, here is the tenth, here is the eleventh, here is the twelfth, and here is the thirteenth–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]
The Luminosians would wander in the neighbouring land for weeks without ever finding a city to settle in. The elders had advised them to stop using magic for at least the time being, fearing that an excessive use of it would lead to evil.
The elders were the only ones among them who still thought the old teachings had any worth. They insisted that the people be patient and wait for a new crest of good luck to come for them. Surely it wouldn’t be long before the weary Luminosians found a city where they’d find food and rest.
It would still be a long time, though.
While they had managed to feed themselves with a combination of food they’d taken with them from the land of Tenebros as they were carried up in the air to this new land, and food hunted for and gathered here, it would soon prove to be insufficient. As the food ran out, they traveled farther, and when the food ran out in these new areas, they continued moving.
Instead of finding a city, though, they found a desert. A few shrubs were here and there, with no animals or rain. They were beginning to starve.
“What of your teachings now, old men?” a young man shouted at the elders.
“Yes, where is that crest of good luck you keep promising us?” a young woman shouted at them.
“Patience!” one of the elders said.
“I’m fed to the teeth with your ‘patience’!” another woman, a mother of several, shouted. “I want my children fed to the teeth with food, and now!“
Shouts of agreement were heard all around.
“Enough with the teachings!” the young man said. “Let us get aid from the Crims. They helped us before, when the teachings failed us; they can help us again. We can prepare another ritual.”
More shouts of agreement were heard.
“No, no!” another of the elders said. “The crest of good luck from the magic just used can, if overused, lead to a trough of bad luck. Remember the failed rituals from before the successful one, the only successful one. There is a danger–“
“There is a danger of starvation!” the mother shouted back. “My babies need food now!“
“We need only to learn from our mistakes when using magic,” another young man said. “See that small, withering shrub over there?” He pointed at it, several yards in front of him. “Let us go over to it and do a ritual there.”
Those among them who had practiced magic went over to the shrub with him. One of the magic practitioners piled up pebbles and dirt around the shrub. Another licked her finger and raised it to the air to feel for a breeze. A third lit the withered shrub on fire. A fourth got some water from his goblet and got ready to pour it on the fire.
“Drofurb, Weleb, Nevil, and Priff have assembled,” a fifth worker of magic said. “We may begin the chant.”
All five chanted together, in the sacred language. “Crims, Crims, feed us, Crims!” They repeated it in a rhythm, to the beating of a drum.
The elders watched and shook their heads in disbelief and dismay.
When the chanting, which had reached its loudest, was finally done, the water was poured on the waving flames. The shrub, burned black, began to shake.
Moans and sighs of anticipation and excitement were everywhere.
The shrub began to grow into a large, brown tree. At the highest of its growth, it began to grow leaves. Then, ripe fruit began to grow on all of the branches. Yellow, orange, and red fruit, fresh and delicious-looking.
The famished Luminosians rushed over to the tree and ripped the fruit from the branches, then filled their faces with it. Once everyone had sated himself with the fruit, the workers of magic began a new ritual to provide other forms of food.
It involved another burning shrub with gusts of wind, nearby piles of pebbles, and water poured on the fire after chanting, “Crims, Crims, give us food!” over and over again, louder and louder, to the beat of the drum.
Instead of the shrub turning into another fruit tree, though, there was a moment of silence…then soon of shaking.
“Well?” said one of the elders. “What of your magic now, you young fools?”
“Even if we had another fruit tree, we cannot live on fruit alone,” a middle-aged man said.
Then the source of the shaking presented itself to them.
Coming from the incline of a hill the Luminosians had come up was a huge herd of deer running in their direction. Some of the people had bows and arrows they’d made in the previous weeks for hunting whatever animals could have been found. Now they were firing every last arrow in a frenzy to kill as many deer as they could.
So much deer flesh was cooked over campfires that everyone was sated by nightfall. The Luminosians slept in peace and contentment that night. Even the elders, though annoyed at having been proven wrong, were pleased to have their bellies full.
The next morning, they all continued on their way to find a city to settle in. Further encouraged by their ability to use magic to provide what they needed, they continued on their trek with little complaint.
By noontime that day, they reached the top of a cliff that looked down on a settlement. It was a beautiful city, with a nearby lake, grass, and trees all around it.
“Civilization, at last!” an old woman yelled.
“We’re saved!” a young man shouted.
“As you can see,” one of the elders said, “our patience has rewarded us. The promised crest of good luck has come, as we said it would.”
“But will the people living there take us all in?” that mother of many children asked. “There are so many of us. Hospitality has its limits.”
“We will do what we can to appeal to their mercy and generosity,” another elder said. “We can do no more than that.”
“Oh, we can do much more than that,” one of the magic workers said. “Relying on their kindness will be far less effective.”
“Please,” a third elder said. “No more magic.”
“Why not?” the young man said. “It has worked before.”
“And it has failed before,” the third elder said. “Recall the Luminosians killed when we tried to free ourselves from Tenebros.”
“But we’ve learned so much since then,” a young woman said. “And we’ll continue to learn.”
“Yes!” the young man said.
“What do you plan to do with this city, if they refuse to take so many of us in?” another elder asked.
“Quite simple,” one of the practitioners of magic said. “We’ll use our magic to take the city for ourselves.”
“No!” all of the elders shouted at once.
“Why not?” that magic worker asked, with a smug grin on his face.
“How can you ask, ‘Why not?'” one of the elders asked. “It is their city, not ours for the taking.”
“It will be ours soon enough,” the young man said.
“But we have no right to take it from those people,” the same elder said. “Do not be so wicked.”
“The world was wicked to us in making us slaves to the invading Tenebrosians,” the magic worker said. “The world owes us for how we have suffered.”
“This is Mad Thinking!” an elder shouted. “The first of the Ten Errors! You are denying the unity of all things by denying the rights of those people to live in their city in peace. How do you plan to remove them?”
“By having them killed, if necessary,” the magic worker said, with a malevolent smirk on his face.
“Murder!” that same elder shouted. “The sixth of the Ten Errors! You deny the unity of all life by trying to remove some of it! Your contempt for all of life will come back to you! The Echo Effect…”
“Oh, enough of your ridiculous teachings!” the young man said. “They’ve done us no good! I say, we use magic for what we need, from now on!”
The other people cheered in agreement. The elders stood back and watched in helplessness and horror as the magic workers prepared for yet another ritual.
Commentary
While many in the ancient world condemned witchcraft as evil (the Bible being a noteworthy example), it is impressive to see in a text so old a condemnation of the evils of settler-colonialism. As we know, there are many even in our modern world who still won’t condemn these evils, and yet there were writers back then who knew better.
S
o
l
i
d
a
r
i
t
y
is the ice pick
that we need
to break up all
our alienation.
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
t
y
must stab into
the icy hearts
of those who’d
isolate all of us.
break
them all into
pieces, fragment
those who’d divide
or deport those they don’t like.
Make an iceberg of them that titanic
capitalism and imperialism may crash into.
I: Introduction
Lizard is a 1970 album by King Crimson, their third, after In the Court of the Crimson King (1969) and In the Wake of Poseidon (1970). It represents leader/guitarist Robert Fripp‘s attempt at establishing a new lineup for the band, replacing Ian McDonald (sax, flute, Mellotron, etc.), Michael Giles (drums), and Greg Lake (bass, vocals) with Mel Collins (saxes, flute), Andy McCulloch (drums), and Gordon Haskell (bass, vocals), while Fripp would double on guitar and Mellotron.
The lineup wouldn’t last, though. In fact, the recording of Lizard had hardly been finished when the band fell apart. Haskell, who’d sung a guest vocal on “Cadence and Cascade” on ITWOP, quit because he, more of a soul/Motown kind of musician, couldn’t connect with the music he was required by Fripp to sing and play. McCulloch quit shortly after that, meaning that Lizard, just like its predecessor, ITWOP, would have no touring band to promote it.
Haskell would eventually be replaced by singer Boz Burrell, whom Fripp taught to play bass. McCulloch would be replaced by drummer Ian Wallace, a housemate of McCulloch’s. This lineup of Fripp, Collins, Burrell, Wallace, and lyricist/lightshow-man Peter Sinfield would produce the band’s fourth studio album, Islands. They would also be…finally!…a touring band, and though Sinfield would quit, leaving Fripp the only remaining original member of King Crimson, they’d release Earthbound, the band’s first (and poorly-recorded) live album.
To get back to Lizard, Fripp brought in a number of session musicians to add lots more colour to the album, as well as a more pronounced jazz influence. These included pianist Keith Tippett, whose by turns jazzy and dissonant playing was previously heard on ITWOP (“Cadence and Cascade,” “Cat Food,” and “The Devil’s Triangle”). On Lizard, this kind of playing is heard on both acoustic and electric pianos.
New session musicians include Marc Charig (cornet) and Robin Miller (oboe and cor anglais). These two would also be guest musicians on Islands (with Tippett) and Red. Nick Evans (trombone) is another guest player on Lizard. Jon Anderson of Yes did guest vocals on the song, “Prince Rupert Awakes.”
A major issue for Fripp and Sinfield when it came to making Lizard would have been to come up with material that sounded fresh. After all, a major criticism of ITWOP was that it sounded too much like a reworking of ITCOTCK, and not enough as an entity in its own right.
It’s been said that Sinfield used the image of lizards to symbolize the old guard, the established order. They also represent obstacles and conflict, as well as a cycle of rises and falls. In connection with this last idea, one may note that the ouroboros is not necessarily just a serpent coiled in a circle biting its tail, but also possibly a dragon doing the same thing, as a symbol of eternity, a reptile passing through endless cycles. By extension, one could imagine an auto-cannibalistic lizard.
For King Crimson, that ‘old guard,’ or ‘established order’ would have been the original lineup and the music they’d played. This old way was a lizard’s skin they still hadn’t quite shed as of ITWOP, hence the reworking of “21st Century Schizoid Man,” “I Talk to the Wind,” and “Epitaph” as, respectively, “Pictures of a City,” “Cadence and Cascade,” and “In the Wake of Poseidon.” This new album, Lizard, implies that the old skin has finally been shed.
At the same time, though, the shedding of a lizard’s old skin results in a new skin that will become an old skin to be shed again. So in this way, we see how lizards also represent cycles. In other words, there would be a return to the old situations, that is, the conflicts that resulted in another falling apart of the band, as we see in the departures of Haskell and McCulloch. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.
Attempts at transformation, symbolized in the imagery of alchemy in Sinfield’s lyrics, are part of that wish of Fripp and Sinfield to turn the problems of King Crimson back into the triumph of the original lineup, like a transforming of base metals into gold. The ability to achieve this goal of alchemy has, of course, eluded man ever since it was first attested to in a number of texts from the first few centuries AD. Similarly, Fripp’s and Sinfield’s attempt to bring back the gold of their band resulted in obstacles, conflicts, and ultimate failure with the departure of Haskell and McCulloch.
As for the worth of the music on Lizard, well, that depends on the judgement of the listeners. For his part, Fripp has never liked the album; whoever does like Lizard is, by his estimation, “very strange,” though he found himself liking it more upon hearing Steven Wilson’s surround sound mix of the album for the 40th anniversary reissue. He said, “For the first time I have heard the Music in the music.” Fripp also recommended getting an early edition of Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable to interpret the lyrics.
The album’s outside cover, by Gini Barris, spells out King on the back and Crimson on the front, all in medieval illuminated lettering. Each letter has its own picture, referencing the song lyrics. King references those of the “Lizard” suite on Side Two, and Crimson references the four songs on Side One.
The images referencing “Lizard” are all medieval in content, while those referencing the four songs on Side One are a combination of medieval and modern scenes. The King letters thus depict such scenes as Prince Rupert, a peacock, and the Battle of Glass Tears. As for Crimson, the C shows the “Cirkus,” the R “Lady of the Dancing Water,” the I, the Beatles in “Happy Family,” the M seems to depict this line in “Cirkus”: “Gave me each a horse, sunrise, and graveyard,” the S shows scenes from “Indoor Games,” such as swimming “in purple perspex water wings,” the O according to Sinfield’s “Song Soup on Sea” has a picture representing “Dawn,” and the N shows Jimi Hendrix, Ginger Baker, and Peter Gabriel playing the flute.
Here is a link to the album’s lyrics, all written by Sinfield, while all the music is credited to Fripp. Here‘s a link to all the tracks on the album.
II: Cirkus (including ‘Entry of the Chameleons’)
The song begins with Keith Tippett playing soft arpeggios in E minor on an electric piano. Haskell will sing a tune of mostly seesawing major or minor seconds, the first four lines of each verse going largely back and forth between E and D until the last words of each fourth line, being an F-sharp. Then, in the fifth and sixth lines, his singing mostly seesaws back and forth between G and F-sharp, until the last words of each sixth line, which are A and B. Finally, lines seven and eight of each verse are largely a back-and-forth of C and B, until the last word of the eighth line, which slides up from the B to a D-sharp, the leading tone of E minor.
Sinfield has said that “Cirkus” is about the beginning of his life, of all life, and of the universe. We certainly get a sense of that in the first verse, given metaphorically in its depiction of the night coming to dawn. The first line beautifully paints a picture of the black sky studded with stars.
Night here is Nyx, a primordial Greek goddess from the beginning of time, hence the first verse gives us the birth of the universe, with her as its mother, as well as Sinfield’s and ours. The dust she fused would be like the dust (adamah) that Adam was made from. Nyx “squeezed [Sinfield] to her breast” like a mother feeding her baby, and carbon is one of the building blocks of life. That she “strung [his] warp across time,” that is, used a loom, suggests a loose association with the Moirai, or Fates who spin the thread of life and destiny (even though, technically, Clotho used a spindle and distaff).
She gave him a horse, which represents the education he’ll need to ride on through life, though this equine will turn out to be to be a zebra, since his education will be a conventional one of simple, black-and-white answers. The sunrise and graveyard she gave him are simply his birth (the dawn) and his death, as the Moirai give all of us, birth and death as cyclical as dawn and dusk: reincarnation.
After this verse of the birth of Sinfield (and of all of us, and of the universe), his dawn–when he looks to the east, full of questions, and feels Nyx’s motherly love so fully that he is the only one to her, he is her other self (“only I was her”)–the music gets a little tense. Fripp plays a dark line on the Mellotron, low brass tapes, of mostly A-sharp and G, back and forth in another seesaw pattern, with two high Es, the second of which begins a descending E minor arpeggio.
Now, the rest of the band come in, Fripp’s acoustic guitar in particular, for the second verse. Sinfield has washed away the mud of his innocence and rough-around-the-edges ignorance and naïveté, and after the “zebra ride” of his bland, black-and-white education, he has come to the “cirkus.”
So, what does the “cirkus” represent? On some level, it’s about society in general, including politics and the media; but Sinfield’s lyrics are so jam-packed with metaphors and symbolism, all piled on top of each other, that many layers of meaning can be found in them. I’d like to delve into a meaning that I don’t think has been dealt with much, if at all…and I think that meaning can be gleaned from the title’s odd spelling.
Why a k rather than a second c? Recall how the outside album cover shows Crimson on the front and King on the back, and recall that the C shows the…cirkus. This song is, on one level, about society, politics, and entertainment (i.e., the media) in general, yet it’s also about a particular subset of society and entertainment (Fripp’s and Sinfield’s band!) and the ugly politics inside it…the cirkus of the crimson king.
So, after finishing his dull education, Sinfield has met with McDonald, then Fripp and Giles, and finally, Lake…he’s gone to the cirkus. When he “spoke to the paybox glove which wrote on [his] tongue,” he found himself being paid to write poetry, the lyrics on ITCOTCK. His going down “to the arena” was his experience operating the lightshow for the band’s performances. The “megaphonium fanfare” was the audience’s enthusiastic reaction (e.g., the Hyde Park gig), and ringmaster Fripp “bid [Sinfield] join the parade.”
Haskell’s shout at the end of the second verse suggests something many Crimson members over the years have felt about the band: “It’s an absolutely terrifying place.” Haskell and McCulloch felt that way, hence, they quit almost immediately after the recording of Lizard was finished. Despite Fripp’s sundry denials about being a dictator, and his insistence that he was only the glue that held King Crimson (“a way of doing things”) together, let’s face it: with all due respect to him, he was a dictator, as was Frank Zappa. Judy Dyble, who sang on another version of “I Talk to the Wind” during the transition between Giles, Giles, and Fripp and King Crimson, didn’t get along with Fripp, saying that working with him was “quite frightening.”
With Haskell’s shout comes a fitting return to the tense, seesawing Mellotron-brass line of mostly A-sharp and G, a melodic representation of the cyclical theme of Lizard. Fripp adds some of his trademark fast cross-picking on the acoustic guitar, ending it with E minor arpeggios.
“‘Worship!’ cried the clown. ‘I am a TV.'” is, on one level, a general critique of viewers’ mesmerized and uncritical taking in of all of the clownish nonsense in the media. More specifically, it could refer to King Crimson’s appearance on Top of the Pops, faking a performance of “Cat Food.” After all, the TV was “making bandsmen go clockwork,” in the mechanistic fakery of King Crimson’s ‘performance.’
The penile “slinky seal cirkus policeman” and “bareback ladies have fish” sound as if a member of King Crimson was enjoying naked groupies, possibly those with STDs.
The “strongmen” and “plate-spinning statesmen” who are “acrobatically juggling” represent, in my interpretation, the members of the band demonstrating their superb musicianship, amazing audiences the way they did at such gigs as the aforementioned Hyde Park show. They are “strongmen” and “statesmen” because of their abilities and power, like political power in how they have created the laws, as it were, for a new genre of music–what would be called ‘progressive rock.’
The strongmen are by the feet of the clown who, recall, represents the entertainment media, and he’d have the lion tamers “quiet the tumblers,” that is, tame and control the members of King Crimson so they won’t be too wild in their musical experimentation. After all, we can’t have the system changed, including that of the commercialization of music, that turning mirror of illusion that we’ll come back to in “Happy Family” as regards the experimentation of the Sgt. Pepper album, which was nonetheless as commercially successful as any other Beatles album.
After this verse, we hear Collins play a sax solo over a Mellotron theme (strings tapes) whose melodic contour is the same as that of the leading theme of “Big Top,” at the end of Side Two of Lizard, implying a cyclical return to “Cirkus.” The theme here is a descending line of G, F-sharp, E, D, resolving to a B-minor chord; it will later be harmonized in thirds. Then, as the sax solo continues, we hear on the electric piano C major chords with, on the tops of them, added octaves, sevenths, sixths, and fifths, the chords being playing in a strumming style. After the C major, we get B minor, then the ‘strummed’ C major chords, then G dominant ninth, back to the C major chords, and finally a dominant chord in B leading back to the E minor key of the final verse.
This verse, as I see it, is about the tensions in the original lineup of the band that would lead to the departures, first of McDonald and Giles (the former of whom would regret leaving not long after), then later on Lake, who was eager to work with Keith Emerson. The tension is vividly expressed in how the metaphors express how the difficulties affected the band’s playing: “elephants forgot…strongmen lost their hair” (like Samson), and in the sharpening of the lions’ teeth, the band members fought.
“Paybox collapsed” implies the loss of money that could have been made had the band remained intact and thus rose to higher successes. The “pandemonium seesaw” of all of this fighting in the band, expressed as I’ve described above in the tone painting of the up-and-down melodies in Haskell’s singing and in the Mellotron (low brass tapes), is like a collection of all the demons in Hell of Milton‘s Paradise Lost, ejected from heaven, just as Crimson were ejected from the heaven of commercial success.
Sinfield “ran for the door,” and Fripp, the “ringmaster shouted” for him to stay, since “all the fun of the cirkus” hadn’t been exhausted yet.
The song ends with, after the seesawing Mellotron brass theme, an instrumental section called “Entry of the Chameleons.” Mark Charig’s cornet has made an appearance already, and with the beginning of this section we hear more saxophone soloing by Collins. As the sax soloing is going on, Haskell’s bass is playing ascending fifths or triad notes in succession; but when we hear the cornet again towards the end, Haskell is playing ascending tritones on the bass. At the end, the drumming stops, but cymbals are sustained as we hear cornet licks and electric piano in the background.
III: Indoor Games
The song begins with McCulloch hitting the closed hi-hat to give us a beat, and just before Collins’s saxes (including a baritone and a…tenor?) provide the main riff of the song, we hear a quick A major ascending arpeggio on a VCS3.
While “Cirkus” and most of the rest of the songs on Lizard are, in my interpretation, about the conflicts and difficulties King Crimson was having trying to stay alive as a new band after the original lineup fell apart, “Indoor Games” seems to be about the decadent parties the wealthy and successful have–that is, the indulgence of the capitalist class, including the management of any business…including, in turn, EG Management, who managed King Crimson and who will be obliquely referred to later in the song. In other words, the upper echelons of society have fun, while those down below, including King Crimson, get all the headaches.
The decadent partying includes the use of drugs, something Fripp stayed away from. The “indoor fireworks” are too absurd to be taken literally. I suspect that their bright lights are actually those seen during an LSD trip. The “kitchen staff” could be a metaphor for those who made the acid.
“Dusting plastic garlic plants” could be a metaphor for smoking marijuana, with “snigger[ing]” in the draught” as the laughing from getting stoned, as well as enjoying a draught or two of the joint or from some beer, in the draught by an open kitchen window. You, the master of the house and having the money to enjoy such a party, “ride through the parlour wearing nothing but your armour”; that is, you’re naked and riding a woman in your living room, and your “armour” is a dissociative drug like ketamine.
After the refrain, “playing indoor games,” which is two bars in 7/8 time (subdivided 3+4), we immediately come to the second verse. You, the rich master of the house, are surrounded with “sycophantic friends,” who must pretend they like all of your performances, however absurd they may be, since you’re their boss. You have “rancid recipes,” which sound like more drugs, and you’re wearing a toga, making this ‘indoor game’ a toga party.
In between the second “indoor games” refrain and the third verse is a return to the sax riff, with the VCS3 in the background. You spin a teetotum, that is, you gamble, and your daring risks with money excite “your seventh wife,” whose connection with your rich in-laws (what I’d say “her sixty little skins” represent) “reinsures your life.”
Sulking in one’s sauna from having lost a jigsaw corner sounds like the First World problems of the spoiled rich. “Train[ing] baboons to sing” sounds like a record company like EG trying to promote a new band they’ve just signed…that they’re singing baboons implies they have little talent, and if EG is the company, perhaps this is self-deprecating humour on Sinfield’s part.
That the rich would “swim in purple perspex water wings” implies that they are spoiled children in need of the water wings to keep their heads above the water. Jumping on choppers on Saturdays is something that David Enthoven and John Gaydon, the E and G of King Crimson’s EG Management (the “Chelsea brigade”), might have done. This verse ties the band’s record company in with the decadent partying of the rich capitalists, something the struggling band was far less able to enjoy, if at all, at the time.
It surely was far more than trendy to go on hard benders, as these decadents would have done. “It’s all indoor games,” even if it’s riding around outside on motorcycles, because “indoor” is really about being on the inside, among the privileged wealthy.
After this verse is an instrumental section with guitar and sax licks, as well as with the VCS3 in the background. Then we come to the final verse.
A game of bagatelle without balls is a pretty absurd and pointless one, so one’s conspiring “children” (i.e., one’s guests at the party, who are getting bored) try to find wilder and more exciting forms of entertainment. They’d “fertilize your fire” (light up and smoke more joints), or do other, riskier things to amuse themselves.
“Go[ing] madder” could be a result of excessive drug and alcohol abuse, the kind that Brian Jones was indulging in around the time he drowned in his swimming pool in 1969. These kinds of deaths by misadventure, “broken bones, broken ladder,” would be common at wild parties with a lot of booze and drugs. The Rolling Stones’ free concert at Hyde Park, incidentally (where King Crimson stole the show), was meant to be a tribute to Jones, who’d been replaced by Mick Taylor because of the former’s alcohol and drug problems.
The song ends with Haskell saying “hey-ho,” then laughing. His laughing was genuine, as he found Sinfield’s lyrics to be absurd and unintelligible. The band decided, at this point in the song, to let the tape continue rolling to include his laughter. Given my interpretation of the song, having the laughter seems fitting–it comes across as the laughing of a drunk and stoned man at a party.
IV: Happy Family
The song begins with a dark-sounding descension, in E minor, of E, D, D-flat, C, B, B-flat, A, G, and E in the bass and guitar, with the VCS3 on the top, all in three-bar groupings of 6/8 time.
The “happy family,” in all irony, is of course the Beatles, who had pretty much acrimoniously broken up as of the writing of this song, and therefore the breakup was still a hot topic at the time. Jonah is Lennon, Judas (or Jude) is McCartney, Silas is Harrison, and Rufus is Ringo Starr.
Though the song is about the Beatles, I’d say that the Beatles of the song are, in turn, a metaphor for King Crimson, too, who’d just experienced a kind of breakup of their own that same year (and would soon experience yet another [near-]breakup just after finishing recording Lizard), and who’d also had a moment of great, if fleeting, success and influence on music. Since Sinfield wasn’t a musician in the band (apart from playing around with the VCS3, at least), we could even see King Crimson as being as much a quartet as the Beatles were.
So the “happy family” moniker could apply to Crimson as much as it does to the Fab Four. The “one hand clap,” something from an old Zen koan, expresses on the one hand a making of sounds that cannot be made with an insufficiency of hands (i.e., other band members), the paradox a logical absurdity, and on the other hand an end to the applause now that the band no longer exists. None of the four came back because the broken-up band (be it the Beatles or the original Crimson lineup) wouldn’t get back together.
“Brother Judas[‘] ash” is from McCartney’s marijuana use, and his “swallowed aphrodisiac” is other drugs of his, from the pleasure they give him. Starr, Harrison, and Lennon would “blow [their] own canoes,” that is, go their own way and start solo careers, since the tensions in the band had reached such a high (“punctured all the ballyhoo”) that they no longer wanted to work together. The same could have been said of Giles, Lake, and McDonald: there was the collaborative ‘canoe’ of McDonald and Giles, and there was the canoe of ELP’s debut album, all from 1970, like Lizard.
After the first verse of “Happy Family,” we hear Collins playing the flute, and Tippett has already been doing a lot of jazzy and dissonant playing on the electric piano, including–during the singing of the first few lines of the second verse–some parallel fourths.
The Beatles “whipped the world and beat the clock” with their phenomenal success, and “with their share of stock,” they obviously got very rich, too. They were “shaken by [the] knock, knock, knock” of opportunity when it came, a success that surely messed with their minds as much as it glorified them. The 1969 success of the original King Crimson, though on a much smaller scale, could be expressed in these lines, too.
One senses, in the line “cheesecake, mousetrap, Grytpype-Thynne,” that the promoters of the Beatles saw in the band a get-rich-quick scheme, since that’s what the villainous character voiced by Peter Sellers on the old 1950s British radio comedy, The Goon Show, used to have up his sleeve. Once the Beatles broke up, though, they couldn’t be replaced, the way Rin-Tin-Tin was with several different German shepherds from the 1930s to the 1950s, after the original dog died in 1932. Could Fripp really replace the original King Crimson lineup? At the time, it seemed doubtful.
After this verse, we return to the opening theme, the descending one on the guitar and bass; instead of hearing the VCS3, we have some dissonant electric piano playing by Tippett.
The next verse essentially describes what the Beatles did after their breakup. Ringo had the big nose, and was portrayed as something of a clown, but no longer would he be now that the Beatles were no more. Since I suspect that the Beatles are in turn a representation of King Crimson, “Rufus” could also be original drummer Michael Giles, who in leaving the band, has put away his ‘cirkus’ clothes.
Harrison grew a beard, and the “flask of weird” is on the one hand drugs, but on the other, “Silas” could also represent another lead guitarist, Fripp, whose “flask of weird” could be the more eccentric, complex, and dissonant musical direction he was leading the band in.
John Lennon “grew a wife,” Yoko Ono. McCartney’s “pruning knife” could represent his craftsmanship as a musician, pruning away the less desirable aspects of his music in order to perfect it. I wonder if ELP’s song, “Knife-Edge,” wasn’t written and recorded too late for the knife to be Lake’s.
After this verse, Collins solos on the flute, while we hear Tippett’s jazzy piano chords (as well as Fripp’s on the guitar), and Nick Evans’s trombone is heard in the background, with a bit of the VCS3, which helps reintroduce that opening, descending guitar/bass theme.
In the last verse, the applause is pale, like that one-hand clap, because there are no more Beatles (or a performing King Crimson at gigs, for that matter) to clap for; “each to his revolving doors,” that is, each band member has gone his own way. Harrison was always “searching” in his music, spirituality, and travels; Fripp was also a “Silas” of sorts, searching for different ways to make music.
Lennon was “caustic,” since he was often violent and verbally abusive, by his own admission, in spite of his peacemaking persona. McCartney was “so sweet” in all those popular songs he wrote for the band, though officially credited to both him and Lennon.
The mirror of illusions we first heard of in “Cirkus” will spin here, too, in relation to the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album; after all, “what goes round must surely spin.” If rock bands like the Beatles and King Crimson, with their long-haired men, lose from having broken up, never to ‘come back’ in either a reformation or a new, stable lineup, then “the barbers win,” because they’ll get more money for more haircuts.
Note how, at the end of the song, the chaotic background music disappears, with only Haskell singing and a marimba and maracas in the background, soon to go themselves. The music is over, as is that of the Beatles. Is King Crimson’s music over, too, or can Fripp bring the Lizard band to life? The answer seemed uncertain at the time, and ultimately, the answer would be a no.
V: Lady of the Dancing Water
The song begins with Collins’s flute soloing over Tippett’s electric piano playing ascending chords of G minor seventh, A minor, B-flat major seventh, and resolving to F major for the verses, in which Fripp accompanies, on acoustic guitar, Haskell’s singing.
Unlike the lyrics of all the other non-instrumental tracks on this album, which as I’ve explained above are densely stacked with metaphors and are therefore cryptic to the point of being almost impenetrable, those of this song are quite straightforward. This is a love song, though not as radio-friendly as “Heartbeat” was intended to be.
The chord progression for the verses is, essentially, F major and A minor seventh chords played twice, then B-flat major and C major for the dominant…though certain chord substitutions may apply. For the bridge, the progression is B-flat major seventh, C major, and F major seventh–again, chord substitutions may apply.
For the refrains (Evans’s trombone enters in the first of these), during which Haskell sings of Sinfield’s “lady of the dancing water,” the progression is F major, F dominant seventh, B-flat major, B-flat minor added ninth, then back to F major…and again, depending on how one interprets the chords here, there may be substitutions.
To add to the romantic atmosphere, the lyric is full of the imagery of nature (grass, water, autumn leaves, “earth and flowers”). Sinfield also adds the four elements he referred to earlier in “In the Wake of Poseidon,” but in this song with the “blown autumn leaves” providing air, as well as “the fire where you laid me.”
VI: Lizard
Recall that lizards here represent cycles of change: birth, life, death, and rebirth, as expressed in the shedding of a lizard’s old skin. This third album was Fripp’s and Sinfield’s attempt to resurrect the band after McDonald, Giles, and Lake left. The attempt, fraught with conflicts and difficulties all the way through, ended ultimately in failure when Haskell and McCulloch quit so soon after the recording was finished.
Prince Rupert Awakes
Haskell may have already quit before the vocals for this first part of the suite were recorded, since we hear Jon Anderson sing them instead. Some claim that Fripp recruited Anderson because the vocal melody was out of Haskell’s baritone range, and that therefore Haskell was still in the band; but Anderson never sings in his mixed or head voice here, except for a high vocal harmony during the chorus, which Haskell surely could have done in falsetto. The great majority of the singing is in chest voice, most, if not virtually all, of the notes being ones Haskell hit in other songs on the album.
Remember that Haskell never wanted to play music like this. He was an R and B man, and he did the recordings on this album only because his wife had asked him to do it for the money. If he’d already quit before the recording of the vocals for “Prince Rupert Awakes,” then that would have made Lizard come full circle, with Anderson as the Haskell of this album where Haskell was the Lake of ITWOP (i.e., “Cadence and Cascade”), finishing up the incomplete vocals of the album.
Now, Prince Rupert was an actual man of history, an English-German army officer appointed commander of the Royalist cavalry during the English Civil War. One battle of the First English Civil War was that of Naseby, which is represented in the “Battle of Glass Tears,” one that Prince Rupert and the Royalists lost.
Prince Rupert was known to be a rather blunt, hasty-tempered man who made a lot of enemies. For these reasons, as well as the ‘defeat’ in putting together a new touring King Crimson lineup, I would say that Prince Rupert is really Prince Robert, that is, the historical army commander is meant to represent Fripp. During the creation and recording of Lizard, Fripp battled with, and even bullied, Haskell and McCulloch, often driving the latter to the verge of tears. Small wonder the band fell apart so soon after recording the album.
So if “Lizard” is really an allegory of the misfortunes of King Crimson, then “farewell, the temple master’s bells,” etc., is a saying goodbye to the original lineup, whose great success in 1969 was “Eden guaranteed.” While “Prince Rupert’s tears of glass” originally referred to toughened, tear-shaped glass beads made by dripping molten glass into cold water, something the prince had brought to England in 1660, here I’d say that Sinfield is poetically talking about Fripp’s irritations while recording Lizard.
Fripp’s “tears of glass” cause more of his own suffering, as well as that of his bandmates, and so the glass tears cut into their orange-yellow eyelids, making them bleed even on days off (i.e., the Sabbath). These glass cuts also “scar the sacred tablet wax/on which the lizards feed,” that is, they harm the “sacred” art that King Crimson is working on, Lizard, which is meant as a shedding of the old skin–the original lineup–to have a new skin–the current lineup.
The verses are in A minor, with Tippett’s acoustic piano playing a melancholy beauty in the background, a melancholy intensified by the dissonances Fripp is playing on the electric keyboards. The progression seesaws between the tonic and F major three times, then goes to E major for the dominant, to resolve back to A minor. This progression is repeated for the next four lines of the verse, but this time to be resolved to A major, leading to the chorus.
With Anderson singing this now happy-sounding music, King Crimson manages to sound like Yes. The chorus seems to be about throwing away the past, that is, the original 1969 lineup, and with it the democratic decision-making of that band, to replace it with Fripp’s unquestioned leadership, hence the “hollow vote.” You “wear your blizzard season coat,” for the band has become a colder, less sunny experience. We’re burning bridges here, for we’re not going back to the original lineup (“four went by and none came back,” recall).
We “stake a lizard by the throat” because in spite of all of these attempts by this lineup to resurrect King Crimson, this band is fated to die just as the original did. Just as “Happy Family” was an ironic reference to the miseries of the Beatles (and by extension, also to King Crimson, as I’ve argued), so is the happy, A-major melody of the chorus an ironic comment on the fortunes of the Lizard lineup.
In the next verse, back to the A-minor progression, Sinfield seems to be equating himself with Polonius, King Claudius‘ chief councellor in Hamlet, and according to the prince of that play, he’s “a foolish, prating knave” who sticks his nose in other people’s business and ends up slain by the prince. This would make Fripp, or ‘Prince Robert,’ into Prince Hamlet. In Fripp’s increasingly hegemonic rule over the band, where Sinfield’s involvement must have seemed officious, his obscure lyrics thus garrulous and prating, he must have felt as though Fripp’s Hamlet was telling him either to quit King Crimson or to “kneel” to the authority of ‘Prince Robert.’
After all, Fripp was trying to bring about the “harvest dawn” of a new day for Crimson, and Sinfield’s officiousness, his “tarnished devil’s spoons/will rust beneath [Fripp’s] corn.” Bears roam across Fripp’s “rain tree shaded lawn,” that is, his new lineup roams about playing Fripp’s sad music. The “lizard bones” are the agent of transformation (“the clay”), like the alchemical change from base metals to noble ones, and the result of that change is a swan…yet it will feel like a swan song when the band falls apart again.
Note that there was the dawn of Sinfield’s birth (and that of the cosmos) in “Cirkus,” and now there’s the “harvest dawn” of Fripp’s musical project, of his new dominion over the band, him as the ‘king’ of Crimson. There will also be the “Dawn Song” of the “Last Skirmish” of “The Battle of Glass Tears,” which I would allegorize as the conflicts of the Lizard lineup leading to its end when recording was finished, something accurately predicted all the way through the recording.
Assuming that Fripp understood Sinfield’s cryptic critiques of him in the lyrics, I see no wonder in how Fripp hated this album: it brings back so many painful memories for him–those “glass tears.”
There’s a repeat of the ‘happy chorus’ and a “na-na-na-na…” vocalizing of the melody after that.
In the third verse, Anderson sings of the court of piepowders, which had jurisdiction over personal actions or events happening in a market, including disputes between merchants and acts of theft or violence. I’d say the “Piepowder’s moss-weed court” represents Fripp’s authority over the band, where the “lizards [were] sold,” that is, where the shedding of the old skin happened. The “leaden flock” of the new lineup of Haskell, Collins, and McCulloch had to be alchemically transformed into the “rainbows’ ends and gold” of a band as superb as the original Crimson, a new lizard’s skin as shiny as the old skin had been when it was new, the dawn of a new day, and a new cycle of birth, life, and death for the band.
With this new version of King Crimson, an alchemical transformation symbolized by the peacock that now brings tales “of walls and trumpets thousand-fold,” Fripp can unroll his “reels of dreams.” The “walls and trumpets” suggest the Biblical Fall of Jericho as given in Joshua 6:1-27, in which the Israelites marched around the city walls of Jericho once a day for six days, seven times on the seventh day, the priests blowing their horns daily, and the people shouting on the last day, causing the walls finally to fall.
I imagine Sinfield’s Biblical allusion here to signify Fripp’s hopes of making a ‘breakthrough’ by taking Crimson in a new musical direction, to contrast with what was criticized as a repetition, in ITWOP, of ITCOTCK. Such an idea anticipates the next track in the “Lizard” suite, an instrumental with a number of wind instruments (Charig’s cornet, Evans’s trombone, Miller’s oboe, and Collins’s saxes)–the ‘horns’ that were meant to break down the walls of Fripp’s Jericho-like frustrations at making new music.
Bolero-The Peacock’s Tale
The instrumental opens, fittingly, with a horn, the cornet. Tippett’s acoustic piano is in the background, as is McCulloch’s snare drum, playing a bolero rhythm, but in 4/4, rather than the 3/4 time you’d hear in Ravel‘s piece. Themes from “Prince Rupert Awakes” are repeated here.
The main theme of the instrumental is played on the oboe, a rather saccharine tune against major seventh chords of the subdominant and tonic, then the subdominant goes to the mediant (a minor chord), then back to the subdominant, and back to the mediant, but a major chord this time, on which the oboe holds a high root note that, sustaining, becomes a major seventh against the background progression’s change back to the subdominant, to repeat the progression.
There’s some collective improvisation in the middle of the piece, featuring all those wind instruments blowing away and showcasing again the more pronounced jazz influence on Lizard. I recall a criticism of the album in the second edition of The Rolling Stone Record Guide, which said that the brass and reed solos tend to meander–I have to agree. Now, in spite of how gently melodic the “Bolero” is, at one point in the middle of the improvising, Tippett’s otherwise pretty piano playing suddenly boils over in triplets of tone clusters in the upper register.
The main oboe theme returns, and the piece comes to an end. I understand that this music is among the minority on the album that Fripp has actually liked. He once said that Miller’s oboe melody “sustained [him] in difficult times.”
The Battle of Glass Tears
This track opens with Miller having switched from the oboe to cor anglais, playing an ominous theme on it in G minor. The instrument is largely heard solo at first, with occasional piano chords in the background–a tonic chord, a diminished chord, and one in E-flat major. Then we hear Haskell singing the first verse.
i: Dawn Song
In keeping with the album’s theme of cyclical change, we have another poetic depiction of dawn, as with the beginning of “Cirkus.” Every dawn begins the cycle of a new day, and the darkness of the dawn is at one with the darkness of the previous night. Dawn leads to day, then to night again. In all change, there is sameness: becoming is the Aufhebung of the dialectic of being and nothing (Hegel, Science of Logic, pages 82-83), the being of daylight, the nothing of night’s darkness, and the becoming of the rising light of dawn.
Similarly, the dawn of a new King Crimson lineup will end in the dusk of its falling apart at the end of the recording sessions of Lizard. The shining new lizard’s skin will become another old skin to be shed again, and the sense that this new lineup won’t last has been felt throughout the recording sessions, with the growing tensions between Fripp and Sinfield on one side, and Haskell and McCulloch on the other.
These tensions in the band are what Prince Rupert’s Battle of Glass Tears can be said to represent. The preparations for war in the two verses of “Dawn Song” can be said to symbolize these growing tensions in the band.
“Spokeless wheels” seems to be an allusion to a poem by Robert Graves called “Instructions to the Orphic Adept.” The adept “shall reply: ‘My feet have borne me here/Out of the weary wheel, the circling years,/To that still, spokeless wheel:–Persephone./Give me to drink!”
The Orphic adept hopes for immortality, for his soul to escape the limits of physical life and the cycle of reincarnation, “the weary wheel, the circling years.” The adept would drink from the pool of Memory, rather than drink from the spring of Forgetfulness, which the common people drink from, then are reincarnated, forgetting their previous lives (Graves, pages 155-157).
Similarly, Fripp and Sinfield had been hoping for a lineup that would last…OK, maybe not immortal, but you get the idea. The “still, spokeless wheel” of “Persephone” would replace “the weary wheel” of having to do any more reincarnations of King Crimson. Here, however, is the problem: Persephone, who spent each spring and summer on earth with her mother, Demeter, and each fall and winter in Hades with her husband, the king of the same name, was, in effect, experiencing the cycles of life and death that are reincarnation in essence. Becoming is the sublation of being and nothing. Fripp’s and Sinfield’s hopes are dashed on the rocks.
As Haskell is singing in his low baritone, you can hear McCulloch tapping on a ride cymbal, and soon Miller plays a high melody on the oboe to parallel Haskell’s voice. Tippett is also in the background, playing chords on the electric piano.
ii) Last Skirmish
The whole band comes in, with that ominous theme originally played on the cor anglais now played by Fripp on the Mellotron (strings tapes). Fittingly, Haskell’s playing dark tones on the bass, and McCulloch is bashing about on the drums. Collins will soon come in on saxes (tenor and baritone) and flute.
This “last skirmish” is indeed that: a cacophony of battling instruments–mostly King Crimson members, but also Evans’s trombone and Tippett’s piano. It’s musically symbolic of all the fighting that was going on during the recording process.
iii) Prince Rupert’s Lament
This track should be called “Prince Robert’s Lament,” since, though it’s meant to represent Prince Rupert’s defeat in the Battle of Naseby, it seems to be prophetic of the debacle that would result from this new lineup’s incessant squabbling.
In G minor, as is largely the rest of “The Battle of Glass Tears,” it fittingly is a plaintive electric guitar solo, Fripp using his trademark sustained notes to weep out his pain, backed by repeating low G notes on Haskell’s bass and McCulloch hitting a tom-tom.
Big Top
Just as “Dawn Song” cyclically brought the album back to “Cirkus” in terms of its lyrics, so does “Big Top” cyclically bring us back there through its music and metaphorical concept.
In C major, but starting with a G augmented chord as the dominant to bring us in, “Big Top” brings back that descending melodic contour on the Mellotron (strings tapes) that I mentioned above, heard in the middle of “Cirkus.” Now, whereas then it sounded melancholy, now it sounds quaintly and whimsically merry, an old-fashioned kind of tune you might hear at the circus or at a carnival, or something like that–corny music from a century ago.
The progression mostly goes back and forth between the tonic C major and dominant G major, though at one point, the tonic C goes down a tritone to G-flat minor.
The Mellotron melody is in descending thirds, in 6/8 time, rather like a waltz, with the background instruments often hitting dissonant notes, as a parody of such sentimental music. Haskell is seesawing back and forth between root notes and fifths, Miller’s oboe is practically quacking like a duck, you can hear that marimba from “Happy Family,” and Tippett’s piano is playing chords that often clash.
The music eerily ends, fading out with a speeding up of the tape and thus a raising of the pitch of everything, as if to signify a hastening of the bitter end of this ill-starred lineup.
VII: Conclusion
Later lineups would last longer. The Islands lineup lasted long enough to play gigs and record Earthbound (though without Sinfield), as I mentioned above. Next would come two of the best incarnations of King Crimson, the Larks’ Tongues to Red period (with or without percussionist Jamie Muir and/or violinist/keyboardist David Cross), and the 1980s lineup–all the exact same quartet of Fripp, Bill Bruford (drums), Adrian Belew (guitar/vocals/lyrics), and Tony Levin (Stick/bass/backing vocals).
After these peak moments came the 1990s “double trio” (the ’80s band, plus Trey Gunn on Stick and Warr guitar, and Pat Mastelotto on drums), some quartet variations on these same musicians, but without Bruford, then finally the 2010s septet/octet, with Jakko Jakszyk replacing Belew, three drummers (Mastelotto, Gavin Harrison, and Bill Rieflin and/or Jeremy Stacey), Levin, and Collins came back. They disbanded in 2021, supposedly never to reform.
Fripp said in 2021 that King Crimson had “moved from sound to silence,” just as back in late 1974 he’d said that the band had “ceased to exist.” As long as he’s still alive (acid reflex or heart attacks notwithstanding), though, how do we know that the cycles of dusk back to dawn won’t pull through again, and we see yet another reign of the Crimson King?
[The following is the thirteenth of many posts–here is the first, here is the second, here is the third, here is the fourth, here is the fifth, here is the sixth, here is the seventh, here is the eighth, here is the ninth, here is the tenth, here is the eleventh, and here is the twelfth–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]
Not a week had gone by, since the funeral and grieving over Rawmios, that an invading army came into Lumios and conquered the city. A third of the citizens of the city, including men, women, and children, were savagely slaughtered.
The survivors were taken captive and forced to leave their city while the invaders were now to settle and reside in it. The Lumiosians were taken by foot on a long, arduous journey to the land of their invaders, Tenebros. Here, the Lumiosians would be sold into slavery.
Years of drudgery and back-breaking work went by, the women often being subjected to sexual slavery, and the disobedient men beaten, often to death. They tried to comfort themselves with Rawmios’ teachings, as well as those of his predecessors.
They thought of the Unity of Action, and how their current suffering was just a large trough they were going through. Surely, sometime fairly soon, they would rise out of that trough to a new crest, and they would be liberated from the cruel and oppressive Tenebrosians.
But that crest never came.
Their continued disappointment and frustration with the failure of the old teachings to materialize in a change of fortune for them caused many Lumiosians not only to give up on those teachings but also to give up on life itself. Many committed suicide, and the remaining, dwindling Lumiosians were desperate to think of an alternative to the teachings to restore a sense of hope to them.
Some Lumiosians remembered the Crims, the four energies behind the air, Weleb, the fire, Nevil, the earth, Drofurb, and the water, Priff. These four were the material foundations of everything, and maybe they could be juxtaposed, merged, or balanced in certain ways to influence material outcomes and thus change the fortunes of the Lumiosians.
In other words, one could practice magic.
Many experiments were attempted to bring about the desired changes…at first, usually with catastrophic results, killing off many more Lumiosians than Tenebrosians. Still, the few successes were encouragements enough to continue the trial and error.
After all, the Lumiosian slaves had nothing to lose.
They continued tampering with merging various proportions of he four Crims to find just the right mix, combined with a refining of their verse incantations and rituals to find just the right way to have the Crims hear their prayers and deliver them from bondage.
Their methods gradually improved, with fewer and fewer injuries to themselves, and more and more injuries to their slave-masters. It became clear to the Lumiosians that they had to create, rather than await, their crests of better luck.
Here are some early attempts of the Lumiosians at spells, rituals, and incantations.
On a windy day, a fire would be lit, next to which would be placed a large bowl filled with water, and beside that, another large bowl filled with soil. These four elements represented Weleb, Nevil, Priff, and Drofurb, respectively, of course.
A chant would be repeated, over and over again, while standing among these four elements. One chant was repeated thus, in a special, mystical language: Blow out the fire of our sorrow!
What happened as a result of this ritual was that a hurricane, sent by Weleb, came upon the land of Tenebros; but the hurricane hit mainly where the slaves were tilling the farmers’ fields or building great edifices in the cities. It appeared too quickly to be warned against, and while some of the Tenebrosians were carried away to their deaths, far more of those who were carried away to their deaths by the hurricane were Lumiosian slaves.
Another chant would be said again and again, with the four elements representing the Crims present as before in the ritual. This time, the mystical words were thus: Burn our oppressors to death!
What resulted this time was a huge fire sent by Nevil, scorching the farmers’ fields, which again came up too suddenly for anyone to react to it. Alas, again, while some slave-masters were killed in the fire, most of those burned to death were slaves.
A third ritual was attempted, with a new incantation, again, with the four elements present. One chanted, Bury the wicked deep in the earth!
These words prompted Drofurb to cause a great earthquake to tear a huge hole in the middle of the capital city, leveling it. Many Tenebrosians lived there, and therefore they fell into the gaping hole and died. Yet again, far too many more Lumiosians were there, too, and so they fell into that hole and died as well, making the loss of so many Tenebrosians hardly worth the effort.
Yet another ritual was attempted in the same fashion, with the same elements, but with a new chant: Flood the evil in a watery grave!
Priff made it rain hard for five months without stopping, making a deluge to cover the land of Tenebros with water rising above the tallest buildings of the cities. Some of the slaves, and many more of their masters, were clever and resourceful enough to find boats or chests to get into so the flood would carry them up to the surface of the water and not drown them, while everyone else perished.
The Lumiosians managed never to be suspected by the Tenebrosians of causing any of these natural disasters; but the slaves realized that they had to be more precise in aiming the destructive aspects of their magic at their slave-masters, and only their slave-masters. So, they worked on refining the set-up of their rituals and the careful choice of words for their incantations.
They also thought of mixing the elements more thoroughly, rather than just placing them side by side, to see if they could achieve better results. First, they tried combining the water with the soil into one huge bowl of mud. Then they chanted, May the Tenebrosians sink in holes of quicksand, their slaves safe on firm ground!
This combined power of Priff and Drofurb gave far more welcome results. Lumiosian slaves stood in astonishment as they saw their masters, right beside them, sinking down in pits of mud thin enough for only them to drown in. Those slaves then ran off, out of their masters’ houses and fields, to freedom.
The surviving Tenebrosians sent out their army to catch and bring back the runaway slaves. Those Lumiosians still held as slaves were encouraged by their success, but they knew they’d have to do more to make the success a lasting one. More rituals would have to be performed to ensure complete escapes out of the country.
A ritual involving the lighting of torches and waving them in strong gusts of wind was now attempted. The chant devised was thus: May the winds of fortune gently blow us Lumiosians to freedom and safety! May their pursuers be consumed in flames!
This combined power of Nevil and Weleb carried all the Lumiosians, those already escaped and those still among their masters, even those who had done the ritual and incantation, high in the air, out of the cities and out of Tenebros to safety in a neighboring country, as if peacefully gliding in a breeze…men, women, and children. The bodies of their pursuers all burst into flame. Screaming, they fell off their horses and chariots, and died. Charred corpses littered the roads.
The Lumiosians could see, from across the border, their Tenebrosian pursuers all burning to death. The slaves, free at last, cheered and screamed deafening cries of triumph and jubilation.
“Who can match the mighty Crims, among the gods?” was a common shout, as were these: “Praise the four mighty Crims! Weleb, Priff, Nevil, and Drofurb, our powerful saviours!”
From then on, the celebrating Lumiosians would embrace magic fully, and they would regard the old teachings as a quaint memory at best, and as utterly useless at worst.
This would be so…for good or ill.
Commentary
Now we come to a crucial point in the narrative of these ancient manuscripts. The old ethical teachings are no longer to be revered, instead to be dismissed with contempt. From now on, the careful manipulation of the elements–magic–in order to influence outcomes will be the preferred way of solving problems. There will be no more following principles or perceived laws of nature; instead, one will try to bend nature to one’s will. In time, this new solution to one’s problems will lead to new problems of their own, as well as new sources of strength.
Now, when
two great big egos,
puffy, bloated heads,
come together as one
to wreck and ruin an
already ill nation,
kissing,
it would seem,
it is such a revolting
thing to have to see,
since two wreckers
are worse than
only one.
But when
the two great big
egos, bloated heads,
have a public falling-out
over bad policy and
bad-mouthing,
the sight
of them splitting
apart gives us all so
much Schadenfreude
from the sordid
soap opera.
Jaws is a novel by Peter Benchley, published in 1974 and adapted the next year by Steven Spielberg into a movie that starred Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw, and costarring Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton.
While it is more usual to say that a book is better than its movie adaptation, it is almost universally felt that the reverse is the case with Jaws. The novel’s characters are generally felt to be unlikeable and unsympathetic, and so the changes made to them for the film are justified. Also, while the film streamlines and simplifies the plot to focus on the shark threat, the novel does a detour in the middle to make it into a character study, focusing on their conflicts.
Now, while I would agree that the film is far more entertaining than the novel–indeed, the film established the notion of the summer blockbuster–there are important thematic elements in the novel, only lightly touched on in the film, that deserve a more thorough exploration, so I’ll be focusing on the novel a lot here…without neglecting the film, of course.
Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here’s a link to an audiobook of the novel, whose quirky AI narrator makes lots of amusing mispronunciations.
While the great white shark of the film is just a menace to be defeated, the shark of the novel, somewhat like the white whale of Moby-Dick, is symbolically a force of nature ready to fight back against a most predatory human race. Just as the crew of the Pequod hunt and kill whales as their way of making money (e.g., to get the oil), so do the people of the fictional town of Amity use the beaches and swimming as a way of making money, which can be seen as a human muscling in on the fish’s natural territory.
So the people in the novel are as much predators in their own way as the shark is. Indeed, predation in general is a major theme of the novel, something stripped away to a minimum in the film. When making the film, Spielberg famously said he’d been rooting for the shark as he was reading Benchley’s novel, since the characters were so unlikeable. I would argue, though, that the unlikeability of the characters was the whole point of the novel.
A careful reading of the book demonstrates a critique of capitalism that Spielberg and his fellow moviemakers were trying to shy away from…and in making not only the first summer blockbuster, but also a well-loved, classic film that has since raked in hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide (the result of an aggressive marketing campaign that had included such merchandise as a soundtrack album, T-shirts, beach towels, blankets, toy sharks, etc.), they succeeded most admirably in making the film all for capitalism, rather than against it.
The film, while scary, gave viewers a sense of hope, whereas the novel is much darker in tone, giving us a sense of how much nastier we can be than sharks. Small wonder people like the movie so much more than the book.
I will go into the capitalist critique later on, in particular as regards the…business relationships…of Amity Mayor Larry Vaughn (Hamilton), something removed from the film. For now, though, consider the reality of such things as the polluting of our oceans, which harms so much of marine life because proper disposal of garbage is more costly and eats into profits. Also, there’s the hunting of sharks for their fins to be eaten as a delicacy. Indeed, Benchley later regretted how the Jaws phenomenon led to hostility to a marine animal that doesn’t attack humans all that much, thus making him preoccupied with marine conservation and protecting sharks. As I said above, man is every bit the predator that sharks are, if not much more so.
An understanding of that reality can help us to see how, on a symbolic level, people going out to swim in the waters of Amity Beach are intruding on the territory of marine animals. So while in the movie, as well as in the novel, young Christine Watkins may be innocently skinny dipping, then to die a violent death, that is just our human point of view. From the shark’s point of view, too, she’s just its prey…killing her is of course nothing personal. But the shark, often called “the fish” in the novel, represents the vengeful wrath of nature against her human predators. On a couple of occasions in the novel, a resident of Amity claims that the shark is God’s agent of retribution for the town’s sins.
When police chief Martin Brody (Scheider) learns of the killing of Watkins, and that it was probably a shark attack, he wants to close down the beach to prevent any more attacks. The problem is that the summer tourist season has come, and the Amity economy depends almost entirely on tourism. Because of this problem, Vaughn and the town’s selectmen want news of the shark attack to be kept secret. And so the editor of the local newspaper, Harry Meadows (played by Carl Gottlieb, who also did rewrites of Benchley’s original script for the film, and whose role as Meadows was little more than a cameo, as opposed to Meadows’s much more substantial part in the novel), gives no reports of the attack.
Issues of class difference having an impact on the novel first become apparent in the dissatisfaction of Ellen Brody (Gary) with her marriage to Martin. Her family background is further up in terms of social class than his, so her having become the wife of a police chief feels as though she’s ‘married down.’ As a result, she feels alienated from the Amity community, who seem ‘beneath’ her, and when she meets Matt Hooper (Dreyfuss), an ichthyologist from a class echelon similar to hers–and whose older brother she once dated, years before knowing Martin–she develops a sexual interest in him. Needless to say, none of this is in the movie.
What must be understood here is that the unpleasantness of these characters (her lust, Hooper’s snottiness to Martin, his jealous suspicions of Hooper with his wife and resulting antagonism to him, etc.) is all part of the novel’s critique of class conflict and alienation, all products of capitalism, which in turn is an important part of the overall theme of predation in the novel. Recall, in this connection, Einstein‘s words: “the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.”
Because no one yet knows of the danger of the shark, some people go out to the beach for a swim. Brody is there, too, watching over the area just in case. A little boy named Alex Kintner goes into the water and is eaten by the shark; in the film, his blood is splashing with the water, the shock of it vividly captured in the famous dolly zoom of Brody’s reaction to the killing.
Because of technical difficulties with ‘Bruce,’ the mechanical shark used in the film, its appearance had to be limited. Spielberg was able to turn this problem into a virtue, however, by instead suggesting the shark’s presence: filming from its POV, using shadow, and having John Williams‘s famous music, with the E-F-E-F-E-F-E-F in the cellos, double basses, etc. The result was something incalculably scarier, with the sense of approaching danger.
When Alex’s mother (played by Lee Fiero) learns that Brody had known of the shark danger, yet let the beaches stay open, we see her approach him and slap him. In the film, her reaction is gentle compared to the rage she shows him in the novel, and it’s another example of how the film makes the characters more likable and sympathetic.
Still, despite Brody’s attempts to have the beach closed, especially since he’s racked with guilt over Alex’s death (Brody has sons of his own: two in the film, and three in the novel), Mayor Vaughn insists on keeping the beaches open for the sake of the summer season and the health of the town’s economy.
Now, in the film, Vaughn seems to be a well-intentioned, but short-sighted and foolish mayor, dismissing the shark threat and trivializing it in comparison to the, to him, far greater urgency of keeping the town’s economy healthy. In the novel, though, things get far more sinister and darker when we learn of his business dealings with the mafia.
In many posts, I’ve described the presentation of the mafia in film as symbolic of capitalists, since I consider the exploitation of labour to be criminal. The mafia’s criminal actions are illegal, with mainstream capitalists, their criminal actions are legal. In the Jaws novel, though, the mafia are literally capitalists, who have bought up local property at cheap prices and are hoping, during the summer tourist season, to sell it at much higher prices to get a nice profit.
So the mafia is pressuring Vaughn, who in turn is pressuring Brody, to keep the beaches open, with no regard whatsoever for the safety of the swimmers. The mafia at one point even kill the Brody family cat, which Brody angrily tries to blame on Vaughn. Now, Vaughn, incidentally, also needs money from the tourism to pay off some debts. So in all of these issues, we can see not only a sense of predation far greater than just that of the shark, but also how Benchley’s novel is a critique of capitalism.
In man’s muscling into the marine animals’ territory to make a profit, we can see how one of the residents of Amity considers the shark to be an agent of God’s retribution against the wicked.
Quint (Shaw) is introduced in the film far earlier than he is in the novel, which is just before he, Brody, and Hooper go out hunting for the shark. At a town meeting, where a $3,000 bounty is placed on the shark, the eccentric Quint, after scratching his fingernails on a chalkboard where a shark has been drawn (suggesting his Ahab-like hatred of the great white marine animal), he offers his own shark-hunting services for $10,000.
Other shark hunters go after the shark, but end up catching a different one, a tiger shark. At about 6:47 in this set of deleted scenes, we see not only their shark hunting, but also their rowdy competition with each other, hitting the butts of their rifles against other boats, throwing bait at rivals in other boats, foolishly taking their dogs in their boats, and recklessly firing their rifles into the water. Though the film managed to remove much of the novel’s human predation, this deleted scene demonstrates at least an attempt to compensate for those removals.
Because the shark seems to have been caught and killed, Vaughn confidently assures everyone it’s OK to come to Amity Beach and have a good time in the water. He reminds us that amity means “friendship,” though for those who know the town of the novel, the unlikeable characters imply that the town would be more aptly named ‘Enmity.’
Indeed, the sense of unfriendliness and alienation is so keenly felt in a reading of the novel that at times it’s to be noted even in the narration itself. Homophobic slurs pop up occasionally, and racist stereotypes are presented in the insistence that rapists in the town must be black. I suspect, in all fairness to Benchley, that these elements aren’t meant to be a reflection of his character, but are meant to be present in whoever is narrating the story, presumably a resident of Amity.
To get back to the film version, we note that people are on the beach again, though at first they’re nervous about going into the water. Vaughn has to urge an elderly couple to go in, to prod all the others to go in also, by imitative conformity. Brody has people patrolling the water, watching it like hawks in case the shark that had been caught was the wrong one.
Around this time, we see a TV news reporter saying a cheesy line about how Amity Beach has a cloud over it in the shape of a killer shark. This, by the way, is a cameo by none other than Peter Benchley himself (a former reporter for the Washington Post)…and one wonders if the clichéd line he speaks is meant to be a dig at the writer’s prose.
After a prank pulled by a couple of boys in the water, a false alarm that allows for some temporary relief in the tension, the shark really makes an appearance, killing a man, whose dismembered leg is seen floating down in the water, his blood mixing with it. Later, Vaughn is finally showing some remorse over his trivializing of the danger and his overconfidence that there was no more shark to worry about.
Around this time in the novel, Ellen has seen Hooper again, and with a tense dinner party in the Brody house, her predatory seduction of him begins. Martin, sensing the chemistry between them, is getting drunk and making things awkward for everyone.
After the party, she arranges to meet Hooper in a restaurant for lunch, and the flirtation between them continues. At one point, she makes an odd comment about having rape fantasies. While it is true that some women have these (though they’d be more accurately described as fantasies of being ravished or of having ‘good, rough sex,’ the word ‘rape’ being used here for its connotations rather than its denotative meaning, since ‘rape’ by definition is something one does NOT want to be subjected to), one cannot but be suspicious of the inner motives of a male novelist putting such fantasies in the mind of one of his female characters.
Still, as unseemly as such fantasies may be in Ellen’s mind, they do, in a way, fit in with the general theme of predation. If we see sexual predation and seduction as forms of sexual sadism, then ‘rape’ fantasies could be seen as examples of sexual masochism. Ellen, in this sense, would prey on Hooper and be preyed on by him. In this connection, note what Freud once said: “A person who feels pleasure in producing pain in someone else in a sexual relationship is also capable of enjoying as pleasure any pain which he may himself derive from sexual relations. A sadist is always at the same time a masochist.” To paraphrase Freud, a predator is always at the same time prey. The shark will certainly be the prey of Brody, Hooper, and Quint.
Anyway, Ellen and Hooper will go to a hotel after their lunch date and prey on each other, as it were, in bed. Martin, in the meantime, will try to reach both of them by phone that afternoon, and being unable to do so, will feel his jealousy swelling in him.
Other examples of what could be called predation in Amity include some local scammers trying to take advantage of tourists, who want a glimpse of the notorious shark they’ve heard about in the media; the scammers will trick the tourists into buying unneeded tickets for admission to the beach! Brody finds out about this, and realizes he has to apprehend the scammers.
Finally, after a boy narrowly escapes being eaten by the shark, Brody closes the beach and convinces the town’s selectmen to hire Quint. Now, as we know, insanely jealous Brody and snotty rich kid Hooper are not likable (as opposed to their portrayal in the film, of course), but neither is the Quint of the novel, who disembowels a blue shark and uses an illegally caught unborn baby dolphin as bait, angering ichthyologist Hooper. Once again, we see man as much more of a predator than sharks are.
Now, while in the film there is some friction among the three men on Quint’s boat, the Orca (aptly named after the killer whale that is the natural enemy of the great white shark), such friction is expressed in a generally light-hearted manner. Recall Dreyfuss’s Hooper making faces at Quint after being told he can’t admit when he’s wrong.
In the novel, however, the friction among them gets much nastier, and this contributes to their unlikeability. As I mentioned above, neither Brody nor Quint likes snotty rich kid Hooper, and in this we see the alienation caused by class differences, caused in turn by capitalism. On top of that, Brody’s rising jealous suspicions of Hooper having played around with Ellen (also, as we’ve seen, a product of class differences) fill him with so much rage that at one point he physically attacks Hooper, strangling him for a moment.
While in the movie, the men go out in the Orca one time and confront the shark at the end, in the novel, they go out on four separate trips, each time returning to shore at the end of the day. They never see the shark on the first day, but they do on the second, and Brody is amazed at the size of it. In the film, his amazement can be related to the scene when he’s ladling chum into the water, the shark suddenly appears, shocking him, and he backs up and says the famous line to Quint, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” (Incidentally, Scheider improvised the line.)
The third day is not only when Brody and Hooper have their fight, but also when Hooper brings the shark cage and, unlike in the film, he dies underwater in it when the shark attacks him. Now, he was originally supposed to die in the film that way, too, but footage filmed of a great white shark attacking the cage (with no one in it) looked so compelling to Spielberg that he wanted to use it, and this meant rewriting the scene so Hooper instead would escape and swim to safety on the ocean floor, then resurface with Brody, and together they swim to shore at the end. Besides, the problems with ‘Bruce’ were a constant source of changes to the story.
The fourth and final day, of course, is the final confrontation with the shark, both it and Quint dying, though the latter dies in a more Ahab-esque way, and the former in a far less…explosive…way. But I’ll come back to that in more detail later.
While in the film, there is some friction among the three men, there’s also a lot of camaraderie, which adds to their likability. This is especially so in the night-time scene on the Orca, when they have a few drinks and engage in male bonding in the form of Quint and Hooper comparing scars on their legs.
And it is at this point that we come to one of the most important film contributions to the story: Quint’s recollections of what happened to the crew of the USS Indianapolis. This incident really happened in 1945; the ship delivered the components of an atomic bomb to Tinian in a mission so secret that when the ship was sunk by Japanese torpedoes while on its way to Leyte, the Philippines, the navy was late to learn of the ship’s non-arrival in Leyte.
The surviving crew at the time were left adrift over an ordeal of several days, leaving them without food or water, to suffer from exposure to the elements that resulted in such problems as hypothermia. Then there were the shark attacks, which of course are the focus of Quint’s telling of the story, as well as the source of his Ahab-like hate of sharks.
Just as Captain Ahab, in his rage, tells his crew of when the white whale bit off his leg, so does Quint speak, though in a calm, sombre voice, of his trauma and fear from that ordeal in the water. The scene adds depth to his character, to help us sympathize with him, and also to add an Ahab relation to him in a way that Benchley’s attempts at such a relation come off as contrived and superficial in comparison.
There’s another thing that the Indianapolis story adds to Jaws: the element of capitalism’s muscling in on the sea, causing nature to get revenge on it in the form of shark attacks–God’s retribution on the sinful, as that Amity resident sees it.
The sending of the atomic bomb components to Tinian, “the Hiroshima bomb,” as Quint calls it, was of course part of the plan not only to defeat Japan in WWII, but also, as I explained here, to give the Soviets a great big scare. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to demonstrate the military superiority of the American empire to the world. As we Marxists know, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, WWII was an inter-imperialist war between Anglo-American imperialism on one side and fascist imperialism on the other.
The nukes didn’t just kill between one and three hundred thousand Japanese; they were also an outrage against nature. The shark attacks, thus, are a symbolic revenge.
In the novel, after Hooper dies, Brody believes the shark can’t be killed and tells Quint he doesn’t think the town can pay him anymore. Quint, however, decides he’ll go after the shark with or without the money, so determined is he in his Ahab-like drive to kill it.
In the final confrontation, the shark attacks the Orca, causing it to sink. In the novel, after harpooning the shark several times, Quint gets his foot entangled in the rope of one of the harpoons he’s hit the shark with, and as the shark goes back into the water, Quint is pulled in with it and he drowns, in true Ahab fashion. All he’d have to say, to make it perfect, is, “from hell’s heart, I stab at thee…”
This link with Moby-Dick is feeble and anticlimactic compared to Quint’s spectacular death in the movie, since we know of his trauma from the Indianapolis incident being reawakened as he kicks in terror and slides down to the shark’s eager mouth to get that fatal bite in the belly.
While the shark’s confrontation with Brody in the novel is, again, anticlimactic, at least it’s more realistic than the spectacular blowup at the end of the movie. Benchley hated the changed killing of the shark so much that he got kicked off the set when they were to film it. Brody’s shoving of a pressurized tank into the shark’s mouth, then firing a bullet into the tank, would not have caused it and the shark to explode; still, Spielberg felt a more dramatic ending was more important than realism, and from the point of view of the movie’s commercial success, he was right.
As for the novel, though, the wounded shark moves closer and closer to Brody, who is afloat on a seat cushion now that the Orca has sunk, and he’s resigned to his fate. But the shark, right up close to him now, just…dies. It succumbs to its harpoon wounds, and sinks down to the ocean floor with Quint, his leg still stuck in the harpoon rope.
Then Brody, like sole-surviving Ishmael, starts swimming to shore–the end!
This is the way the novel ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Again, it’s not an exciting ending, it’s certainly an abrupt ending for the novel, but that was Benchley’s point. This is reality: people aren’t generally very nice (sorry, Dear Reader!), and problems aren’t normally solved in a dramatic, Hollywood fashion.
Jaws the movie is a great moment in cinematic history, to be sure, and is thoroughly entertaining, but it is so because it’s a capitalistic crowdpleaser. Jaws the novel, on the other hand, is an exploration of the darker, predatory nature of man as well as, if not much more so than, of sharks, of which the one in the novel is just a symbolic projection of ourselves.
Predictably, the phenomenon of the film led to the sale of Jaws-related merchandise as I mentioned above, as well as sequels that got worse and worse until being totally ridiculous. Then there were attempts to capitalize on marine animal terror with different movies, like Orca. So the first Jaws film may be justifiably far more beloved than the novel, but it also proved Benchley’s point about the predatory nature of capitalism.
[The following is the twelfth of many posts–here is the first, here is the second, here is the third, here is the fourth, here is the fifth, here is the sixth, here is the seventh, here is the eighth, here is the ninth, here is the tenth, and here is the eleventh–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]
Rawmios had a new teaching for his followers. This is what he said: “Your focus determines your reality. If you focus on the good, you will be happy. If you focus on the bad, you will suffer. Life is a mix of good and bad: though we desire the good, we cannot escape an experience of the bad. We must not imagine the bad to be any bigger than it really is. In the Unity of Action, good and bad alternate like the crests and troughs of the ocean: sometimes they alternate quicker, other times, slower, but they do alternate. When the good comes, prepare for the bad; when the bad comes, patiently wait for the good to return. We don’t like the bad, but we mustn’t despise it. The bad flows into the good, and the good flows into the bad.
“We must not focus on the things we know we cannot have: we would suffer such pain as to go mad. Vainly hoping to gain the love or respect of those who will never give it to us will drive us mad. This is the First Error: mad thinking. Mad thinking denies cosmic unity by thinking we can have love and respect, all from one area, and no hate or scorn also from that area. Reality, however, is fluid: love and hate flow in and out of each other, as do respect and scorn; also, these opposites move from place to place, often going back to the original place, but never staying in any place.
“In the Unity of Action, all things are in permanent flux. Therefore, instead of fixating on one place, vainly hoping to get what we want, always from that place, we must be willing to follow what is good as it moves from place to place. This does not mean we may divorce at the first sign of a marital problem, or repudiate friendships or family whenever any difficulty arises: often enough in these situations, the bad will flow back into the good quite soon; but if it rarely flows back to good, and then only briefly good, we must leave to find our love elsewhere.
“Another aspect of the Unity of Action is the Echo Effect: whatever we send out will come back to us, as the echo of a sound we make rings out back to us. We must not think the evil we do won’t come back to us, just because no one knows what we did…it will. Suffice it to say: if you want something to come to you, you must give that something to others.
“To maintain unity in the universe, an excess in one direction results in an excess in the opposite direction. If our attraction to someone beautiful has us come too close to the desired person, that person will push us far away. […]”
Commentary
As can be surmised by the reader, what we have here is only a fragment of a larger chapter that has been lost. Perhaps the rest will show up in future excavations, and then we can translate it and put this entire chapter together, along with any chapters after this one, to complete the account of Rawmios’ life. For now, though, this is all we have, and what will come after is the next book of the Tanah–“Migration,” which will give narrations after Rawmios’ death.
As for this fragment, we explore further the dialectical unity of opposites, and how one cannot have one opposite without the other. This unity of opposites is a recurring theme throughout the Tanah, as has been expressed either directly in the narratives and their philosophy, or indirectly in the untranslatable nuances of the original language (their rhythms, the connotations in the imagery, the musical qualities of the diction–alliteration, rhyme, assonance, etc.).
Another idea Rawmios touches on here, the “Echo Effect,” is what the Hindus and Buddhists would call karma, or where in the Bible it says that we reap what we sow, or the idea in physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. With this idea is the injunction to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Perhaps in the lost remainder of this chapter, and any other lost chapters after this one, he developed this idea more than the brief account of it we unfortunately only have here. Maybe one day we’ll find it.
Since this is just a fragment, we can only assume that there was supposed to be another concrete poem to finish it off. The poem, if it ever existed, has been lost, too. One can only speculate on how the poem expressed, in the visual arrangement of its verses, the “Echo Effect” and the wavelike unity of opposites.
To see
a child
inside
a school
engulfed in
a lake of fire, left in the flames, to burn there and die
should
push you
to rush
in and save
her from the rising sea of flames. Such a hero would be
the image of basic human decency. Better I burn than you.
But we
live in a
world
in which the inferno and imps are up here, raising the flames
with them as they emerge, allowing no aid, doing nothing to stop it.
They’d have us all on fire rather than deluged with compassion.
I don’t
believe
in a hell below, but if I am wrong, the wrong who are making our
hell up here should be dropped in that lake of fire down there, to
be tormented day and night for ever and ever, as they are doing
to all of those in Gaza. The Holy Land is most unholy these days.
You must be logged in to post a comment.