Analysis of ‘Demon Seed’

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 CartesianI 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.

Analysis of ‘Lizard’

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?

Analysis of ‘Jaws’

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.

Analysis of ‘Breakfast at Tiffany’s’

Breakfast at Tiffany’s is a 1958 novella by Truman Capote. It was adapted into a film by Blake Edwards in 1961, starring Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard, with Patricia Neal, Martin Balsam, Buddy Ebsen, and Mickey Rooney. The film differs from the novella in many significant ways, as will be discussed below.

The novella is so short, not even a hundred pages, to go by the edition I have, that ‘novella’ seems to describe a story too long for BAT, and ‘short story’ is too short for it. Since, as is the case with my copy, the story is often published with three short stories–“House of Flowers,” “A Diamond Guitar,” and “A Christmas Memory“–I’ll make a number of references to these stories whenever they share comparable or contrasting themes with BAT.

The novella is as short as it is, but the film is almost two hours long, suggesting a much longer story. Neal’s character, Mrs. Emily Eustache “2E” Failenson, is nowhere to be found in Capote’s story.

The unnamed narrator of the novella is named Paul Varjak (Peppard) in the film. He and Holly Golightly (Hepburn) develop a love relationship that is absent in Capote’s story (in fact, true to the writer’s own sexuality, the unnamed narrator–it is implied–is gay, therefore making his story at least somewhat autobiographical, since the narrator is as much a writer as Capote was).

The regrettably racist caricature of a Japanese, in the klutzy Mr. Yunioshi–played by Rooney in yellowface–isn’t in Capote’s story, either, though Yunioshi is referred to with a racial slur–a “Jap”–by Joe Bell, a bartender near the beginning of the story.

The film ends with a typical Hollywood rom-com cliché, with Varjak getting the girl and kissing her in the rain; while in Capote’s story, there is a far more ambiguous and uncertain ending, with Holly leaving the narrator and going off, out of New York City and into the world.

As for the casting of Holly for the film adaptation, Capote was hoping for Marilyn Monroe to play the part, and he was angry that the part ended up going to Hepburn (though he came to like her performance, all the same). Given that Holly is a romantic dreamer of a girl, chasing wealthy men, I find Capote’s preference of Monroe to play her strange and ironic, when Monroe, having married Arthur Miller at one point, demonstrated left-wing sympathies that may have contributed to her having been murdered, as opposed to the official suicide story of her death. The only thing Monroe had in common with Holly was the blonde hair (well, bleach-blonde, in Monroe’s case), and so brunette Hepburn had blonde streaks added to her hair.

The opening scene in the novella is nowhere to be found in the film, which during the credits shows Holly window-shopping outside a Tiffany’s store. We come to understand that Holly loves being in Tiffany’s because the luxury jewelry store is the only place where she can feel a sense of safety, peace, and calm in her turbulent world. She imagines that nothing bad can ever happen there.

She denies that she likes Tiffany’s for the jewelry (Capote, page 35). While it may not literally be the jewelry that she likes so much about the store, surely it’s the sense of a luxurious life that Tiffany’s represents that gives her that safe, serene feeling.

Holly is a socialite who, as a kind of “American geisha,” dates wealthy men and accepts cash gifts from them; she also aspires to marry such a man. If it isn’t about the wealth that makes Tiffany’s so appealing to her, then why is it that store, of all stores, that gives her that feeling of peace and security?

Material abundance, of the sort that a luxury jewelry store can easily represent, can give one a great and obvious sense of security, of safety and therefore of calm, peace, and serenity, that nothing bad can happen. Thus, Tiffany’s is a capitalist paradise. After all, money isn’t everything, but having one’s basic material needs taken care of certainly gives a sense of peace of mind, so material abundance ensures that peace of mind all the more.

Why does Holly want to “wake up one fine morning and have breakfast at Tiffany’s” (page 35)? Why breakfast at Tiffany’s, which at the time sold only jewelry, and not food (the Blue Box Café first opened in 2017)? Consider the origin of the word ‘breakfast’–a breaking of a fast. So it’s the ending of a period of going without food.

The implication here, symbolically understood, is that one is going from rags to riches, from fasting or starving to abundance, all in one fell swoop. Such has always been Holly’s ambition: to go from her humble beginnings as Lulamae Barnes, married in her teens to a veterinarian named Doc Golightly (Ebsen) in Texas, to her now glamorous life in New York City, renamed Holly Golightly and chasing rich men to subsidize her now high-maintenance lifestyle, and thence, she hopes, to marriage and solid security with such a rich man, who would be Tiffany’s personified.

What we have here is a traditional woman’s version of the American Dream: social mobility through marrying up. The story takes place before the Sexual Revolution, and so women were still chained to the fetters of traditional sex roles, meaning they had to get their access to wealth through successful men…if they were young, pretty, and desirable enough…which Holly assuredly is, at the age of about eighteen or nineteen.

Beyond this dream of chasing wealth, though, is the pursuit of what Lacan would have called an ultimately unfulfillable desire. Tiffany’s symbolizes a nirvana one can never attain, though Holly will never stop trying, romantic dreamer that she is. She can never settle for an ordinary life, and that’s why she leaves New York City and the unnamed narrator for the unknown at the end of Capote’s novella. She may not have married José Ybarra-Jaeger (José da Silva Pereira in the film, played by José Luis de Vilallonga), the rich Brazilian diplomat, but she does go to Brazil in search of a similar dream.

This endless seeking out of more and more to satisfy a desire that can never be satisfied, is not only the essence of what drives Holly to do what she does (symbolically, what Lacan would have called jouissance), but also her unfulfillable desire can be paralleled to capitalism’s endless pursuit of profit (i.e., the Marxist notion of surplus value and Lacan’s plus-de-jouir, or “surplus enjoyment”). Hence, Tiffany’s can be seen as a capitalist paradise.

It is common for people to dream about striking it rich rather than doing the hard work of fighting for workers’ rights and reducing income inequality. Hence, even in today’s world of the obscenely wealthy few vs the impoverished many, we still have all this simping for billionaires going on. Holly can be seen to represent such people, on at least some level.

We can contrast her lifestyle among the affluent in New York City with the uniformly poor in “House of Flowers,” set in Third World Haiti, “A Diamond Guitar,” set in the austerity of an American prison, and “A Christmas Memory,” about a family so poor that the narrator, when a boy and close to his older female cousin, had to save up every penny they could get over the year to pay for the ingredients they needed to make Christmas fruitcakes (page 144). While Holly dreams of the security that comes from wealth, so many others just struggle to survive.

Capote’s novella begins with bar owner Joe Bell telling the narrator about photos of a black man holding a wooden sculpture of a woman’s head, and the woman looks exactly like Holly. Yunioshi is the one who found the wooden head while traveling in Africa, and he informed Bell of it.

It seems that Holly’s been to Africa some time since the end of the narrator’s story about her. Bell imagines she’s “got to be rich to go mucking around in Africa.” (page 8) In this incident, we see again the contrast between being a girl from the First World Who aspires to wealth, and people in poverty with much more humble dreams, as those in Capote’s aforementioned three stories.

The story about her in Africa causes the narrator to recall his story about her from years before, back in the 1940s. Though she had dreams of wealth, she lived in a modest brownstone apartment building in Manhattan’s Upper East Side. Yunioshi, in an apartment on the top floor, complains about Holly ringing his bell and waking him up to open the door for her.

This scene corresponds with the beginning of the film after the opening credits, though as I said above, the novella doesn’t portray Yunioshi as a spastic racist Asian stereotype, bumping into things, and having buck teeth sticking out of his face. Blake Edwards films are full of slapstick, but it’s sad that he stooped to this low for cheap laughs. In all fairness to Rooney, though, when he realized how offensive his performance was, he expressed the deepest remorse and publicly apologized to Asian communities. Edwards was similarly contrite.

Anyway, the narrator has seen her for the first time during this altercation with Yunioshi (page 11). He describes her as having “an almost breakfast-cereal air of health” (page 12). In this context, we note that a man who’s just “pick[ed] up the check” for her, one of those male pursuers of hers who pay for things for her in the hopes of getting…something…back from her. This picking up the check is the so-to-speak breakfast–the end of her poverty–that she hopes will one day lead to Tiffany’s.

From then on, she isn’t ringing Yunioshi’s bell, but the narrator’s, and they haven’t met yet (page 13). He learns more about her nonetheless, such as her cat (which is never named) and her playing the guitar, something she sometimes does sitting out on the fire escape as her hair dries (page 15). We’re reminded of the scene in the film when Hepburn is there, strumming and singing “Moon River,” with music by Henry Mancini.

When the narrator finally does meet her, it’s out by his window. Coming into his room, she explains that she’s trying to get away from another suitor. She notes the narrator’s resemblance to her brother, Fred, and so, feeling a brother transference, she wants to call him Fred. Note how she doesn’t go by her real name (Lulamae), she doesn’t call the narrator by his real name (which we never learn in the novella, and as I mentioned above, is given as Paul Varjak in the film), and the cat is never given a name (except “Cat” in the film).

At the end of the film, Holly contemplates their no-name status when justifying to Varjak why nobody belongs to anybody, and saying that she doesn’t know who she is. Namelessness, thus, represents social alienation, between people and in one’s own species-essence.

Linked with this alienation from within and without is how OJ Berman (Balsam) characterizes Holly: “She is a phony,” and “She isn’t a phony because she’s a real phony.” (page 27) Berman is a Hollywood talent agent who has groomed Holly in the hopes of making her into a movie star. She believes all the nonsense she says about herself, and his grooming of her, which has included French lessons to help her get rid of her original hillbilly accent from Texas, has been part of the process of creating her phony personality as a café society girl. (page 29)

To get back to her meeting of the narrator, he tells her he’s a writer. He also tells her that it is Thursday, which reminds her that she has to go to Sing Sing and meet a mafia man incarcerated there named Salvatore “Sally” Tomato. She’ll get the “weather report” from him: a coded message to transmit information about such criminal activities as the narcotics smuggling that she’ll get entangled in and arrested for towards the end of the story. She’ll give that “weather report” to Sally’s lawyer, Oliver O’Shaughnessy, every week.

As I’ve pointed out in many other posts, I regard mafia men in movies and fiction as representative of capitalists in general, since as a Marxist I regard capitalism’s accumulation of surplus value to be a theft of the value that workers put into the production of commodities; therefore, capitalism in general is criminal activity, whether legalized or not.

Holly’s regular involvement with Sally, therefore, is part of her own simping for the rich, which in turn is part of her dream of finding that peace and security that comes from wealth, as represented by Tiffany’s. The chaotic and troubling world from which she wishes to escape into a capitalist paradise is the capitalist hell of poverty, which she naturally fears. One is reminded of what Belle says to Scrooge in A Christmas Carol as an explanation for his own pursuit of wealth: she says to him, “You fear the world so much” (Dickens, page 50).

To get back to OJ Berman and whatnot, he first appears at one of Holly’s many parties, in which she hobnobs with rich and socially important people like him. In the film, you can spot a couple of Asians in the background, extras with no dialogue: they seem to be there as if to say, ‘Look, the filmmakers are not saying that all Asians are like Yunioshi.’ The inclusion of these two non-caricatured Asians hardly compensates for Rooney’s performance, though.

One presumably wealthy man that Holly shows interest in is Rusty Trawler. He’s thrice divorced, but he’ll end up marrying someone else (page 66). Rusty also seems to be a Nazi sympathizer, for according to a set of clippings from gossip columns about Holly and Rusty, “he attended rallies in Yorkville“, he’d “sent her a cable offering to marry her if Hitler didn’t” (recall that the narrator’s reminiscences about her take place during WWII, when her brother Fred is serving in the army), and Winchell always referred to [Rusty] as a Nazi (page 33).

Yes, Holly, in her pursuit of that capitalist paradise of peace, symbolized by Tiffany’s, is even willing to marry a fascist if he has money. Supporters of capitalism are willing to lean that far right, if need be.

Her wish to marry money runs deeper than mere gold-digging, though. The transactional relationship between men and women as a result of sex roles (he gives her money in exchange for at least the hope of sex) is, of course, profoundly alienating, exacerbated by modern capitalism. She opts for this transactional relationship with men (while also having something of a bisexual attraction to women, using the word “dyke” in a non-derogatory sense, and hinting at this sexuality in the stripper scene in the film) because, as I mentioned above, deep down, she cannot relate to people in a deep, meaningful way.

Her platonic friendship with the narrator, therefore, is an ideal escape from the usual ‘I give you something, so you give me something back’ trap between men and women, because recall, it is strongly implied, if you’re paying attention as you read, that the narrator is gay. Holly observes that if a man likes neither baseball nor horses, “he don’t like girls.” (page 34) The narrator likes neither; he’s even tried riding a horse with her in the park (pages 77-78), and he loses control of his mare and falls off. Also, when saying she’ll never rat out Sally Tomato in exchange for the cops dropping the charges against her in her connection with him, she addresses the narrator as “Maude,” slang at the time for a gay man or a male prostitute (page 91).

He has no sexual interest in her, a girl whom, recall, Capote wanted Marilyn Monroe to play, therefore Holly’s something of a sex goddess. He is, nonetheless, fascinated with her in the way a gay man might be with a beautiful woman or a talented female singer like Judy Garland, that is, adoring her for aesthetic reasons rather than sexual ones.

To get back to Rusty, when the narrator has learned that he’s married for the fifth time, according to a newspaper (page 66), he assumes that Holly is the bride, and he’s most unhappy to have learned of this. Later, he realizes that it isn’t Holly whom Rusty has married, but Mag Wildwood, a fellow socialite, friend and sometimes roommate of Holly’s, and a model with a stutter (page 67). He goes “limp with relief” to have learned of this.

On a Monday in October 1943, he is with Holly in Joe Bell’s bar drinking Manhattans (pages 47-48). Then, after lunch in a cafeteria in the park, they avoid the zoo, since Holly can’t stand to see anything in a cage; oddly, for Christmas she’ll buy him a beautiful bird cage and make him promise never to put a living thing in it. (page 53) She sees herself as a free bird.

On that Monday in October, they pass a Woolworth’s, and she wants him to go in with her and steal something (page 49). He goes in reluctantly, and she eyes some Halloween masks. The two of them put on masks and walk out of the store wearing them. After they’ve run off for a few blocks (they’ll wear the masks all the way home), she tells him how she used to steal things when she had to or wanted to, and she still does it every now and then. The scene is replicated in the movie.

That a young woman who attracts wealthy men in the hopes of one day marrying one, and who feels peace of mind only in a luxury jewelry store, would engage in shoplifting from time to time makes perfect sense to me. She embodies the self-centered materialism of capitalism; capitalists accumulate their wealth by stealing the fruits of workers’ labour.

In the film, the shoplifting scene comes right after a scene with the two in Tiffany’s, then in the public library. Note the contrast between the private property of the jewelry store and the 5 and 10 store where they steal the masks. Sandwiched in between in a place for the public, one she significantly doesn’t know about. As a lover of all things connected with capitalism, Holly is fully aware of those places that are private property, but she’s a bit of a fish out of water in public places.

Eventually, that dull, unromantic life she’s tried to run away from tries to find her and get her back. Such a life is personified in Doc Golightly (Ebsen), who’s been snooping around near the brownstone building and getting the narrator’s attention (pages 57-58). This is after the narrator has had a falling-out with her, over a slur he’s made about her way of getting money from men (page 56).

Doc is a personification of the cage she never wants to be trapped in. His appearance and the falling-out between her and the narrator sandwich her bird cage gift that he puts in front of her door: then she rejects it as much as he has, having put it “on a sidewalk ashcan waiting for the garbage collector.” (page 56), then it’s taken back by him into his room. She’ll reject Doc the cage again when he tries to take her back with him to Texas.

Oddly, her revulsion against animals in cages is disregarded by the moviemakers when we see a shot most deliberately taken of a bird in a cage in Holly’s apartment, early on in the film, during that party scene. We see Balsam as Berman looking at the bird. Is Holly supposed to be enigmatically contradicting herself here? Or is it a wish-fulfillment on the filmmakers’ part to put Holly in a cage, as we see when she decides to stay with Varjak at the end of the movie?

When the narrator first meets Doc, he imagines that the man, being so much older than Holly, is her father rather than her husband (page 59). Doc married her when she was just going on fourteen, making her the stepmother of kids he’s had from a previous marriage, kids older than she was! (page 60) Doc claims she had no reason to be unhappily married to him, as his daughters did all the housework and she didn’t have to lift a finger (pages 60-61).

As a horse doctor, he presumably has been able to provide a decent life for her. But the point is that, beyond how cringe we today would find such a marriage to a girl so young, Holly is a romantic who wants to rise up above the mediocre and the ordinary, to the heights that capitalism promises (but rarely delivers) and to those pleasures that jouissance wants (and never fully delivers). Hence, she left him, and despite his pleas for her to come back, she never will.

Still, when Madame Sapphia Spanella, another tenant in the brownstone, sees Holly and Doc embracing, she assumes he is another of Holly’s johns and is morally appalled. Holly thought she’d see her brother Fred before being surprised by Doc (page 64). Later, after Rusty’s married Mag, Holly learns of Fred’s having been killed in action, and she smashes everything in her apartment in a rage of grief. Spanella is as horrified now to know of this tantrum as she was scandalized before with her and Doc. As it turns out, not everyone in the past of otherwise self-centred Holly is contemptuously tossed aside. Elsewhere, now that Rusty is unavailable, she now has a new rich man: the Brazilian diplomat, José.

After Fred’s death and the arrival of José into her life, Holly is changed in many ways. She’s nowhere near as sociable as she once was, José has replaced Mag as her roommate, she generally never mentions Fred anymore, and she no longer calls the narrator “Fred” (page 71). The only times she ever leaves her apartment are on Thursdays to see Sally in Sing Sing.

Because she imagines she’ll soon marry José, she’s developed a “keen sudden un-Holly-like enthusiasm for homemaking,” thus making her buy a number of things that it doesn’t seem quite like her to buy. She’s bought two Gothic ‘easy’ chairs from the William Randolph Hearst estate, and given his tendency to have flirted with fascism around this time, though, perhaps this purchase in particular isn’t all that un-Holly-like (page 71). She’s also trying to learn Portuguese so she’ll be comfortable living in Rio when her husband-to-be takes her there (page 72).

Now, since Holly is taken to having rich men pay her way, whether they be husbands or not, it is apposite to point out that in the movie, Varjak also has someone paying his way. This is the wealthy Emily Eustache “2E” Failenson (Neal), his “decorator.” The inclusion of this character has a way of equalizing things between the sexes; it’s as if the filmmakers, in spite of preferring to put Holly in the ‘cage’ of a relationship with Varjak, don’t wish to leave the receiving of cash in exchange for sex to be stereotypically the exclusive domain of ‘gold digging women.’

After the fiasco with the horses, the narrator finds “photographs of Holly…front-paged by the late edition of the Journal-American and by the early editions of both the Daily News and the Daily Mirror.” (page 79) She’s been arrested in a narcotics bust connected with Sally Tomato (page 80).

The narrator imagines it must be Spanella who is to blame, given how she always complains to the authorities about Holly in a way we see Yunioshi do in the film (Yunioshi is also the one in the film who gets the cops on Holly for the drugs).

Joe Bell, who also likes Holly, wants the narrator to call her rich friends to help her out (page 83). The narrator tries Rusty and Mag, who turn on Holly, not wanting their names at all to be associated with her. Calling Doc in Texas is out of the question–Holly would never want that. Then the narrator tries Berman, who says she’ll be out on bail (pages 84-85).

When the narrator goes to find her in her apartment, though, she isn’t there. He does find a man in her home–José’s cousin, who has a message from José for her (pages 85-86). He wants to break off the marriage plans, because, like Rusty and Mag, José doesn’t want his name, family, and reputation to be stained by association with a girl mixed up with drugs. The narrator finds Holly in a hospital room, where she’s been since the arrest. There he reads her José’s letter (pages 87-88).

Now, she’s heartbroken to know that José has dumped her, that he’s just another “rat like Rusty” (page 88), but she’s not going to let that stop her from going to Brazil anyway. The narrator tries in all futility to stop her from jumping bail, for she won’t “waste a perfectly fine ticket” (page 90), and she won’t testify against Sally Tomato, even though she admits that she is “rotten to the core” (page 91).

I’m not interested in the sentimentalized, rom-com Hollywood ending of the film, so I’ll stick with the novella’s ending. Holly really does leave New York and the gay narrator, and she even gets rid of the cat, putting it outside the car taking her to the airport and telling the cat to “f___ off!” when it won’t leave her. (page 95)

Some may think of Holly favourably as a feminist free spirit for leaving the narrator, as opposed to her choosing to stay in her ‘cage’ in a patriarchal relationship with straight Varjak. But when we read the ending of Capote’s version, in which she isn’t freeing herself from a relationship with a gay friend–who has no wish to dominate her as a husband might–and where she doesn’t want to take responsibility for her involvement in a mafia racket or even for her cat, we realize that the narrator is right when he says to her, “You are a bitch.” (page 95)

She tosses the cat aside because of her fear of commitment, her wish never to be chained to anyone or anything, not caring at all about who or what she’s hurting as a result of abandoning them–Doc, the cat, or her friend the narrator. She is just that self-centred, on an endless quest to satisfy her insatiable thirst for jouissance, that surplus-value plus-de-jouir that connects her desires with capitalism, hence her trip to Rio when she’s lost her José.

Still, the narrator will find the abandoned cat and take care of it (page 97). He gets a postcard from her, saying she’s been to Buenos Aires, liking it there far more than Brazil. She’s “joined at the hip with duhvine Señor. Love? Think so.” He’s married and with “7 brats,” though (page 97). In other words, she’ll use him for his money, for as long as the relationship lasts. Then, as we learned from the beginning of the novella, she’ll pursue her elusive jouissance somewhere in Africa. The narrator just hopes that Holly, like the cat that in many ways is a double of her, has found a place where she truly belongs (page 98).

As I said above, the three stories in my edition of the book that fallow BAT“House of Flowers,” A Diamond Guitar,” and “A Christmas Memory”–all share certain themes with the main story, and I think they’re all worth mentioning before I end this analysis. These themes include: platonic relationships and/or friendships with implied homosexual elements, the breaking-away and ending of said friendships with the aim of attaining personal freedom, and whether or not marriage is a kind of prison.

In the first of these three stories, set in Port-au-Prince, Haiti, Ottilie is a beautiful, strong-willed prostitute, parallel to Holly as an “American geisha.” But where Holly hopes to marry a rich man and experience the capitalist paradise of peace and freedom from the “mean reds,” a paradise symbolized by Tiffany’s, Ottllie’s marriage to the aptly-named Royal Bonaparte, a marriage in the Third World, a harsh contrast to the opulence of New York City, it is a nightmare in which she is tyrannized by her new grandmother-in-law, the also aptly-named Old Bonaparte…a witch. Her new home is the cage Ottilie is trapped in, “like a house of flowers” (page 109).

In such historically impoverished countries as India and China, it was common for women to be treated like abject slaves by their mothers-in-law, since in a patrilineal society, a married woman leaves the family of her flesh and blood to live with her husband’s family, who don’t regard her as their own flesh and blood. So, the contrast between the First World and the Third World is apparent in regard to a woman’s marriage: one as, on the one hand, at least a dream of marrying up into Tiffany’s heaven, vs on the other hand, marrying into patriarchal hell.

In “A Diamond Guitar,” it’s been said that Mr. Schaeffer is parallel to Holly for being, like her, a dreamer; but I must disagree and say that he corresponds to the narrator of BAT, and that it’s Tico Feo who corresponds to Holly, and for several reasons. Tico Feo is a young man with blond hair (like Holly, young and blonde); the boy tells a lot of lies (as Holly is a “phony”), he plays the guitar, as she does, and like her, he eventually frees himself from the Alabama prison he and Schaeffer are stuck in (and just as Holly jumps bail and leaves the narrator in NYC, so does Tico Feo abandon Schaeffer in the prison).

Schaeffer’s and Tico Feo’s relationship isn’t at all physical, but “they were as lovers” (page 130), just as Holly and the narrator of BAT have a platonic relationship, but he is so fascinated with her as almost to be in love with her. The narrator in BAT expresses himself artistically as a writer; Schaeffer does so by carving dolls.

In “A Christmas Memory,” there’s another platonic male-to-female relationship, but this time in the form of a boy and his much elder cousin. Both characters are unnamed, though she calls him “Buddy,” and he, the narrator, calls her simply “my friend.” This kind of naming and non-naming is similar to how the unnamed narrator of BAT is addressed as “Fred” by Holly (recall, not her real name, either), implying a transference of her brother-to-sister relationship with the real Fred that parallels the familial relationship of cousins “Buddy” and his “friend.”

So we can see a number of parallel themes and motifs in all these stories, including also Capote’s autobiographical elements in at least three of the four stories, through the implied homosexuality in the narrator of BAT, the platonic homosexuality of Schaeffer’s and Tico Feo’s relationship, and how “Buddy,” the boy in “A Christmas Memory,” dramatizes much of Capote’s childhood. We see the superiority of platonic relationships over transactional, sexual ones, and we also see the yearning to escape from one’s cages–literal ones, metaphorical ones, and ones made of flowers.

Truman Capote, Breakfast at Tiffany’s, London, Penguin Essentials, 1961

Analysis of ‘Life of Pi’

I: Introduction

Life of Pi is a 2001 philosophical novel written by Yann Martel. Issues of spirituality and metaphysics are explored from an early age by the titular character and protagonist, Piscine Molitor “Pi” Patel, an Indian boy from Pondicherry who recognizes divine truth in all religions, focusing particularly on his Hindu faith, Christianity, and Islam.

The novel has sold more than ten million copies worldwide, after having been rejected by at least five London publishing houses, then accepted by Knopf Canada. Martel won the Man Booker Prize in 2002, among other literature awards. Ang Lee made a movie adaptation in 2012, with Suraj Sharma as Pi when a teen.

Here is a link to quotes from the book.

The story is understood to be one that will make the reader “believe in God,” as a local Indian told Martel at the Indian Coffee House on Nehru Street in Pondicherry, a small territory south of Madras on the coast of Tamil Nadu (pages xii-xiii). By the time I finished reading the novel, though, I found myself with even less reason to believe in God than when I’d started. In any case, Martel found Pi, the man who would tell him this story, back in Canada, in Toronto (page xv).

This opening information is found in the “Author’s Note,” which ends with Martel making a plea to support our artists, without whom we’ll lose imagination in favour of “crude reality,” we’ll believe in nothing, and we’ll have “worthless dreams.” This idea ties in with the notion of belief in God as preferable to atheism. Artists make things up, including mythical tales (see my Tanah chapters for examples), for these come from our imagination.

I’m convinced that Pi has made up the whole story of surviving on a lifeboat with animals, as preferred to the crude reality of being on the boat with his mother, the cook, and the Taiwanese sailor. Imagination and religious belief are our escapes from the horrors of reality, which make us believe in nothing and give us worthless dreams.

This preference of theism over atheism is linked to the philosophy of absurdism, in which we insist on giving life an artificial meaning in spite of life’s obvious, ongoing lack of it. I explored this idea in The Old Man and the Sea. In my analysis of Hemingway‘s novella, I read Santiago’s ultimately failed attempt at bringing a huge marlin ashore as an allegory of man’s ever-failing attempt to bring meaning to life. The opium of religion attempts the same thing for us. We must imagine Sisyphus happy, but how can he be?

Bear in mind, Dear Reader, that I am no better when it comes to maintaining such illusions. I plead guilty as charged when it comes to constructing comforting illusions in my posts on The Three Unities, Beyond the Pairs of Opposites, The Unity of Space, Synchronicity and September 11th, etc. I, too, have tried to make meaning in a meaningless universe, for such is the absurdity of the human condition.

II: Part One–Toronto and Pondicherry

Now begins the narrative from Pi’s own perspective. A key thing to understand about first-person narrators is that they generally tend to be unreliable. Someone who claims to have survived on a lifeboat with a Bengal tiger for months in the middle of the Pacific Ocean? We may like the story of the animals on the lifeboat better than that of him with the cook, Pi’s mother, and the Taiwanese sailor…but that doesn’t make the former story true.

Pi begins by saying that his suffering left him “sad and gloomy,” and a combination of his studies and religion “slowly brought [him] back to life” (page 3). The trauma he experienced on the lifeboat–the cook’s amputation of the leg of the injured sailor, who dies soon after and whose body is sliced into pieces for fish bait, then some pieces eaten by the cook, who later kill’s Pi’s mother before the boy’s eyes, then Pi avenges her by killing the cook and eating his body–is unbearable. This is why religion is so important to Pi. He’s begging God for forgiveness…in all religious traditions, just to be sure. As a murderer and a cannibal, he needs redemption, salvation.

How much he was interested in religion as a child we cannot know for sure, since so much of his narration is coloured with the emotional effect of the ordeal he suffered on the lifeboat. We must keep this reality in mind as we go through his narrative, for properly understood, his autobiography is presented as a myth, which in turn is a fanciful distortion of actual events. The “life of Pi” may be an entertaining story, but it is by no means reliable.

He says that “death sticks so closely to life” because of envy, jealousy, and that death is in love with life (pages 6 and 7). I’m reminded of Blake‘s line, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.” I suspect that Pi, in his university studies, has learned the Blake quote; he’s replaced “the productions of time” with life, and “Eternity” (i.e., God) with death, which I read as a Freudian slip, revealing his true, unconscious feelings about the nature of the divine.

He was named after a swimming pool–Piscine Molitor (page 9), because Mamaji–a good friend of Pi’s family, and whom he saw as an uncle–was a champion competitive swimmer who found the Piscine Molitor to be the most glorious of all swimming pools (page 14).

The learning and practice of swimming, “doing a stroke with increasing ease and speed, over and over,” leads to a state of hypnosis, with the water coning to a state of “liquid light.” (page 12). The association here of swimming with hypnosis, a meditative state of trance, suggests the association of water with the divine, the infinite ocean of Brahman.

Such associations lead to an important point about what the protagonist’s name means symbolically. He’s been named after a swimming pool, a small enclosure of water; he’ll later be surrounded in the water of the Pacific Ocean, in the Mariana Trench, a seemingly infinite vastness of water. The swimming pool in the ocean is like Atman at one with Brahman; Piscine in the Pacific. He won’t experience nirvana there, though.

The trauma he experiences there is so overwhelming that he, as I explained above, uses religion to help him restore a sense of mental stability. And as I’ve argued in a number of other posts, the mystical experience is not one of sentimentality, all sunshine and rainbows: heaven and hell, nirvana and samsara, sin and sainthood, are in dialectical proximity, where the head of the ouroboros (heaven) bites its tail (hell). Such an extremity is what Pi experiences out there in his lifeboat with the tiger.

Since Pi grew up in a family with a father who owned a zoo in Pondicherry, he has a perspective on animals in captivity that differs from many of us who deplore the sight of caged animals. He sees zoo animals as much happier than those out in the wild (pages 20-25), and he gives a persuasive argument for this position. Animals in the wild, to him, are like the homeless. Zoos guarantee animals food, and give them security, safety, and a sense of routine and structure.

All I know is what I once saw in a zoo not too far a drive from my city of residence in East Asia back in 1996: a huge gorilla in a cage in which it barely had room to roam around. All one had to do was look at its face to see how terribly unhappy it was. Its whole life was sitting there, being stared at by people. That it would come around regularly and bang on the bars was a clear sign that it wanted out. I’m not saying all, or even most, zoos are this insensitive to animals’ emotional needs (I hope not!), but clearly some have been this way, and that’s already too many.

In any case, for Pi, zoos provide the same service for animals that religions provide for man: in their limiting of freedom, they provide structure and safety (or so religions promise, at least). For many of us, though, that limiting of freedom, as for that gorilla I saw in that cage, is a problem in itself not to be trivialized. Pi’s preference of structure and security over the unpredictable wildness of freedom is the kind of thing Erich Fromm wrote about in Escape from Freedom: individual freedom can cause fear, anxiety, and alienation, whereas relinquishing freedom and embracing authoritarianism in such forms as religion can provide feelings of security.

After experiencing the tohu-wa-bohu, if you will, of months on the Pacific Ocean, Pi is starving not just for food, but for structure. The formless void that the ocean represents is, psychologically speaking, Lacan‘s notion of The Real, a state of affairs that cannot be verbalized or symbolized, because its content cannot be differentiated–hence its traumatic quality.

Religion is what has restored a sense of structure to Pi’s life, thus delivering him from psychological fragmentation and a psychotic break from reality. The God delusion has saved him from just plain delusion.

There’s an element of narcissism in the pious, despite their professed humility. In being members of ‘the one, true faith,’ of the elect, they imagine themselves to be part of an elite, morally superior group of people, regardless of how their grace may be from faith and not from good works, or if they see themselves as just submitting to God’s will. For Pi, this pious narcissism is just his defence against fragmentation.

His religious narcissism expresses itself in his identifying of himself with the divine. I’ve already mentioned how, as “Piscine,” the human swimming pool floating in an ocean of Brahman, he as Atman is united with the pantheistic Ultimate Reality. In Chapter 5, he discusses various annoyances he’s had with his name; on one occasion during his university days, he’d rather not tell the pizza delivery people his name on the phone, so instead he refers to himself as, “I am who I am.” (page 26)

In discussing changes made to his name, Pi compares his situation with characters in the New Testament: Simon to Peter, Saul to Paul, etc. This is again Pi’s narcissism in comparing himself to the great religious men of history.

Now, narcissism doesn’t come without narcissistic injury. As a child, Pi had to endure endless taunts about his name from his classmates, mispronouncing his name on purpose as “Pissing Patel!” (page 26) He compares this experience of schoolyard bullying with Christ’s Passion: one of his tormentors is a “Roman soldier,” and he goes into class “wearing [his] crown of thorns.” (page 27)

When it comes to this bullying over his name, Pi doesn’t limit the comparisons of religious persecution to Christian ones. He also speaks of “feeling like the persecuted prophet Muhammad in Medina, peace be upon him.” (page 28)

As a solution to this problem with his name, Piscine presents an abbreviation of his name to his class on the first day of the new school year; to add to the distraction away from “Pissing,” he discusses some basic geometry–3.14, which is known as both a transcendental number and an irrational one.

So his name, as representative of Atman, has gone through the Hegelian dialectic: pristine Piscine, the water of a beautiful, spotless swimming pool (thesis); Pissing, a filthy liquid (antithesis); and Pi, a transcendental/irrational number (synthesis). We’re not concerned here with the strictly mathematical denotations of “transcendental” and “irrational” numbers, but rather with the connotations of these two words and how they relate to the symbolism and philosophy behind the novel.

The decimal representation of π never ends, giving it the association of infinity that ties in with the divine connotations of Pi’s name, as does, of course, the connotations of “transcendental.” As a number that cannot be expressed exactly in normal, verbal communication, π is associated in the novel with the notion of the ineffability of the divine. Small wonder Piscine prefers this short form of his name.

“Irrational,” of course, also implies the absurdity of Pi’s attempts to attribute divinity to himself, and to attribute meaning to the chaos of his life.

At one point in his youth, Pi had a biology teacher named Mr. Satish Kumar, an active communist and avowed atheist (page 33). Young Pi is shocked to hear Kumar say, “Religion is darkness.” In Pi’s opinion, “Religion is light.” (page 35)

When Kumar was Pi’s age, he was “racked with polio.” He wondered, Where is God? In the end, it was medicine that saved him, not God (page 36). In Kumar’s opinion, justice and peace will come to the Earth when the workers “take hold of the means of production“, not when God intervenes in human affairs (page 37).

Though he sharply disagrees with Kumar, Pi respects him. Pi thinks well of both theists and atheists, but as far as agnostics are concerned, doubt should be entertained only temporarily. One should ultimately commit oneself to belief either in God or in no God (page 37).

How does one resolve this contradiction between Pi’s accepting of both belief and unbelief? Imagine how Pi must have felt on that lifeboat, hungry for months, having seen his mother murdered before his very eyes, then killing her murderer and having to resort to cannibalism to relieve his hunger. He had to have been asking himself, Where is God? He can empathize with the feelings of this atheist…though I believe the real reconciliation is deep in Pi’s unconscious.

As Pi goes on telling his story to Martel, “At times he gets agitated.” (page 56) It seems as though he’ll want to stop talking about his life, though he still does want to tell his story. I believe his conflict stems from the same place as his contradictory feelings about God, which I’ll get into later.

Pi speaks about his first religion, which of course is the Hindu faith of his upbringing. It’s an early “exaltation, no bigger than a mustard seed” (page 63)–in Pi’s mind, there’s a fusion of Hinduism and Christianity. To him, the relation between Brahman and Atman is like that of the three persons of the Trinity–a mysterious one (page 65).

Later, Pi picks up on Catholicism (Chapter 17), then Islam (Chapter 18). After this, he meets a Muslim named, of all names, Satish Kumar (page 82), the exact same name as the communist atheist. I suspect this is an example of Pi being an unreliable narrator, fabricating two people of the exact same name, but of opposing views on religion, as a personification of his own inner, unconscious conflicts about his own spirituality.

Pi loves both Kumars, as opposing as their beliefs are. He refers to them as if they’re indistinguishable from each other (pages 111-112). As for agnostics, though, Pi says they are “beholden to dry, yeastiness factuality.” (page 85) In his opinion, agnostics “lack imagination and miss the better story.” Consider, in this connection, the hell of doubt Pi went through on that lifeboat over that period of months; it was much longer than temporary doubt.

Recall that in Life of Pi, “the better story” is the one with the animals on the lifeboat, the mythical account suggestive of the existence of divinity, which, in spite of how fanciful it may be, is better than believing the horrible story about his mother, the cook, and the sailor. To be “the reincarnation of Sri Ramakrishna” (i.e., embracing not just Hindu traditions, but also Christianity and Islam), or being an atheist, is better than being an agnostic, forever in doubt.

Pi can hardly remember what his mother looked like (pages 116-117)–his repressed memory of her lessens the pain of having watched her murdered. Here lies the real reconciliation of his acceptance of firm belief vs firm unbelief: his insistence on believing in and loving God is really a reaction formation against his unconscious hatred of a God that abandoned him and his mother in the middle of the Pacific Ocean, where we must go now.

Memory is an ocean and [Pi] bobs on its surface.” (page 56)

III: Part Two–The Pacific Ocean

The Noah’s ark symbolism of the part of this novel dealing with a ship at sea with animals in it is so obvious that one shouldn’t need to mention it. There are, however, crucial differences between the Biblical narrative and the Life of Pi account that ought to be mentioned.

God preserves Noah’s family and all of the animals in the ark throughout the rainy days and nights of the Great Flood. Everyone and every animal aboard the sinking Tsimtsum dies (to our knowledge, at least),…and only Pi is escaped alone to tell thee. The ark rests on the mountains of Ararat; the Tsimtsum sits at the bottom of the Pacific Ocean, in the Mariana Trench. In this latter catastrophe, one must ask: Where is God?

Remember that according to the original story, the lifeboat animals are Pi’s mother (Orange Juice, the orangutan), the cook (the hyena), the Taiwanese sailor with the broken leg (the similarly injured zebra), and Pi himself (Richard Parker, the tiger). So Pi is really the only living thing that survived.

When we say that the tiger represents Pi, we actually mean the animal represents what Jung would have called the Shadow, that part of one’s personality that one rejects and wishes didn’t exist, so it is repressed and split off. This splitting-off is seen in how Pi isn’t replaced with a tiger: he’s still in the mythical narrative, unlike his mother, the cook and the sailor. The tiger’s human name is understood to be the result of a clerical error (Chapter 48)–his capturer’s name was switched with his actual name, “Thirsty”–but giving him this odd name reinforces the idea that the tiger actually represents a human being…Pi. Pi, in a lifeboat surrounded by undrinkable salt water, is the truly thirsty one, and not just for water…for salvation.

The repression of Pi’s Shadow is represented in part by the tiger’s being kept under the boat’s tarpaulin, but repression, properly understood, isn’t about pushing unacceptable, anxiety-causing feelings down into some kind of dark, mental dungeon where they hide and are unseen. The repressed returns to consciousness, but in a new, unrecognizable form–it hides in plain sight. For this reason, psychoanalysts use the term unconscious, and not the pop psychology term, ‘subconscious.’ The repressed isn’t beneath consciousness; it’s unknown, without consciousness.

By a clever mental trick, Pi has made himself forget that his mother, the cook, and the sailor were on the lifeboat with him…and he forgets his latent murderous, cannibalistic impulses. To use Lacanian language, Pi has practiced a repression of a configuration of signifiers, replacing them with signifiers of animals. As we can observe, the objects of his repression are right there in the lifeboat with him, hiding in plain sight.

He describes “Orange Juice,” the orangutan mother of two males, as arriving to the lifeboat “floating on an island of bananas…as lovely as the Virgin Mary” (pages 146-147). He calls her “Oh blessed Great Mother, Pondicherry fertility goddess…” etc. Why, naturally he will speak of her that way. This is his actual mother, of two males…himself and his brother, Ravi.

Speaking of Ravi, later on, Pi imagines his brother teasing him about filling his lifeboat with animals and wondering if Pi thinks he’s Noah (page 158). Indeed, these imagined taunts of Ravi’s are really a projection of the fact that, deep down, Pi knows he’s deluding himself.

A similar projection happens when Pi sees the orangutan looking out on the water, searching for her two young ones and grieving over their loss. Pi notes that she has been “unintentionally mimicking what [he] had been doing [those] past thirty-six hours.” (page 165). Pi really imagines his own mother, now dead and her soul in heaven, grieving not only over Ravi having perished on the Tsimtsum, but also Pi suffering on that lifeboat all alone. It’s really he who is grieving over her, his dad, and Ravi. What’s worse, the orangutan is showing no feelings at all for him, when she is representing his mother; this hurts even more.

When the hyena has killed the zebra and the orangutan, this latter dead animal is described as not only “beheaded,” but also lying with her arms “spread wide open and her short legs…folded together and slightly turned to one side. She looked like a simian Christ on the Cross.” (pages 174-175) The horrors of the cook killing the sailor and Pi’s mother (who is also beheaded) must be mitigated not only with the replacement of animal signifiers, but also with the solace of religious iconography.

The greatest terror of all for Pi, though, is the sudden emergence of Richard Parker from his hitherto hiding place, under the tarpaulin. Pi describes the tiger’s head as “gigantic…the size of the planet Jupiter to [Pi’s] dazed senses. His paws were like volumes of Encyclopaedia Britannica.” (page 175) This is when the tiger comes out and kills the hyena.

Since, as I said above, the tiger represents all that Pi abhors in himself–his potential to do evil–we can understand the real reason he’s so terrified of Richard Parker. The vastness of the tiger’s head and the violence those claws are capable of are signifiers his unconscious is using to hide the violence inside himself. He doesn’t really fear a tiger on that lifeboat: he fears the viciousness he’s capable of when put in a desperate situation.

The tiger coming out and killing the hyena is when, actually, Pi avenges his mother’s murder and engages in cannibalism. This is the real horror that has caused him to spend “the night in a state of delirium.” He imagines he’s dreamt of a tiger; this could very well be, since the tiger is from his unconscious (under the tarpaulin), a signifier to replace his actual murderous, cannibalistic impulses (page 175).

The cannibalism, of course, is a reflection of his extreme, desperate hunger, something plaguing the vegetarian with guilt and shame, for his starving isn’t enough for his superego and its lofty moral demands to excuse him from resorting to such a shocking diet. Paralleling this hunger is his extreme thirst, like the thirst of Richard Parker “Thirsty,” Pi’s Shadow. Accordingly, he compares his extreme thirst to that of crucified Christ. His identification with his thirsty Saviour once again helps to mitigate his guilt (page 179).

Pi talks about how only fear can defeat life (page 214). This fear “is difficult to put into words.” (page 216) He speaks of this fear “nestl[ing] in your memory like gangrene: it seeks to rot everything, even the words with which to speak of it.” One should remember this “gangrene” in connection with the infection in the broken leg of the Taiwanese sailor, which was the cook’s justification for amputating it (page 408). Signifiers are being shuffled in Pi’s mind once again.

This fear that rots words away is the trauma of Lacan’s inexpressible Real, that realm of human experience without differentiating signifiers, like an ineffable, formless ocean of Brahman. To prevent this kind of fear from taking you over and consuming you, “You must fight hard to shine the light of words upon it. Because if you don’t, if your fear becomes a wordless darkness…you open yourself to further attacks of fear.” (page 216) The fear spreads through you, like an infection, gangrene. This is why Pi needs the zoo animal signifiers–to keep the fear at bay.

The divine is not a God of sentimentality, one that will take away all your pain in one fell swoop. It’s often terrifying. I reflected on this reality in my analysis of Moby-Dick. In Chapter 35, “The Mast-Head,” Melville warns the pantheists who are “lulled into such an opium-like listlessness of vacant unconscious reverie” and who lose their identity. If they aren’t careful while in this sleep, their feet may slip, and they may fall into that sea of Brahman, “no more to rise for ever.” (Melville, pages 162-163) As I’ve argued elsewhere, heaven and hell, or nirvana and samsara, are dialectically close to each other. Pi’s experience of God is terrifying, not edifying.

This is why “It was Richard Parker who calmed [Pi] down.” (Martel, page 216) The tiger was at first Pi’s repressed Shadow, having come out of his unconscious to kill the cook and avenge his mother, then to eat the cook’s flesh. After that, Pi’s Shadow was split off and projected from him as a hallucinated tiger, to become the replacement signifier of Pi the murderous, cannibalistic savage. This replacement signifier, Richard Parker, thus saved Pi from himself.

Pi’s fear of the tiger jumping on him and eating him is really his fear of integrating and becoming one with his Shadow. This union would force Pi to confront his unbearable guilt, and in his despair, he’d have to kill himself on that lifeboat. Hence, Pi “had to tame him” (page 218), that is, to come to terms with the Shadow that the tiger represents and calm him while keeping him separate–split off and projected from Pi.

Richard Parker couldn’t die, though, for if he did, Pi “would be left alone with despair.” (page 219) Without his projection of his murderous and cannibalistic impulses onto a hallucinated tiger, Pi would have succumbed to shame, self-hate, and suicidal despair. He went from being terrified of the tiger to needing it to survive.

A point should be made about the Tsimtsum. The Japanese ship is named after a Kabbalistic concept referring to God ‘contracting’ Himself into a vacuum during the Creation. The implication is that, on that sinking ship, God wasn’t there. It’s unlikely that teenage Pi would have heard of such an obscure word; he must have learned it during his university studies, and then fictitiously applied it to the Japanese ship. It’s further proof of how unreliable he is as a narrator. It’s also an example of his use of replacement signifiers to help him repress his trauma and unconscious hatred of God.

Recall what I said above that all Pi’s talk about loving God is really a reaction formation against his unconscious anger at God for not being there when he and his mother most desperately needed Him. “Tsimtsum,” which doesn’t even sound like typical Japanese, let alone is appropriate for the name of a Japanese ship, refers to the paradoxical absence and presence of God during the Creation. He’s there, yet He isn’t there, right when Pi’s family needs Him. He just let this failed Noah’s ark sink.

As I argued in Part IX of my analysis of the primeval history in Genesis, the Great Flood was a return to the pre-Creation state of the world, with water everywhere and no separation of opposing elements (light/darkness, water above or below, sea/land, etc.). In Tsimtsum, the paradoxically simultaneous presence and absence of God (via the vacant space) happens during Creation like the Flood as ‘second Creation’ (which is dialectically at one with God’s destruction of the world). Thus there is no separation between God vs no-God, or between creation vs destruction. This is the undifferentiated, traumatic world of Lacan’s Real.

Tsimtsum’s non-differentiation between the presence and absence of God leads us to a non-differentiation between theism and atheism: agnosticism. Recall that Pi can respect atheists, but not agnostics. Here we can see why: it’s the agony of doubt that torments Pi so much. If there’s no God, oh well: Pi’s ordeal happened because…well…shit happens. But if…if there is a God, why didn’t He help Pi?

Doubt, for Pi, is a terrifying state of limbo, trapped in between God and no-God…Tsimtsum, the sinking ship. Thus, Pi’s retroactive naming of the Japanese ship with the Kabbalistic concept is yet another replacement signifier to help him repress his agonizing doubt, something that can only be temporarily tolerated, but which if entertained long enough, might lead to Pi’s realization that he, unconsciously and perhaps only in part, hates God.

He’s far too attached to a belief in the divine to reject it, so he must not only believe in, but also love, God. Doing so requires a reaction formation of affirming religious ideas from traditions from all over the world, an intense love of God to annihilate even the suspicion of hating Him.

In Chapter 58, he gets the lifeboat survival manual and peruses it (pages 221-223). This book is like his Bible, Koran, or Vedic scriptures.

At one point, he looks down at the water and sees all the swimming fish, so many of them racing around that he contemplates how the sea is like a big, busy, bustling city (pages 234-235). The fish seem like cars, buses, and trucks. “The predominant colour was green.” This comparison of the ocean to a city, with lots of green, seems like wish-fulfillment to him. Pi is aching to set foot on land again.

In Chapter 60, Pi wakes up in the middle of the night and, awed by the brightly shining stars, contemplates his tiny place in the infinity of space above and the ocean below. He feels like the Hindu sage Markandeya, who also had a vision of the universe and everything (pages 236-237), and who also saw a deluge that killed all living things. As always, Pi is using religion and myth to give his suffering meaning and structure.

Some time after, he tells of the first time he’s killed a flying fish (page 245). He claims, “It was the first sentient being I had ever killed.” Oh, really, Pi? Are you sure there wasn’t any sentient being before this fish that you killed out of desperation for food? Abel killed sheep for sacrifices before his brother murdered him; with your killing of a fish, shouldn’t you feel as guilty as Abel, rather than as Cain? Or is there the memory of a human killing that you’ve repressed and replaced with this flying fish signifier, causing you to equate yourself with the older brother, rather than the younger one?

Indeed, Pi survives 227 days, with a daily routine that includes prayer five times a day (pages 254-256), and he “survived because [he] made a point of forgetting.” (page 257) He’s used religiosity and repressed memory, blotting out his traumas and replacing human signifiers with animal ones in his unconscious, to help him go on living.

He speaks of his clothes having disintegrated from the sun and the salt (page 257). “For months [he] lived stark naked,” as sky-clad as a Jain. He lost everything, just like possessionless Hamlet when he returned to Denmark after being on a ship to England with Rosencrantz and Guildensternnaked (i.e., without possessions–Act IV, Scene vii, lines 49-58) and betrayed.

Pi speaks of having “looked at a number of beautiful starry nights,” and of gaining spiritual guidance from the stars (i.e., the stars as symbols of heavenly gods). They have never given him geographical direction, though, as he so desperately needs now, on the lifeboat in the watery middle of nowhere (page 259). Once again, he speaks of religion as a great guide, when his Heavenly Father isn’t helping this lost soul at all.

He thinks of himself as “a strict vegetarian” (page 264), and perhaps that aspect of his autobiography is reliable; but in resorting to the killing of animals for food, such as sea turtles, he claims to having “descended to a level of savagery [he] never imagined possible.” One can understand the moral argument of vegetarians, but I think it’s the eating of the cook’s flesh that he truly finds an unimaginable savagery. Replacing the signifier of human flesh with that of animal flesh, as distasteful as that may be to him, is nonetheless bearable.

Recall how I described the lifeboat survival manual as his holy scripture. I say that because of what Pi says at the beginning of Chapter 73: other than salvation, he wishes he had a book. He has “no scripture in the lifeboat,” hence he has to make do with the survival manual, which is essentially what scripture is meant for, anyway–the salvation and survival of the soul. He lacks Krishna‘s words (page 279). A Bhagavad Gita would have been handy.

In Chapter 74, he speaks of doing “religious rituals” in an attempt to lift his spirits. He wants to love God, but it is “so hard to love.” He’s afraid his heart will “sink to the very bottom of the Pacific”…just like the Tsimtsum, symbol of the present/absent God that sank, Noah’s failed ark (page 280).

He speaks of what’s left of his clothes as “GOD’S HAT!” and “GOD’S ATTIRE!” He calls Richard Parker “GOD’S CAT!” and his lifeboat “GOD’S ARK!”, etc. (page 281) Since these things are all Pi’s possessions, we can see that he’s once again narcissistically identifying himself with God, or using narcissism as a defence against fragmentation, as I described above.

Soon after, though, he realizes he’s been fooling himself. God’s hat is unravelling. His pants are falling apart, His cat is a danger to him, and His ark is a jail. All of Pi’s attempts to exalt God, and himself in his narcissistic association with Him, are failing because they’re all just a reaction formation against his unconscious anger at a God that has failed him.

“God’s ark [is] a jail” because the Tsimtsum was also a jail of an ark.

Pi goes on and on about his battles with hunger, and how they are driving him mad. He can feel remotely good only with a full belly; he needs turtle meat just to smile. At one point, he even tries to eat the tiger’s shit, his hunger is so desperate. Such an excess should be seen as yet another unconscious replacement for his eating of the cook’s flesh (pages 286-287).

In Chapter 83, Pi describes a sea storm (page 303). His choice of words to depict the scene is fascinating: “landscape,” “hillocks of water,” “mountains,” and “valleys” of ocean waves. He’s demonstrating wish-fulfillment again, as with the ‘city-sea’ and the ‘cars,’ ‘trucks,’ and ‘buses’ of busy, swimming fish in a water ‘predominantly green.’ He wishes, quite urgently now, of course, that he were on land.

He says, “the boat clung to the sea anchors like a mountain climber to a rope.” The huge crest was like a “mountain [that] would shift, and the ground beneath [Pi and Richard Parker] would start sinking in a most stomach-sickening way.” (pages 303-304)

In the storm scene in the film, Pi at first tries to show reverence to God while he’s pelted with rain and tossed about by the pitiless storm. He calls out, “Praise be to God! Lord of all worlds! The compassionate, the merciful!” (surah 1:2-3) He tells Richard Parker to come out from the tarpaulin and see God’s lightning flashing in the sky–“It’s beautiful!” This is the desperate madness of someone trying to reconcile himself to a world that is utterly indifferent as to whether he and the tiger live or die. Pi appears to be suffering from some kind of Stockholm Syndrome, as far as ‘God’ is concerned.

Only later, as the storm continues on in its ruthless battery of the lifeboat, does Pi finally express his frustration, saying he’s lost his family, he’s lost everything, and what more could God possibly want of him? Yet in his anger, he still mustn’t risk blasphemy, so he includes in his rant, “I surrender!” like a good Muslim.

Symbolically, this storm represents the traumatizing, inexpressible, undifferentiated world of the Real. The danger to him and the tiger represents the threat of psychological fragmentation, and so Pi’s stubborn faith in God is his way of retaining his sanity.

Having a sound sense of psychological structure, as Heinz Kohut understood it, is through maintaining what he called the bipolar self. One pole is of the grandiose self, that of mirroring and ambitions, one’s narcissistic aggrandizement of oneself; and the other pole is of the idealized parental imago, of idealizing another, an authority figure (Mother or Father, essentially) as an affirming, validating mirror of oneself. For Pi, the grandiose self is Atman; his idealized parental imago is Brahman, or his Heavenly Father. The loss of his parents has necessitated their replacement with God, a father figure.

He’s seen his mother murdered before his eyes; with his father already gone, she was all that was left of his idealized parental imago. This trauma has already weakened his bipolar self to the point of a dangerously brittle fragility. His killing and eating of the cook, something he couldn’t help doing, is still a heinous sin whose narcissistic injury would have shattered his grandiose self, the only remaining pole of his bipolar self, causing him to be at the very brink of fragmentation, a psychotic break from reality.

He can restore his sanity only by replacing his parents with a new idealized parental imago: God the Father. Repudiating his Heavenly Father would be, in Lacanian terms, foreclosure, a dismissing of the Name of the Father and the Symbolic Order of language, culture, society, and customs, treating them as if they’d never existed; this would lead to psychosis. Hence, Pi must believe in God to stay sane.

In Chapter 84, Pi sees a number of whales further off in the water, and they seem to him to be “a short-lived archipelago of volcanic islands.” Again, it’s the wish-fulfillment of seeing supposed land (page 309). Then, he sees six birds, imagining “each one to be an angel, announcing nearby land.” (page 310) More wish-fulfillment.

In Chapter 86, Pi spots a ship, and he tries to draw the crew’s attention to him by shouting and firing off a rocket flare, but all to no avail: “it was salvation barely missed.” (page 317) The ship sails away.

In Chapter 88, “One day, [they] came upon trash.” Among the foul-smelling things of this island of rubbish is a refrigerator; he opens it, letting out a “pungent and disgusting” smell (page 391). His hunger is further frustrated with all the rotten remains of food inside: “dark juices, a quantity of completely rotten vegetables, milk so curdled and infected it was a greenish jelly,” and a dead animal.

By Chapter 90, he starts to go blind. He feels near death, and it’s like a harrowing of hell for him (pages 324-325). The tiger is dying, too–naturally: Richard Parker is Pi, his Shadow.

He’s also concluded that he’s gone mad, and in his madness, blindness, and weakening to the point of near death, he hears a voice, and there begins a conversation (pages 326-327). Remember Pi’s extreme hunger as the context for all of this. He speaks, to the voice, of “someone else” as a “figment of your fancy” (page 326). Then he notes the word fig as the first syllable of figment (i.e., as in ‘figment of one’s imagination,’ or “fancy”). Pi is “dreaming of figs,” and the voice speaks of wanting a piece, for the owner of the voice, like Pi, is starving (page 327).

If Pi can hallucinate about animals on his lifeboat, as signifiers in his unconscious to replace those of his mother, the cook, and the sailor, then he can certainly, in his madness and blindness, have auditory hallucinations about another starving man on a neighbouring boat.

Later on, when the voice rejects the offer of a carrot, Pi concludes that it’s been Richard Parker who has been speaking with him, the “carnivorous rascal.” (page 330) As insane as this sounds, on the surface, to be hearing the voice of a talking tiger, when one considers the root cause of Pi’s madness, such foolish reasoning begins to make a kind of weird sense. Both the tiger and the other man, this double of Pi’s, his “brother,” who as it turns out is also blind (page 336), are projections of himself. In his madness, Pi is fusing both projections, the tiger and his “brother,” into one entity, if temporarily.

Later, his “brother” asks for cigarettes, whose nicotine is an appetite suppressant, something a starving man may crave for relief of his hunger (page 337). As it turns out, Pi has eaten his supply of cigarettes, but left the filters. Well, Pi doesn’t smoke (page 338).

By the end of Chapter 90, Richard Parker has attacked and killed Pi’s “brother” (page 342). Since both are figments of Pi’s imagination, his Shadow and a double of himself, then this killing is really a wish-fulfillment. Pi wishes he could end his suffering by dying…to sleep, no more…a consummation devoutly to be wished. And to die violently, as he imagines the tiger killed the hyena, but it was really he who killed the cook, is really just him mentally atoning for his bloody revenge on the killer of his mother.

His use of his ‘brother’s’ arm as bait is, of course, another example of replacing the signifier of the cook using the sailor’s leg for bait (page 343). And that Pi “ate some of his flesh” is the closest he can come to confronting his actual eating of the cook’s flesh.

In the very long Chapter 92, Pi has reached the island of algae (page 343). He knows many will not believe this part of his story. Of course not. It’s utter mythological nonsense, to take it literally.

‘”Look for green,” said the survival manual.’ (page 345) Just as with the ‘predominantly green’ city of fish swimming under the lifeboat, this hallucination of Pi’s is just more wish-fulfillment for him, his craving to find land. As a vegetarian, he also craves green to eat.

Naturally, he “babble[s] incoherent thanks to God” (page 346), comes onto the island, and bites into the green, “tubular seaweed” (page 347). The inner tube is “bitterly salty–but the outer…[is] delicious.” (page 348) What’s more, the taste is sweet, sugary. The algae’s sweetness is a pleasure and a delight one wouldn’t normally associate with such a food, and this sweetness ties in with everything else about this island: it’s a fake paradise.

This island is like Spenser‘s Bower of Bliss (from The Faerie Queene), a place of superficial, sensual pleasures one would indulge in to excess, yet it’s a trap. It lulls one into a state of idleness and torpor, distracting one from one’s quest or purpose; it would change a man into an animal.

Another apt literary comparison is Calypso‘s island, Ogygia, from Book V of The Odyssey, where Odysseus is kept to be the nymph’s eternal husband, with promises for him of eternal life and physical pleasures. Still, he knows he must return to Ithaca and to his wife, Penelope, and so after seven yers as Calypso’s reluctant lover, he is finally set free with the gods’ help. Pi, too, must leave his algae island.

Pi’s discovery of “hundreds of thousands of meerkats” on the island of algae is particularly interesting (page 356). This mongoose species is native to Southern Africa, so their presence on this Pacific island is most curious, and it only reinforces how mythical and improbable this place’s existence is, outside of Pi’s imagination.

He sees the meerkats all ‘turning to [him] and standing at attention, as if saying “Yes, sir?”‘ (page 357) Then they lose interest in him and all bend down at the same time, to nibble at the algae or stare into the ponds (evenly scattered and identically sized). All bent down thus, they remind him of prayer time in a mosque. They’re gentle, docile, and submissive.

Indeed, in meerkat, we can discover such puns as meek, mere, and cat. Though the animal is a kind of mongoose, we can play around with these four words for psychological purposes. Since this whole place and all of the animals here, including Richard Parker, are figments of Pi’s imagination, we can understand the meerkats to be ‘mere cats,’ or ‘meek cats,’ if you will.

In his mind, these animals have become a replacement signifier for the tiger, which recall is Pi’s Shadow, the dark, dangerous part of his personality that he has split off and projected from himself because he can’t accept it. The emergence of meerkats allows him to replace Richard Parker as a more acceptable signifier in his unconscious for his Shadow.

Instead of a ravenous tiger in his unconscious, he has ‘mere cats’ there…’meek cats’ that shall inherit the Earth. Richard Parker can kill and gobble up as many of them as he likes, and because they’ve lived on this island without predators for so many generations, they’ve no longer had any need of fear. They’re unruffled as the tiger kills them (page 361).

Since the tiger represents a rejected part of Pi’s mind, and the meerkats signify a more acceptable version of the tiger, then its killing and eating of them represents Pi’s integrating of his Shadow, and it’s also a kind of autocannibalism, which leads to another point.

I’ve discussed many times in other posts how I use the ouroboros as a symbol for the dialectical relationship between opposites: how the serpent’s biting head represents one extreme, the bitten tail is the opposite extreme, how at the point of biting, the one extreme phases dialectically into its opposite, and every intermediate point between the opposites corresponds with every place on the serpent’s coiled body, which is a circular continuum. One thing I’ve never discussed until now, however, is how the ouroboros engages in autocannibalism, or what the implications of this autocannibalism are.

The extreme of Pi’s ordeal (bitten tail)–his extreme starvation, blindness, and madness, causing him to project not only his Shadow onto Richard Parker, but also his very identity onto his similarly starving “brother,” then imagining the tiger killing and eating much of his “brother,” then Pi himself eating some of his ‘brother’s’ flesh–is a hell immediately preceding his discovery of the algae island paradise, the heavenly opposite extreme (biting head).

The tiger and his “brother” are projections of Pi himself, as I’ve described above, so the eating of his “brother” is symbolic autocannibalism. The tiger’s eating of the meerkats, also a projection of Pi (a meerkat and thus a more acceptable version of Richard Parker), is thus also symbolically Pi’s autocannibalism. We later learn that the island is carnivorous (page 378) once Pi has found teeth in the centres of the plants he’s peeled (page 377).

Pi has eaten algae from the island, Richard Parker has eaten many meerkats, and Pi has learned that if he and the tiger stay too long on the island, it will eat them. Since the island is obviously a figment of his delirious imagination, a wish-fulfillment of green land, full of vegetarian food for him and meek meerkats that the tiger can ingest, integrate into himself, and thus calm his wildness, then his and the tiger’s relationship with the island is also an autocannibalistic one.

In terms of my ouroboros symbolism, the island is at the exact point where the serpent’s teeth are biting into its tail, the very point of autocannibalism. Extreme heaven is meeting extreme hell. Biting the tail can symbolize self-mastery–heaven, nirvana–yet being eaten by oneself is also self-destruction–hell, samsara. This is the bizarre, paradoxical world that Pi has found himself delivered to, yet also trapped in.

After spending so many days eating and drinking, Pi has found himself returning to life (page 362). If a storm approaches the island, Pi has no fear of it “preparing to ride up the ridge and unleash bedlam and chaos” (page 363). The hell of a sea storm would stop at the green shore of Pi’s heavenly island. And just as Pi returns to life, so does Richard Parker. Naturally: the boy and the tiger are one and the same being. Richard Parker’s eating of meerkats has brought his weight up, it’s made his fur glisten again, and he’s looking healthy (page 365). Such is the effect of taming and nourishing the Shadow. Yet just as the two are reviving, they’re also in danger of dying again, so they must leave.

When Pi finds a tree that seems to have fruit (page 374), and these ‘fruits’ are what hold teeth in their centres, we find yet another literary and mythological allusion in this algae island. The tree isn’t in the centre of the forest, nor is there anything particularly remarkable about it, but in the centre of the tree’s ‘fruits’ is a knowledge of something that will force Pi to leave his island paradise. This is a Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil on his deceptively Edenic island. For Pi, the place will be a paradise lost.

His peeling off of the leaves of the plant balls he believes to be fruit is a disrobing of the teeth inside, making them naked, as Adam and Eve discovered themselves to be upon eating the forbidden fruit. And just as their discovery caused them to be expelled from their paradise and to enter the painful world, so has Pi’s discovery caused him to expel himself from his paradise and to return to the painful world.

He imagines the teeth were from some “poor lost soul” who got to the island before him (page 379), and that after weeks or months or years of loneliness and hopelessness, he or she died there. After all that, Pi imagines “the tree must have slowly wrapped itself around the body and digested it” (pages 379-380). Only the teeth have remained for Pi to find them, but they will eventually disappear, too. Since the island is a figment of Pi’s imagination, though, this imagined person is yet another projection of himself, just like his “brother” who was eaten by Richard Parker and Pi, yet another dream of autocannibalism, an unconscious wish-fulfillment that Pi would be ‘justly punished’ for his own sin of cannibalism of the cook.

Finally, he and the tiger leave the island, and after some time on the Pacific Ocean, they reach the shores of Mexico (Chapter 94, page 381). Richard Parker wanders off and leaves him “so unceremoniously,” without even a look of goodbye in the tiger’s eyes. Since Richard Parker represents Pi’s Shadow, and the tiger has eaten his fill of meerkats (those meek, mere cats, if you will, that in being ingested have tamed the Shadow’s wildness and ferocity), then Pi’s Shadow has returned to his unconscious, it’s lost in the darkness there, and the boy’s sadness stems from no longer having an animal to split off and project what he doesn’t like about himself.

IV: Part Three–Benito Juárez Infirmary, Tomatlán, Mexico

The two Japanese men who question Pi in the Mexican infirmary about why the Tsimtsum sank in the storm–Tomohiro Okamoto of the Maritime Department in the Japanese Ministry of Transport, and his assistant, Atsuro Chiba–are in the role of psychoanalysts, as I see it, being in an attitude of skepticism toward what they hear from their ‘analysand,’ if you will, Pi (pages 391-393).

Mr. Okamoto tells Pi, in all bluntness, that neither he nor Chiba believes Pi’s bizarre story (page 393). Pi’s stubborn insistence that everything he’s told them is true, including the floating bananas, is like the resistance an analysand puts up before his doubting analyst.

Still, Pi’s Japanese investigators are even more stubborn in their insistence on an alternative story, a believable one, one that won’t make the two look like fools when they present it to the Maritime Department. This forces Pi to tell them the truth.

There is a long silence, then Pi tells “another story” (page 406). Pi has to present the truth as a mere ‘other story’ so that at least in his mind, he can pretend that it isn’t the truth. Such an attitude is the only way he can bear it.

As they have been discussing the two stories, Pi in his eternal hunger has been asking the two men to give him their cookies. The Japanese men, in having traveled nonstop to this infirmary, are rather hungry, too. Hunger, of course, is a constant theme in this novel. Pi would have us believe that he’s among the blessed, who hunger and thirst after righteousness (Matthew 5:6); actually, he’s just hungry.

His mother brought some bananas to the lifeboat (page 407), rather than floating on them as an orangutan. The cook “was a brute. He dominated [Pi and his mother].” (page 408) Pi acknowledges, however, that the cook was ” a practical brute. He was good with his hands and he knew the sea. He was full of good ideas.” (page 414) Pi acknowledges that it was thanks to the cook’s resourcefulness that they were able to survive thus far. In other words, the cook’s dominance and helpfulness are comparable to those of God [!].

His point of comparison reinforces what I said earlier: all of Pi’s talk about wanting to love God is really a reaction formation (the professing of the diametrically–emphatically–opposite attitude of that which truly exists in one’s unconscious) against his repressed hatred of God. Part of Pi’s hatred of the “brute” cook is a displacement of this hatred of God that he’ll never admit to.

The cook, a provider of the one thing needful–food–was crucial to the survival of Pi and his mother, as God is supposed to be for all of us. Yet the cook amputated the sailor’s leg, allowed him to die, cut his body up into pieces, ate some of the flesh, hit Pi for failing to catch a turtle, then killed Pi’s mother for hitting him, in turn for having hit her son. He hacked off her head and threw it at him. The head and the body were thrown overboard, food for the sharks.

And ‘God’ allowed the whole thing to happen.

Whenever good things happen, theists will praise and thank God for the good luck; but when bad things happen, they don’t blame God for either causing or allowing the bad luck. The fear of committing blasphemy makes cowards and hypocrites of theists like Pi.

It is the very horrors of modern history, such as the tens of millions whom ‘God’ allowed to die in WWII, including the victims of the Holocaust, six million Jews and millions of non-Jewish victims, that are among the reasons so many people have stopped believing in God. Yet Pi still insists on believing.

If the cook is comparable to God, then Pi’s killing of the cook is comparable to deicide, and his eating of the cook’s flesh is like taking Communion. The cook’s allowing of Pi to kill him–knowing that in having killed Pi’s mother, he went too far in his brutishness–is like Jesus having allowed Himself to be crucified in spite of His divine omnipotence. Pi imagines himself, as Mel Gibson did in personally hammering a nail into Christ’s hand in his film, The Passion of the Christ, as confessing his sin in committing his ‘deicide’ on the passive, willing cook, and in so doing, he hopes that he has successfully atoned for his sin.

If eating the ‘god’ cook’s flesh is like partaking in the Eucharist, then in unconsciously associating the cook with God as Christ, Pi is hoping he isn’t eating that flesh unworthily (1 Corinthians 11:27), as mere cannibalism. So in associating, however unconsciously, the cook with God, Pi is once again using religion to mitigate his guilt.

Though the cook, in knowing he’d gone too far, allowed Pi to kill him, he never said sorry. Pi wonders, “Why do we cling to our evil ways?” (page 416) In focusing on the cook’s evil ways, which were every bit as motivated by desperation and hunger as Pi’s were, Pi is trying to deflect his own guilt onto the cook.

Finally, Pi asks the two Japanese investigators which story they prefer, which is the ‘better’ story, when neither story can be proven true or untrue (in the film, he asks Martel this question). The two men prefer the one with the animals (page 424), as does Martel (played by Rafe Spall) in the film. Indeed, in their report, the Japanese men say that Pi amazingly “survived so long at sea…in the company of an adult Bengal tiger.” (page 428) Pi thanks them for validating his…let’s face it…delusional version of what happened, saying “And so it goes with God.”

V: Conclusion

The story is meant to make us believe in God. In my case, at least, it failed to do so. If this story is to make us believe in God, we must prefer the version with the animals…the fanciful, mythological one.

That Pi could survive alone on the lifeboat for so long is certainly amazing, but it isn’t impossible. To survive with a tiger is a kind of amazing that swings the pendulum towards the impossible, almost surely necessitating a belief in God and His miraculous works.

To be sure, we like the story with the animals better, for its mythological charm and for not including the horrors of the story with the cook, Pi’s mother, and the injured Taiwanese sailor. But it isn’t a matter of which story is more likable; it’s a matter of which story, as ugly as it may be, is more plausible.

And this is the thing about whether or not to believe in God, Brahman, the Tao, or whatever: shall we go for the more pleasant, but less rational, belief, or shall we go for the more rational one, but the one that makes us feel lonely and helpless under the uncaring stars? Here is where philosophical absurdism comes in. In a meaningless universe, we nonetheless cannot help but impose meaning on it–not out of logic, but for our comfort in a painful world.

Yann Martel, Life of Pi, Edinburgh, Canongate Books, 2001

Analysis of ‘Discipline,’ ‘Beat,’ and ‘Three of a Perfect Pair’

I: General Introduction

Discipline (1981), Beat (1982), and Three of a Perfect Pair (1984) are three King Crimson albums that I feel ought to be analyzed together, as they all share common themes, which I’ll go into later.

This era in King Crimson’s history has a number of firsts. Here, guitarist/leader Robert Fripp and drummer Bill Bruford are joined with guitarist/singer/lyricist Adrian Belew and bassist/Stick-player/back-up vocalist Tony Levin, both Americans, making this the first time that the mighty Crims were no longer 100% British.

On these three studio albums, we have, for the first time, the exact same lineup consecutively. Previously, the band had experienced everywhere from the loss of one member to a changing of all of them (except Fripp). The instability of the band had been at its worst between their first two albums and their fourth, Islands, during which time the abilities of the band members had gone from their strongest to their weakest (i.e., Boz Burrell was a good singer, but since Fripp had had to teach him bass, his playing wasn’t as precise as that of the others). In this fully stable 1980s lineup, though, King Crimson was made up of four of the top musicians in the entire world.

There were major changes in instrumentation, too. The Mellotron, an important part of their early sound, is absent from the 1980s on. Given how obsolete the keyboard had become in a world with polyphonic synthesizers that would increasingly be able to imitate conventional instruments, as well as how difficult the Mellotron is to maintain (recall Fripp’s quip that “tuning a Mellotron doesn’t”), it’s easy to see why it wouldn’t be used anymore; still, some fans of the old King Crimson found the instrument’s absence conspicuous. Instead, the new sound would highlight the then-new technology of guitar synthesizers, the Chapman Stick, and electronic drums. The Crims would be the band of the future…with a second guitarist who sang lead vocals instead of the bassist, and who consistently wrote the lyrics instead of there being a separate lyricist, like Peter Sinfield or Richard Palmer-James.

With all these changes in instrumentation (no more saxes, flute, or violin, either) also came radical changes in musical style. The new band fused new wave, minimalism, African polyrhythms, and even Balinese gamelan music with their usual progressive rock sound. Belew’s spoken-word contributions reinforced the new American sound, and his extroverted guitar wailing, with its imitation of animal noises, made seated Fripp seem even more introverted, him being content often to play his repeated guitar lines in the background.

Of course, this wasn’t the first time that King Crimson had made a significant change in their musical direction. The change from their pretty, dainty, jazz-tinged sound on their first four albums to their harder-rocking, improvisational sound during the John Wetton years deserves note. This change to an almost Talking Heads style in the 1980s, though (easy to hear, since Belew had just played with the Heads prior to the formation of this new Crimson, and he was occasionally criticized for seeming to be a David Byrne clone–the spoken word stuff), was far more radical.

So these were the musical aspects of the new band, as described in large brush strokes. Now, I’ll go into the recurring themes that I find in the lyrics of these three albums, for now described generally.

A hint as to what these themes are can be found in the album cover designs of the three albums. All three follow a similar format: the same font for the lettering, a symbol of some kind in the centre (or top-centre, as is the case with Beat), and a primary colour for the background–minimalist art for minimalist music. Red was the colour for Discipline, with a chain symbol; blue for Beat, with a pink eighth note; and yellow for Three of a Perfect Pair, with blue arches representing phallic and yonic symbols…and on the back cover, added to these two is a red arch “drawing together and reconciling the preceding opposite terms,” according to Fripp.

Note that we have not only three albums, but a third whose cover suggests that its…overarching [!]…theme is a sublation of the preceding two elements, the ‘perfect pair.’ The dominant themes of Discipline and Beat, implied by their titles, is an opposition between the Apollonian and the Dionysian. It should be easy to see the ideal of Apollo in the act of discipline; since Beat is greatly inspired by the Beat Generation writers (e.g. “Neal [Cassady] and Jack [Kerouac] and Me”), who were known for such things as wild drunken parties, free love, and the use of illicit drugs, it should be easy to associate Beat with Dionysus.

Thus, in the three albums, we can see and hear the Hegelian dialectic of thesis (Discipline), negation (Beat), and sublation (Three of a Perfect Pair). I will now go into how this is true, detail by detail.

II: Discipline

Here is a link to the lyrics for the album.

Elephant Talk

Levin begins the song with an accelerating tapping of two tritones–C/F-sharp and D/G-sharp–on the Stick, and these tritones will be featured in the funky main riff of the song. When the rest of the band comes in, Fripp will be mostly playing quick A minor arpeggios, and during the moments when Belew is making elephant noises on his guitar, Fripp is playing arpeggios in F-sharp.

As far as the lyrics are concerned, we find a basic exposition of the theme of the dialectic, with words like “arguments, agreements,” that suggest agreements with the thesis and arguments between the thesis and its negation. The “contradiction, criticism,” and “bicker, bicker, bicker” also indicate the conflict between the thesis and negation.

The basic idea behind any dialectic in philosophy is that it is a “dialogue, duologue” between two disagreeing people who, in their “debates, discussions” are searching to find the truth through reasoned discussion. “Talk, talk, it’s only talk.”

Now, there is a discipline in improving one’s philosophical thought through the use of the Hegelian dialectic. One mustn’t have a biased attachment to one’s thesis: it must be challenged with the negation’s “commentary, controversy” as well as its “diatribe, dissension” and “explanations.”

When one keeps the best parts of the thesis, while acknowledging the objections and qualifying of the negation, a sublation is achieved, a refining of one’s ideas, an improvement on them. One doesn’t stop there, though, for the sublation becomes a new thesis to be negated and sublated again. This three-part process must be repeated over and over again, in a potentially endless cycle, for such is the discipline of philosophy, to refine one’s ability to reason continuously.

Needless to say, the discipline required to sustain this ideal of constantly challenging and criticizing one’s worldview is irritating, frustrating, and tiresome. It is as relentless as Fripp’s ongoing, fast guitar lines that never seem to take a rest. Small wonder the symbol for the Discipline album cover is a chain.

Note that the original name that Fripp wanted for this 80s quartet was Discipline, a reaction against his annoyance with The League of Gentlemen, a new wave group he had in 1980. He was sick of “playing with people who are drunk,” and he wanted musicians of top calibre who would have the discipline to play music and focus on the music. Hence, he went from The League of Gentlemen (bassist Sara Lee, organist Barry Andrews, and drummer Kevin Wilkinson) to Discipline (Belew, Levin, and Bruford), who would later be called King Crimson, since ‘Discipline’ doesn’t sound like a fitting name for a rock band, to put it mildly.

Indeed, one must consider the tension felt in trying to maintain the Apollonian ideal of the discipline of the dialectic. Belew’s repeated “it’s only talk” sounds like his exasperation with dealing with such discipline–‘elephant talk’ sounds like a wish to return to an animal’s easy, instinctive way of expressing itself. Such frustrations with philosophically-minded thinking lead us to the next song…

Frame by Frame

These words of Belew’s in the song lyric seem to sum up that tension in measuring up to the Apollonian ideal: “…death by drowning in your own…analysis.” Just as with Belew’s exasperation with “it’s all talk” in the previous song, I suspect that it was Fripp’s endlessly analytical mind that Belew was drowning in. Bruford has made similar comments about how “terrifying” it is to be a member of King Crimson.

On this album, dialectical contradictions are not limited to those of ideas. They also exist in physical, material forms. I don’t generally mean that this ‘dialectical materialism‘ is a Marxist sort. I usually mean that we have conflict and contradiction in the musical structure, in such forms as polymetre.

The first example of this polymetre is in an undulating line of quick sixteenth notes in 6/8 time played by Fripp, while the rest of the band is playing in 4/4. Later, in the 7/8 sections that include Belew and Levin singing, there’s a point where Fripp omits the last of the seven notes in the cycle, beginning on the first note of the repeated cycle when Belew plays its last note before coming back to the beginning himself. A detailed demonstration of how the two guitar lines diverge and conflict with each other can be found here.

Eventually the melodic lines reconverge, symbolically suggesting a sublation of Belew’s ‘thesis,’ if you will, with Fripp’s ‘negation.’ Of course the guitar lines will diverge and reconverge again, a continuation of the never-ending cycle of the dialectic in sonic form.

To go back to the lyric, we analyze something by looking at it in terms of its component parts, slowly–piece by piece, “frame by frame,” like those of a video, “step by step.” In the process of analyzing a thesis, one may “doubt” its validity, this “doubt” giving rise to the negation of the thesis.

Matte Kudasai

The song’s title means “wait, please” in Japanese (待ってください). One envisions, on hearing Belew’s singing, an American woman waiting for the return of her Japanese lover, who calls out to her, “matte kudasai.” She is sad and pining for him, losing patience as she waits, “by the windowpane,” sleeping “in a chair.”

One of the difficult aspects of attaining an Apollonian sense of discipline is having to deal with postponed gratification. Fripp’s bandmates in The League of Gentlemen wanted to drink beer and play music, as I once read of Fripp’s complaining of them, and thus his ending of that band and recruiting Belew, Levin, and Bruford. Fripp wanted a disciplined band, which required an ability to postpone gratification (i.e., beer comes later). One must wait, please.

The American woman thus personifies the act of attaining discipline, and all the sadness that comes from having to postpone gratification, which in turn is personified by her Japanese lover, who is so far away from her, on the other side of the Pacific Ocean. For a third time, we sense the difficulty of improving philosophy through the discipline of the Hegelian dialectic.

Musically, the song is essentially a love ballad, with Fripp’s background chord progression reminding us of the one he arranged for “North Star,” a ballad sung by Daryl Hall on Exposure, Fripp’s first solo album. The seagull sounds that Belew makes, supplementing the slide guitar melodies he plays in imitation of his vocal line, suggest the shore of the Pacific Ocean that divides the American woman from her lover in Japan.

I’ve always been partial to the original version of “Matte Kudasai,” which includes guitar leads played by Fripp that have that mellow tone and long sustain, part of his signature sound. These leads are so beautiful that I honestly can’t understand why, since 1989, they’ve been removed from the “definitive” version of the track. The original version has thus been relegated to the status of an “alternative” version.

Indiscipline

The thing about dialectics is that one can’t understand one idea without contemplating its opposite (i.e., a thesis vs. its negation). Hence, to know discipline, as part of the Apollonian, one must also confront indiscipline, as a manifestation of the Dionysian.

The first…striking…thing we notice about this song is Bruford’s wild batterie on the drums. Apart from its virtuosic brilliance, it demonstrates to the full how he enlarged his drum kit for these three albums. He included Simmons SDS-V electronic drum pads, rototoms, octobans, and excluded the hi-hat, at Fripp’s insistence. In these choices for percussion, Fripp was moving King Crimson’s style in the direction of World Music, giving Bruford’s drumming an African feel; and the conspicuous absence of a hi-hat and reduced use of cymbals (which typically would provide a regular punctuating of eighth or sixteenth notes) is conducive to Fripp’s vision of a “gamelan rock” sound, which his and Belew’s guitars would provide in the playing of quick, repeated notes that remind us of those played on the metallophones of a gamelan.

Anyway, the opening of “Indiscipline” gives Bruford an opportunity to show off and improvise, to build up a storm as it were, gradually filling in more and more space with faster and faster playing, going from calm to increasing tension. His use of cross-rhythms against the simple motif (going in layers from a single-note F to its augmented chord) played in 4/4 by Fripp, Belew, and Levin, gives off a dialectic of chaos vs. order that is a musical demonstration of indiscipline, that understanding of discipline in terms of its opposite.

After this…banger…of an opening, the band switches to a 5/4 riff in A minor, while Bruford is hitting beats in eighth-note triplets. Belew plays a lead with variations based on A, C, C-sharp, C-natural.

The music quietens down to that opening motif in F, with Belew doing a spoken-word monologue. What he says was inspired by a letter his then-wife had written him about a painting she’d done. He never explicitly refers to the painting, only saying that he “liked it.”

What it is that he likes, be it a painting or whatever else, is the object of an obsessive desire, the kind of thing that not only distracts one from a sense of discipline, but that also keeps one chained to one’s passions. This is the Dionysian antithesis that will be focused on in my discussion of Beat.

This monomania that Belew is talking about is an example of what the Buddhists would call tanhā, the craving, thirst, or longing that keeps one away from nirvana and its peace of mind. Small wonder that the music gets so chaotic here. Discipline was King Crimson’s least dissonant album (at least as of the 1980s)–which is an unusual feat for the band–since the dominant theme of the album is a sense of order, the Apollonian, requiring much more consonance. It’s fitting, therefore, that the one song that is clearly the dialectical negation of that theme would be a more dissonant one, with Fripp’s screaming guitar phrases heard in the middle of the song.

Belew’s repeating himself when under stress makes me think of Freud‘s notion of the compulsion to repeat, a repetition of traumatic experiences. Note the irrationality of such behaviour, a form of self-harm. It is inherently Dionysian, a linking of tanha (“I like it!”) with dukkha, suffering. Adding to this tension is Fripp’s ongoing hammer-ons and pull-offs of C and A.

In live performances of the song, Belew tended to hold his guitar up, indicating that it was the guitar that he liked, “the more [he] look[ed] at it,” and did think was good. It’s a passion that “remains consistent.” He has also tended to tease audiences with the anticipation of returning from “I did” and “I wish you were here to see it” to the loud, chaotic 5/4 sections, deliberately delaying the transition, a tantalizing of the audience that reinforces the addiction to tanha.

Thela Hun Ginjeet

The title is an anagram of “Heat In the Jungle.” “Heat” refers to firearms or to the police.

The story behind this song is Belew’s recounting of a scary experience he had in the Notting Hill Gate area of London while walking around with a tape recorder. A street gang there accosted him, demanded he play his tape recording, accused him of being a cop, and implied a threat to his life.

Luckily for him, he was let go, but then ran into two policemen who accused him of hiding drugs in his tape recorder. His purpose of going around with the tape recorder, to get inspiration for lyrics for the song, was achieved: he returned to the recording studio and gave his bandmates a distraught account of what had happened out there: Fripp had Belew’s story recorded, and it was incorporated into the song.

The song begins with a guitar line by Fripp, played in 7/8 time, while the rest of the band is playing in 4/4. The resulting polymetre thus reinforces the sense of conflict between the gang’s lawlessness and the cops’ law enforcement…a kind of discipline.

Those rototoms and octobans that we hear Bruford hitting, with the African feel they generate, reinforce that “jungle” aura. Elsewhere, at one point in about the second half of the song, Belew manipulates his guitar feedback in a way that sounds almost like the siren of a police car. Hence, “heat in the jungle” could mean the threat of the street gang or of the cops. Meanwhile, the main riff of the song is anchored by Levin’s bass line of D-sharp hammering on to E, C pulling off to B, then an F-sharp–this last note being the tonic of the key the song is in.

Note that while I say that Apollonian discipline is the dominant theme of this album, this doesn’t mean that there isn’t anything significantly going on in the album to challenge that theme. Discipline is as much about the tension felt in trying to achieve the ideal of discipline as it is about that ideal, as I pointed out, in one form or another, in all of the songs on Side One.

The street gang that harassed Belew personifies that wish to break away from law and order–then the police appear to restore that law and order. This is what discipline is about: attempts to break free of it, as in the chaos of “Indiscipline” and the potential violence of the street gang, then discipline intervenes to punish, as the cops do in their suspicion that Belew had drugs on him.

The dialectic isn’t about one fixed state, its opposite as another fixed state, and their reconciliation as yet a third fixed state. It’s about the fluid movement among these three ephemeral states; hence the shifting away from, then back to, discipline in these songs. We’ll see the same fluidity of theme in Beat and Three of a Perfect Pair.

The Sheltering Sky

This instrumental is inspired by, mainly, the title of the famous novel by Paul Bowles, a writer loosely associated with the Beat Generation, whose writings will be focused on more when I look at Beat. Since this track is an instrumental, and therefore there are no lyrics to allude to anything in the novel, all we have is the title to make a direct reference to it.

Now, the novel is about a married couple, Port and his wife Kit, whose marriage is fraught with difficulties; they leave their American home and go traveling with a friend, Tunner, in North Africa, in the Sahara Desert. Matters get worse for the marriage, as Port enjoys the services of a prostitute one night, and Kit later has a fling with Tunner. Eventually, Port gets sick and dies of typhoid fever. She abandons the body and, Tunner being absent, wanders off in the desert, meets a local man who takes her in as a kind of concubine, dresses her as a boy so his jealous wives won’t know, and they have a brief affair. Held captive by him, though, she eventually escapes, and after wandering around a bit more, becomes disoriented and loses her mind.

As we can see, there’s nothing about discipline going on here. Furthermore, one must wonder: with a story of such existential dread, why is the novel called The Sheltering Sky? Two or three remarks are made here and there in the novel to answer this question, something to the effect of my paraphrasing here: the sheltering sky hides the night and the nothingness behind it; the sky shelters us beneath from the horror that lies above.

Since the sky, or heaven in general, has been used mythologically to represent divine ideals, the spirit (i.e., a sky-father god), as opposed to the crude materiality of life down here on Earth, the world of the flesh and of sin, then we can understand “the sheltering sky” to represent the Apollonian ideal attained through discipline as contrasting dialectically with the Dionysian world of the passions (as is dealt with in Beat). This latter, lower world has been demonstrated in the actions of Port and Kit, their infidelities to each other, and their illnesses, his physical one, and her mental one.

The point is that the Apollonian ideal as attained through discipline shelters us from the reality of our indiscipline, our wild, uncontrollable passions and the mayhem they cause. Recall what it says on the back cover of the album: “Discipline is never an end in itself, only a means to an end.” Religion and other forms of philosophical idealism have always been used to shield us from the painful reality of our material world. The opium of the people is a comfortable illusion that the ruling class uses to sedate us and take away our agency and motivation to make real changes for the better in our world.

The instrumentation for this track reflects the contrast between high tech (Fripp’s and Belew’s use of the Roland GR-300 guitar synthesizer, Levin’s Stick) and traditional instruments (Bruford’s use of the slit drum, which has been played in the folk music of countries in Africa, Austroasia, Austronesia, Mesoamerica, etc.). Furthermore, Fripp’s beautiful leads at the beginning and end of the track, the specific tone he uses, make one think of one of those Arabic reed instruments, such as the mizmar. His leads are played in an exotic scale, adding to the cool, North African effect.

This fusion of modern and traditional musical sources can be heard as symbolic of the materialist dialectic of the wealthy First World when contrasted with the poor Third World. Port and Kit leave the First World of the US and enter the Third World of North Africa, imagining they’ll cure their First World problems (a troubled marriage), when they end up exposed to the dangers of the Third World (Port’s typhoid fever, Kit’s becoming a man’s mere patriarchal property). The sky won’t shelter you from dangers like these.

Discipline

The title track instrumental epitomizes Fripp’s idea of fusing rock with the Indonesian gamelan. It’s also the epitome of the album’s experimentation with polymetre. Fripp’s and Belew’s fast, repeating guitar lines are meant to make us think of those fast, interlocking melodic patterns tapped on the metallophones of a gamelan orchestra.

Fripp and Belew begin with repeating patterns in 5/8 time, though they subdivide differently. Fripp is playing a pattern of 3+2, while Belew is playing one of 2+3. This, of course, isn’t tricky enough for the mighty Crims, so Levin is playing a Stick line in 17/16, a beat Bruford is also doing on the…slit drum?…while he is also hitting a simple bass drum beat in 4/4, to anchor all the music together and provide a groove.

As I said above, these polymetric cross-rhythms symbolize the conflicting aspects of the dialectic, but in a material form (a material form also symbolized in the fusion of traditional music, here in the gamelan, with modern rock instruments, something we just observed in “The Sheltering Sky”). After we hear the opening patterns described in the preceding paragraph, the band shifts to a pattern reminding us of what Fripp was playing in that section of “Elephant Talk” when Belew was making the elephant noises. Associating the first track with this last one reinforces my idea that the dominant theme of the album, and by extension all three albums, is the dialectic, and in the specific case of this instrumental, the Apollonian ideal as attained through discipline.

Later in the track, we hear Fripp and Belew doing fast patterns in 5/16, with polymetric permutations of that, all most redolent of the polyrhythms of the gamelan. At one point, Bruford will hit a crash cymbal to start off each measure of a section in 5/4. This smashing of the cymbal makes one think of a disciplinarian parent spanking the bottom of a naughty child.

Discipline is a means to the end of the Apollonian ideal, the illusion of the sheltering sky, the true dominant theme of the album, but a theme that is often hissed or groaned at, or rebelled against, as in the lawless gang that threatened Belew, or the naughty child getting the spanking. For this reason, it’s fitting that this closing instrumental is a sequel song to “Indiscipline,” the last track on Side One.

III: Beat

Here is a link to the lyrics of the album.

Neal and Jack and Me

This song can be seen as a sequel to the title track instrumental of the previous album, since “Neal and Jack and Me” begins similarly to the way “Discipline” ends. The latter ends with Fripp and Belew playing a repeated three-bar pattern in 5/16 time, after another moment of polymetre; the former begins also with Fripp and Belew playing patterns in 5/8, with some polymetre, too.

Such musical similarities between both tracks, given that they’re from albums with opposing themes, symbolically suggests the dialectical unity of opposites. When Levin (on the Stick) and Bruford come in, with a drum beat in 4/4, Belew starts singing, “I’m wheels, I am moving wheels,” a line from a note Fripp allegedly gave him. The notion of the speaker in the song being a personified “coupe” from 1952 should be remembered, since “Dig Me,” from Side Two of Three of a Perfect Pair, is also about a personified car (a junked one), and thus can be seen as a sequel song to “Neal and Jack and Me.”

The next verse establishes the theme of this album, as manifested through the writings of Jack Kerouac: En route loosely translates On the Road; then we have French translations of The Subterraneans, Visions of Cody (“Cody” being a renaming of Neal Cassady), and Satori in Paris (oddly spelled “Sartori,” as is the case with the instrumental “Sartori in Tangier”). That we are given French translations of the titles of these Kerouac books reminds me of the writer’s fluency in French (though American, Kerouac was of French-Canadian ancestry), as can be seen and heard in this discussion on Canadian TV.

Just as discipline is a means to the end of the Apollonian ideal, the dominant (and scarcely attainable, as a goal) theme of the previous album, so is the agenda of the Beat Generation writers a means to the end of the Dionysian ideal, the dominant theme of Beat. Before, it was about the “talk, talk, talk” of the dialectic, “drowning in your own analysis,” and having to “wait, please” for one’s gratification; now, it’s about being immersed in emotion, rather than repressing it.

The next verses of “Neal and Jack and Me” are all Belew giving us imagery of all the places he might visit and see while going on an imagined car trip through the US with Kerouac and Cassady, or through the streets of Paris. On the Stick, Levin is repeatedly tapping a minor third in the upper register, suggesting the obnoxious beeping of a car horn. Perhaps the impatient people in the car are Neal, Jack, and Adrian. They can’t wait, please.

Of course, all this traveling around the US or France with Neal and Jack is also a metaphor for touring the US and Europe with Robert, Tony, and Bill. Much of the music of this album would have been written during the Discipline tour, and therefore Belew would have been expressing how much he missed home and his wife. The previous album was all about (trying to show) restraint and (attempts at) self-control; Beat is about a release of the full range of emotions, love and yearning in particular…and these emotions lead us to the next song.

Heartbeat

Belew here is demonstrating the pop side of his musical personality. In recording this song, King Crimson did something extraordinary, by their standards: they actually crafted a simple pop love song, playable on the radio. “Heartbeat” demonstrates how thoroughly the musical revolution of punk rock, New Wave, and the resulting 1980s neutered progressive rock. Even King Crimson had to compromise to the dictates of the for-profit music industry. There’s even a video for the song.

The song’s inclusion on the album, though, apart from how pleasant it sounds, is justified in that Heart Beat is also the name of a book written by Carolyn Cassady, Neal’s wife, therefore linking her with the Beat Generation. As I said above, Beat is about emotion (in this case, love), Dionysus, making it the antithesis of the Apollo of Discipline.

I prefer the studio version of “Heartbeat,” when Bruford hits an accent on the second beat during the “I remember the feeing” verses. As for what’s preferable about the live versions, that would be the inventive melodic variations Belew does with his chord progression just before we hear him sing, “I need to feel your heartbeat.” Elsewhere, during Belew’s playing of those chords, there’s Levin’s distinctive playing of four Cs on the bass, as well as Fripp’s lyrical guitar leads.

Sartori in Tangier

Without any alternative explanation for the r, I must assume that the band misspelled satori and didn’t realize their mistake until the album cover was mass produced, and so correcting it would have been too much of a hassle. The title is derived from Kerouac’s Satori in Paris, as quoted in the French in the lyric for “Neal and Jack and Me”…also with that r.

In Japanese Zen Buddhism, satori means “awakening,” “understanding,” and “enlightenment.” Tangier–the International Zone, or Interzone, as William S. Burroughs calls it in Naked Lunch–was, however, a place where a number of the Beat Generation writers went to be open about their bohemian lifestyles, quite the opposite of the spiritual, austere ways of the Buddhists.

Burroughs was attracted to the Zone for its tolerance for drugs and homosexuality, and he went there with the intention to “steep [him]self in vice.” Apart from his having become severely addicted to Eukodol, he also had a sexual relationship with a teenage boy named Kiki. The Zone also tolerated different religions.

I bring all of this up to point out the deeper, dialectical meaning of the expression satori in Tangier. On the one hand, there’s the Dionysian decadence in the Beat Generation writers’ indulgence in drinking, drugs, and free love, including homosexuality. On the other, the Beats were also interested in alternative forms of spirituality, including Buddhism, which Kerouac explored in The Dharma Bums, despite his heavy wine-drinking, too.

A fusion of sin and spirituality is a major theme in Allen Ginsberg’s poem “Howl,” as I discussed in my analysis of that poem. “Sartori in Tangier” can be understood to be a sequel instrumental to “The Sheltering Sky,” not just because of Fripp’s similarly exotic leads on his guitar synthesizer, with that mizmar effect I discussed above.

Recall that Bowles is loosely associated with the Beat Generation; in fact, Bowles appears in Naked Lunch under the name Andrew Leif, and in the film adaptation, Ian Holm plays a character (Tom Frost) based on Bowles, during the Interzone section of the movie. Furthermore, Kerouac, Ginsberg, and of course Burroughs are represented by characters played by, respectively, Nicholas Campbell, Michael Zelniker, and Peter Weller in the movie (even Kiki was represented, with the same name, by Joseph Scorsiani). This fictionalized representation of Beat Generation writers was also adopted by Kerouac in his novels (recall “Cody” for Cassady).

So while “Sartori in Tangier” represents that dialectical fusion of Apollonian self-control leading to Buddhist enlightenment, on the one hand, with Dionysian indulgence in vice and pleasure, on the other, so does “The Sheltering Sky” represent such a fusion, with the sky as a supposedly heavenly shelter against evil, such as the dangers Port and Kit are exposed to, and their sins of infidelity. Hence, “Sartori” is a sequel to “Sky.”

Just as I said about Discipline with respect to the dialectic, it isn’t about that album being 100% thesis, this second album being 100% negation, and third being 100% sublation. The dialectic describes a fluid interplay of these three elements, not each given in a state of perfect fixity. So just as Discipline has its “Indiscipline” and lawless gang in “Thela Hun Ginjeet,” so does otherwise Dionysian Beat have its satori, or attempt to achieve spiritual enlightenment through the discipline of Apollo.

The instrumental opens with Levin playing a solo on the Stick. It’s played in free time, with a volume pedal, in D. Then he starts playing a distinctive, tight rhythm with low D notes and high ones in G and A, and variations thereof. Bruford comes in on the drums, and in the studio version, you can hear Fripp playing a simple tune on an organ. He soon comes in with those exotic, mizmar-like leads on the guitar synthesizer that I discussed above. In live versions of the instrumental, such as this one, Belew is a second drummer.

Waiting Man

This song can be seen as a sequel to “Matte Kudasai,” which you’ll recall means “wait, please” in Japanese. This song also seems to reflect how Belew, on tour, was missing his wife and home life, him aching to get back there.

Live versions of the song had Belew and Bruford doing a duet on tuned electronic drums, which the Beat tribute to the 1980s King Crimson also did, but with Belew and Tool drummer Danny Carey replacing Bruford. Levin joins their melodies by tapping notes of B, two in F-sharp, three in G, and one again in F-sharp. This is all played in 3/4 time, and in D major. Fripp is playing repeated notes in D octaves. It has a kind of Latin American feel rhythmically.

Belew sings about coming home, about the gratification of his waiting being finally over. This is in contrast to the postponed gratification of “Matte Kudasai.” In this way, we can see how “Waiting Man” is the dialectical antithesis of “Matte Kudasai,” in which the seemingly endless postponement of gratification causes great sadness. Here, the “tears of a waiting man” are tears of joy, with the “smile of a waiting man.”

As I said above, Discipline is about the restraining of emotion, whereas Beat is about the free expression of emotion, the dialectical antithesis. In the song, has Beleew really achieved the gratification being “home soon, soon, soon,” or is it just wish-fulfillment, a reverie he’s having about being home with his wife while actually being still on tour with Fripp, Levin, and Bruford? It doesn’t ultimately matter, because this song, like most of the music and lyrics of Beat, is about the free expression of desire, as opposed to Discipline‘s Apollonian self-control and restraint.

The waiting is still there, in any case, with all the pain that goes along with that waiting, so in the middle of the song, there’s a key change to G-sharp, a tritone away from D (the diabolus in musica), with some fast arpeggio picking by Fripp on the high frets of the guitar. Then there’s a shift to A, with some dissonant guitar howling by Belew, to express the pain from his waiting.

The fact that the key of A is the dominant for D means that, apart from Belew’s dissonant guitar howling, the musical tension (dramatizing the waiting man’s growing impatience to get back home) is at its greatest intensity, even if a leading tone–C-sharp–isn’t immediately apparent in the music at this moment. So when we come back to the tonic key of D major, we feel great relief.

And indeed, when we’re back there, back at home in D major, there’s the greatest happiness in Belew’s lead vocal and Levin’s back-up vocal, both of them moving in thirds: “I return, face is smiling…feel no fret…”

Neurotica

The song’s title is derived from that of a Beat-era magazine. Apart from this reference, the title has other overtones of meaning. Neurotic has been used by psychoanalysts to describe how an analysand has emotional problems caused by unconscious psychic conflicts. Such a notion is useful in developing the album’s themes of a whirlwind of emotion, its libido, its intensity, its wildness, and the battle to keep it under control. The title is also a pun on erotica; I’ll get to the implications of that later.

The studio version of “Neurotica” begins with a simple organ part played by Fripp, one taken from “Häaden Two,” from Side Two of Exposure. Then the band comes in with an explosion of activity: Belew makes a siren-like sound on his guitar, Fripp plays chords in 5/8, Bruford is pounding away chaotically, and Levin plays dark notes in the lower register of the Stick.

We get an atmosphere of a busy city downtown–car horns beeping and everything hectic. Belew’s spoken-word verses describe a surreal world of wild animals inhabiting the city: cheetahs, a “hippo…crossing the street,” “herds of young impala,” a gibbon, a Japanese macaque, and a “hammerhead hand in hand with the mandrill.”

In the second verse, a reference is made to the third track on Side Two, “The Howler” (see below), which is in turn a reference to Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl” (see above for a link to my analysis of the poem). It is fitting thus to associate “Howl,” however indirectly, with all of these references to wild animals–which continues in this verse: “the tropical warbler,” the ibis, the snapper, “the fruit bat and purple queen fish”–since the Dionysian wildness of “Howl” can easily be symbolized by all these wild animals.

Further cementing the association of this zoo-city with Beat Generation writers like Ginsberg is, during these spoken-word verses, Levin and Bruford playing in a jazz style, with a walking bass line on the Stick and a swing rhythm on the drums. The Beat writers often wrote of their partying to jazz.

In the middle of the song, the musical chaos representing this surreal zoo of a city is replaced with a calmer section of that 80s Crimson staple of repeated guitar lines in 7/8 time. In this middle section, Belew sings a three-line verse twice, the second time with a harmony vocal by Levin. The speaker’s arriving in Neurotica reminds me of Burroughs’s entering Interzone (as William Lee) in Naked Lunch, or of Port and Kit coming to North Africa in Bowles’s novel. The “neon heat disease” reminds me of the typhoid fever Port dies of, and it also seems to represent the fiery passions of the Dionysian lifestyle that Beat is all about.

Belew’s “swear[ing] at the swarming herds” seems to refer to all the profanity you’ll find in the books of the Beat Generation, much of which raised the eyebrows of readers back in the 1950s in a way that it wouldn’t today, given such things as the obscenity trials that Ginsberg was put through for “Howl,” and Burroughs for Naked Lunch. The “swarming herds” are of course the animals of Neurotica, which represent not just the North African locals in general, from the point of view of First World tourists like Bowles and Burroughs, but also specifically the people those tourists would have used for their sexual release.

“I have no fin, no wing, no stinger,…” etc. sounds like one of those tourists being symbolically emasculated by a venereal disease caught from one of the local catamites, people like Burroughs’s Kiki. And with neither a claw nor camouflage, the tourist has no protection from the dangers of the North African desert, as did hapless Port and Kit.

With a return to the noisy, chaotic cityscape of the beginning of the song, Belew’s spoken-word third verse lists off a number of other wild animals. His reference to “random animal parts now playing nightly right here in Neurotica” once again suggests the…parts…of local prostitutes enjoyed by the tourists in North Africa (note in particular the “suckers“). The song ends with Fripp playing leads on his guitar synthesizer like those heard on “The Sheltering Sky,” reinforcing the feeling that we’re in an area where Bowles’s Port and Kit once were, and where Burroughs met Kiki.

Two Hands

With this song, we move back to the territory of “Heartbeat,” except now the ballad isn’t merely about aching to be with one’s beloved. There’s an element of jealousy here. As I’ve said above, Beat is about the full expression of emotions; instead of the lust of “Neurotica” and its dangers, now we must beware of the green-ey’d monster.

The lyric describes a surreal scene of a painting with human consciousness hanging on a bedroom wall watching two lovers who are at it in bed. The face in the painting would “pose and shudder,” but it cannot do anything to stop the man from having the painting’s woman…or at least I assume the sexes here are as such, with Belew’s voice singing about the painting’s pain.

Included in the beautifully plaintive music is Bruford’s playing of the slit drum, again reminding us of “The Sheltering Sky.” Are the man and woman who are making love Tunner and Kit, or is it her with the local who’s using her as his concubine? Is it Port with the prostitute, and Kit is watching?

The lyric to this song was written by Belew’s then-wife, Margaret, so she of course would have had her own personal meaning for it: is she the face In the painting, fearing that her husband is enjoying the charms of a groupie while on tour? Such an interpretation would justify the comparison with Port and the prostitute in Bowles’s novel. In any case, the jealousy expressed fits in with the themes of the album.

After Fripp plays a beautiful solo on his guitar synthesizer, Belew comes back in singing about the wind blowing the hair of the watcher in the painting in the direction of the two lovers, but “there are no window in the painting…no open windows…” The jealous watcher is being tormented in two ways: he or she is being pushed, as it were, by the wind…if only by the hair…closer to the lovers; an open window would be the only way for the wind to come in and push him or her closer, yet the lack of windows implies nowhere to escape. The watcher must stay and watch, and move only closer, with bent hair implying a mind bent by the pain of having to watch.

After a refrain of the first verse, the song ends as it began: with guitars playing in C and in 6/8, as opposed to the 4/4 time of the rest of the song.

The Howler

This song makes allusions to Ginsberg’s poem, “Howl.”

The studio version begins with a fade-in of guitars in G minor and in 7/8, with Bruford doing some kind of African-style drumming. Next comes the main riff, which is played on Levin’s Stick in D minor and in 5/4, and is backed up on Fripp’s guitar synthesizer.

When Belew sings of “the angel of the world’s desire,” I’m reminded of what I wrote in my analysis of “Howl,” in which I discussed, similar to what I’ve been saying here about the dialectical relationship between the Apollonian and the Dionysian, a unified relationship between heaven and hell, sin and sainthood, nirvana and samsara, and if you will, angels and worldly desires.

The speaker is “placed on trial,” just as Ginsberg was for “Howl,” and Burroughs was for Naked Lunch, in both cases because they were accused of obscenity. Belew’s singing makes references to cigarettes–and in the second verse, to matches–as sources of fire. The cigarette could be a marijuana or hashish joint, and thus in turn be an indirect reference to the drug use of the Beat Generation writers; that “howling fire” or “howling ire” could also symbolize the Dionysian frenzy of the Beats.

We come back to the 7/8 passage in G minor, then the D minor music with the 5/4 Stick riff returns, and then the second verse. Paralleling the angel of the first verse, Belew now sings of “the sacred face of rendezvous.” I suspect that the rendezvous is of either fellow drinkers/drug users or illicit lovers, gay or straight, as are described in Ginsberg’s poem; if so, then this opening line further parallels the first verse’s opening line’s “angel of the world’s desire.” These lines reinforce the theme of a fusion of heaven and hell, of sinner and saint.

This meeting of Bohemians happens “in subway sour.” Ginsberg’s poem makes a number of references to being on subways: for example, in the first part, where it says that he and his Dionysian friends “chained themselves to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine”. The subway ride is a drug trip, a sweet yet sour one.

Their “grand delusions prey like intellect on lunatic minds”–yet another fusion of Apollonian rationality with Dionysian craziness. This line also reminds us of the famous opening of Ginsberg’s poem: “I saw the best minds of my generation destroyed by madness, starving hysterical naked,…”

While Belew is singing (soon with a harmony vocal by Levin a third away) of not wanting to burn, that is, not wanting to endure the suffering (dukkha) of burning that inevitably follows from the fire of Dionysian desire (tanha)–recall my discussion of these Buddhist concepts in the “Indiscipline” section above–we’re hearing parallel E and F minor 7th chords on the guitar. The music here is playing in alternating bars of 8/8 and 7/8, with the eighth beat of the first of these pairs being a syncopation, a stressed off-beat to confuse the listener momentarily as to which bar is of the eight eighth notes, and which the seven of them, of the pairs of bars. After all, these four guys are the mighty Crims, and they’re very tricky.

After this section, we go back to the D minor music with Levin’s 5/4 Stick riff, and Belew does more dissonant guitar howling, a musical representation of that “howling fire,” in turn representing the Dionysian self-destruction described in much of Ginsberg’s poem. The song ends with the original 7/8 music in G minor, fading out as it faded in at the beginning.

Requiem

As the title of this instrumental improvisation implies, the emotion given full expression here is sadness. There was good reason for this sadness, since during the recording of this track, tension was building between Belew and Fripp. When the group got together, Belew got mad at Fripp for a number of reasons: recording in the UK, there was his sadness from being far from his American home; he was vying with Fripp for attention in their guitar work for the track; and Belew was being pressured to come up with some lyrics and melodic material for it, too. So Belew, in his frustration, told Fripp to leave the studio.

Visibly upset, Fripp left and went to his home in Wimborne Minster. He was’t heard from in several days, worrying everyone and leaving Belew and producer Rhett Davies to mix the rest of the tracks without Fripp. The group didn’t get back together until the Beat tour began, Belew having apologized to Fripp.

“Requiem” is built on Frippertronics, a tape-looping technique Fripp derived from his collaborations with Brian Eno back in 1972-73, when they recorded and released their first album together, (No Pussyfooting). Frippertronics is an analogue delay system using two side-by-side reel-to-reel tape recorders; the tape travels from the supply reel of the first machine to the take-up reel of the second, thus what’s recorded on the first is played back on the second. The second machine’s audio is then routed back to the first, causing the delayed signal to repeat while new audio is mixed in with it.

Using Frippertronics, Fripp would layer recordings of guitar lines one on top of the other in real time, lines of sustained, harmonized guitar notes that would end up sounding out sustained chords. This is what we hear at the beginning of “Requiem.” On top of these tape loops of guitar leads, Fripp solos in that sustained tone that is one of his guitar staples.

By the middle of the instrumental, not only have Levin and Bruford entered, the latter bashing about on his drum kit chaotically in free time, but Belew also comes in with more of his dissonant guitar howling (I’m reminded of Cecil Taylor Unit improvisations). One might connect this guitar howling here with that of “The Howler” and “Waiting Man.” Belew’s pain and sadness–from being far from his American home, his “sad America,” and his wish to be there soon and cry on Margaret’s shoulder–are being likened to not wishing to burn in Ginsberg’s Dionysian destruction. Similarly, Bruford’s chaotic drum-bashing here, as also in “Indiscipline” and “Neurotica,” links up Beat‘s theme of being the antithesis of the album’s Apollonian predecessor.

IV: Three of a Perfect Pair

Here is a link to the lyrics of the album.

Three of a Perfect Pair

Now, as I’ve said above, this third album’s main theme is the sublation of the contradictory relationship between the themes of the previous two albums…or really, just sublation in general. What must be understood about the Hegelian sublation, however, is that it doesn’t end the story, especially not with a peaceful, happy ending. On the contrary: the sublation only becomes a new thesis to be opposed and sublated again. This process of thesis, negation, and sublation goes on again and again in an endless cycle.

It’s as though a permanent state of conflict and contradiction is the real ideal, and not the sublation’s attempt at a reconciliation or resolution. Hence, the “pair” is already “perfect” as it is, while Element Number “Three” is, if anything, a kind of monkey wrench thrown in there to mess everything up, which would explain the paradoxical name of the album and title track. As with Discipline and Beat, this third album’s dominant theme (of sublation) is not to be understood as being in a state of permanent fixity.

Recall how I mentioned, in the introduction above, that the two blue arches on the front cover of this third album are phallic and yonic symbols, representing the male and female principles. The lyric to the title track is about a he and a she, opposite sexes personifying dialectical opposites, while they personifies the dialectical synthesis or sublation.

She, the thesis, is susceptible to any critique from the negation, who is impossible for the thesis not to have to face (and with his unattainably high standards, he’s also impossible to put up with). The burden they share, like Christ carrying His cross, is working out a reconciliation of their differences, the sublation.

The irony of this disharmony, as described in the lyric, is heard in the music, with Fripp’s and Belew’s guitars playing harmonious lines, thirds apart, in 6/8 time, those repeated guitar lines that remind us of that gamelan sound they were working on in Discipline. Similarly, Belew and Levin are singing these verses in parallel thirds, in…perfect…harmony. Thus, the juxtaposition of the disharmony of the man’s and woman’s relationship with the harmony in the music is a sublation.

While the first verse dealt with conflicts between two people, the second one is about internal conflict within the man and within the woman. With him, it’s “his contradicting views”; with her, it’s “her cyclothymic moods.” Cyclothymia is essentially a form of bipolar disorder, with alternating periods of elation and depression, cyclical ups and downs, but they aren’t as severe as those of regular bipolar disorder. The point is that these ups and downs are another manifestation of juxtaposed dialectical contradictions. The “study in despair” is in how the contradictions are never permanently, decisively reconciled. Sublations are brief, leading to new oppositions, hence there’s no hope for a permanent resolution. It’s a “study in despair” in that one dies “by drowning in your own analysis.”

It’s interesting how these two verses are set to music that uses the 12-bar blues progression, though without any of the blue notes. I’ve mentioned, in my analyses of the first two Crimson albums, how the 12-bar blues chord progression is sometimes presented, but in a perverse fashion, as it is here. However you hear it, dialectical contradiction gives you the blues.

With the move to “too many schizophrenic tendencies” is a move to 7/8, a fittingly asymmetrical time signature, as well as Belew and Levin singing separately, the former singing the bridge verse and the latter echoing the words “complicated” and “aggravated.” Instead of the voices singing together, cooperating in…perfect…harmony, their separateness suggests alienation. The “perfect mess” is a sublation of heaven and hell.

Three bars in 4/4 time, again with that gamelan guitar sound, lead into a repeat of the second verse. Then there’s a repeat of the bridge verse in 7/8. That gamelan guitar sound comes back, but in 6/8 this time; then there’s another 7/8 section, essentially in F-sharp and with a “schizophrenic” solo by Belew, an example of his innovative use of unconventional guitar sounds. Note that schizophrenic is derived from Greek words meaning a “splitting” of the “mind.” Such a split suggests dialectical contradictions, once again.

A singing of the bridge verse two times, and a repeat of the 4/4 time guitar line, ends the song.

Model Man

I’d say the speaker in this song is the man from the title track, just as the woman sung of in “Man With an Open Heart” is the same woman, too. He suffers from the difficulties of his relationship with her, a dramatization of the dialectic and its eternal cycle of conflicts (“calm before the storm”). The pain of his suffering is in the signs, the symptoms, the strain, and “tension in [his] head.”

While the main riff, in A major, is in 4/4, the chorus is in 7/8, the cutting off of a final eighth note suggesting an incompleteness, an imperfection. We hear sublations of perfection and imperfection in the words “”imperfect in a word, make no mistake”; similarly, though he’s “not a model man,” he’ll “give you everything [he has].”

I suspect he’s singing these words to the woman from the title track and in “Man With an Open Heart.” Is he the man with the open heart, who “comes right now,” or is he projecting his lofty standards of unrealistic perfection onto her? Is he “sleepless at night” because of his demands on her? Speaking of which,…

Sleepless

The song opens with a great slapping bass line by Levin, crisp, sharp, and precise. When Bruford, Belew, and Fripp join in, the two guitarists make some atmospheric sounds on their guitars as they play call-and-response chords.

Sleeplessness itself is a sublation, if you will, of sleeping and wakefulness. This is demonstrated in Belew’s lyric when he sings, “In the dream…” and “You wake up in your bed.”

He’s in “the sleepless sea” of his dream, which sounds like the formless chasm of the unconscious, realm of the Shadow and all such unpleasant, repressed thoughts, a land of nightmares. Now wonder he can’t sleep.

The imagery in this lyric, about the sea and all that’s associated with it–“the distant reef,” “emotional waves,” submarines, and the beach–is apt, given how those waves can be seen to symbolize the fluid movement of sublation back and forth between theses (crests) and negations (troughs). The back and forth arguing of the dialectic, like those call-and-response chords on Fripp’s and Belew’s guitars, is relentless and never-ending. No wonder he can’t sleep.

The speaker tries to reassure himself: “It’s alright.” He tries to relax: “And don’t fight it.” But needing to reassure himself that it’s alright is a negation of the reality that it’s very much not alright. His telling himself not to fight it is himself very much fighting it. He wouldn’t tell himself not to fight it if he didn’t need to. It’s not alright to feel a little fear, especially when you need to get some sleep. The dialectical opposite of what he’s saying to himself is the truth.

The “silhouettes” of “shivering ancient feelings” are old memories, the shadows and traces of pain from long ago. These painful memories cover his floors and walls, which are “foreign,” alien to him, yet being of his own home, symbolic of parts of his mind, they should be intimate to him. Again, being alienated from one’s very self is a sublation of intimate vs foreign.

The submarines that go about in the formless sea of his unconsciousness are the personal demons of his Shadow, his “foggy ceiling,” that part of his home, his mind, which he should be well acquainted with, but which is a mystery to him. If these repressed feelings aren’t brought to consciousness, they’ll keep him sleepless at night.

In the second singing of the chorus, we can hear Fripp and Belew in the background playing those trademark guitar lines in in which I suspect there’s more polymetre, symbolizing conflicting thoughts in the speaker’s mind. (Note that I am analyzing the original version of the song we got from the old vinyl recording of 1984.)

There’s one bar of 3/4 after this second chorus, then we hear Belew’s guitar solo. In the original version, you also hear the thumb-thumping on every beat in Levin’s slapping bass line, with no breaks in between thumps, as in the later version of the song.

“The figures on the beach in the searing night” sound like all those homunculi in speaker’s mind, be they the Jungian archetypes, or the Kleinian internal objects, or both. These are the conflicting voices in the battleground of the speaker’s mind: they are why he can’t sleep.

The song ends with more of the call-and-response chords of Fripp and Belew, and with Bruford’s African rattling of the rototoms, ’til the song fades out.

Man With an Open Heart

This song, I’d say, is a sequel to “Model Man,” for it mirrors and dialectically opposes the themes of the previous one. In “Model Man,” there’s all of the man’s sickness and anxiety over not being able to measure up to a stratospheric standard of perfection. In this song, instead of the woman being worried about such lofty ideals, she’s liberated from the need to live up to them. She can be her idiosyncratic self, and she doesn’t care if anyone disapproves of her.

As a bird, she can have both wings to fly freely. In this line, as well as in the two lines that follow, she shows that she’d exemplify the feminist idea of the liberated woman: not having to answer the phone, like the feminine stereotype of the receptionist or secretary; “in the comfort of another bed,” she wouldn’t feel restricted to sex with a husband.

Now, “a man with an open heart,” that is, a man who is open-minded enough to accept the ways of such a woman, demonstrates the opposite attitude of those who demand a Jesus ideal for “a model man,…a saviour or a saint.” An open-hearted man wouldn’t care if the woman doesn’t measure up to the lofty ideal of the Virgin Mary.

This man with an open heart is coming here right now. Who is he? Is he the speaker in the song? I have my doubts, since the speaker sings of him in the third person: “here comes right now.” He doesn’t say, “Here I come_ right now.” He doesn’t even say, ‘here he comes right now,’ as if he’s so jealous that he wishes he could eradicate the man with the open heart by omitting the pronoun that would refer to him. The moaned melody after this line suggests the speaker is groaning out his jealousy.

The harmonic progression of the verses includes a D major seventh chord, a D minor seventh chord, and an A major chord with an added 9th (or is it an added 6th? or is it a 6/9 chord?). These are heard three times, then with the thrice-sung “man with an open heart” line, we have chords of C-sharp minor and G-sharp minor; “here comes right now” is backed with a B minor chord, and the moaning is with an E minor chord.

In the next verse, Belew sings of how the liberated woman could behave in a number of seemingly erratic ways, being moody, dramatic, evasive, or “irregular and singing in her underwear,” all behaviours that a conservative society would disapprove of in a woman. A man with an open heart, though, would not be at all troubled with such behaviour in her.

Now, “wise and womanly introspectiveness” is of course a virtue in itself, but those who would reinforce sex roles don’t want that. “Her faults and files of foolishness” won’t measure up to the high standards of a ‘model woman,’ but a man with an open heart won’t mind. As we can see, this song is the dialectical opposite of the one in which he is worried about being pressured into perfection. “She is susceptible” to fault and criticism, and “he is impossible” to please.

Nuages (That Which Passes, Passes Like Clouds)

Nuage is ‘cloud’ in French. The passing movement of clouds in the sky, a shift from one position to another, seems symbolic of becoming, which for Hegel in his Science of Logic is the sublation of being vs nothing (Hegel, pages 82-83): “Pure being and pure nothing are…the same. What is the truth is neither being nor nothing, but that being–does not pass over but has passed over–into nothing, and nothing into being. But it is equally true that they are not undistinguished from each other, that, on the contrary, they are not the same, that they are absolutely distinct, and yet that they are unseparated and inseparable and that each immediately vanishes in its opposite. Their truth is, therefore, this movement of the immediate vanishing of the one in the other: becoming, a movement in which both are distinguished, but by a difference which has equally immediately resolved itself.”

The passing of being into nothing and nothing into being is here symbolized by the passing clouds. The clouds represent being, the cloudless air represents nothingness, and the passing of the clouds represents becoming…sublation.

Because clouds are in the sky, and this instrumental has a vaguely Middle Eastern feel, it can be deemed a sequel to “The Sheltering Sky” and “Sartori in Tangier.” Since the first of these three is thematically, as I explained above, about the relationship between, on the one hand, the Apollonian, celestial ideal as an illusory protection against, on the other, the horrors of our self-destructive, Dionysian reality here on Earth, and the second instrumental is paradoxically about spiritual enlightenment in a place where the Beat writers indulged in vice, then “Nuages” can also be seen as a sublation of the Apollonian and the Dionysian in North Africa.

The music begins with Bruford playing beats on his electronic drum kit, which is programmed to make unusual sounds that I can describe only as making me think of sticking one’s feet in puddles. Fripp comes in with the guitar synthesizer, which has been programmed to remove the plucking attack of his plectrum on the strings, as one would hear with a volume pedal. The effect is an ethereal one making pictures in one’s mind of clouds passing in the sky. He’ll use a similar effect with his Roland GR-300 on the album’s next track, “Industry.”

Next, Fripp overdubs guitar leads with that sustained tone he’s many times gotten from his black Les Paul Custom. Belew does a brief solo in the middle of the track, and we return to Fripp doing his leads until the piece ends as it began, with Bruford’s electronic drums.

And this is the end of Side One of the LP, or as it’s called on the LP, the Left Side–Side Two thus of course being the Right Side. Such a naming of the sides is apt given their dialectically opposing natures.

Indeed, Fripp himself summed up the nature of the musical content well. He said Three of a Perfect Pair “presents two distinct sides of the band’s personality, which has caused at least as much confusion for the group as it has the public and the industry. The left side is accessible, the right side excessive.”

As I said at the beginning of this analysis of Three of a Perfect Pair, the theme of sublation that we get on the left side becomes a new thesis to be negated, as is expected of the Hegelian dialectic. In this case, to paraphrase what Fripp mentioned in the above quote, the music of the left side is largely radio-friendly (I recall when the album came out, and the title track and “Sleepless” were being played on the radio); the music on the right side, however, is mostly instrumental and mostly of an experimental nature, with lots of King Crimson doing their trademark deliberate dissonance.

Indeed, the whole reason that King Crimson remained a cult band without ever enjoying substantial mainstream commercial success is because, as a music magazine article I once read about GTR, their music requires too much intelligence to appreciate. One of the Toronto DJs, who was playing tracks like “Sleepless” back in 1984, said in all bluntness that he didn’t like playing King Crimson’s music because he thought it was “too brainy.” As a fan of the mighty Crims, I find such descriptions of their music quite flattering.

Industry

This instrumental seems to be a musical description of the growth of industry, from its beginnings in the Industrial Revolution of late 18th century England to the fully industrialized world of today. Linked with the advances in technology and the use of machinery (as expressed in the music through Fripp’s and Belew’s guitar synthesizers, Bruford’s electronic drums, and Levin’s tapping of the bass C note on a keyboard synth, as well as Belew’s machine-like guitar rumblings and Bruford’s machine-like precision on the drums) is also the growth of capitalism.

These historic developments, so bad for the environment and for the working class, explain why the tone of the music is so dark. And since in the second part of Ginsberg’s “Howl” we see what is the cause of the madness of “the best minds of [his] generation”, namely, Moloch, who personifies alienating industrial capitalism (see my analysis of “Howl”), we can see “Industry” as a sequel to “The Howler.” Recall such moments in the second part of “Howl” as these to see my point: “Moloch whose mind is pure machinery! Moloch whose blood is running money!…Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!”

Now our discussion of the dialectic must go from Hegelian idealism to Marxist materialism. I’ve already mentioned how the sublation of any thesis and negation must become a new thesis to be negated and sublated again. This three-part process repeats itself over and over again in a potentially endless cycle. In the case of historical materialism, we see this process begin in the ancient world in the form of the master (thesis) vs the slave (negation). These are sublated into a new thesis and a new negation, respectively the feudal lord and serf. With such events as the French Revolution, the contradiction of feudal lords and serfs is sublated into our modern contradiction, the bourgeoisie (thesis) and the proletariat (negation), which Marxist thinkers see being sublated through socialist revolution.

So when we see the conflict between the he and she of the title track, we’re seeing a personified dramatization of the previous contradictions of history. Their being thrown together suggests a sublation that will become the basis for the new thesis, 19th century industrial capitalism (musically expressed in this instrumental, of course), which will be negated by the proletariat in the form of revolutionary resistance.

These contradictions are seen in the illusory idealizing of “the sheltering sky,” or Apollonian heaven, the opiate God protecting us from sin, as well as in the “model man…a saviour…a saint,” as opposed to the lowliness of life on Earth, the Dionysian, “her faults and files of foolishness.” In the past, there was the divine right of kings and the sexist assumption of men’s ‘superiority’ over women. These past contradictions have been sublated into modern capitalism and ‘girl-bosses,’ as well as diversity in management. The contradiction of bourgeois and proletarian remains, though. I’ll go more into the evils of contemporary neoliberalism later. Now let’s look at the music.

The instrumental begins with, as I said above, Levin playing a low C note on a keyboard synth, with Bruford backing him by softly tapping on his snare drum. It’s two eighth notes, a quarter note, and two quarter rests, so we begin with two bars of 4/4. Then it’s four eighth notes, and the rest is the same as in the first two bars, so now it’s a bar of 5/4. Then the 4/4 and 5/4 alternate throughout the rest of the track, though Levin will, on the 5/4 bars, sometimes make the second of the four eighth notes a G-sharp, or a minor sixth above the Cs.

Fripp comes in with the guitar synthesizer, playing those ethereal chords without the sound of plucking–as in “Nuages”–the tones fading in. Belew plays lyrical leads on top of Fripp’s chords, playing glissandi on what must be a fretless guitar. Though Levin’s synth Cs and Bruford’s snare sound mechanistic, so far the music is generally pleasant, symbolically suggesting the promising future of a raised standard of living that comes with industrialization.

Levin adds some slapping bass, with G and G-sharp, then these notes with C-sharp and C, or these latter two and another G-sharp, or variations thereon. Bruford also comes in bashing with crackling precision. The addition of these instruments suggests the growth of industry and the development of better technology.

Next, Fripp’s guitar synthesizer comes in with a new sound: low, dark tones (C, G, G-sharp, then these with G, G-flat, etc.) on which he’ll layer parallel ones–two, then three, then more. In live versions, Belew added an upper guitar lead to intensify the dramatic effect of this ominous development.

This parallel layering of a chromatic melodic line symbolically suggests the growth of industrial capitalism, and refinements in technology for that purpose. To gain an advantage, however temporary, over the competition, a company will invest in better technology, better machines, in order to cut labour costs and bring prices down, because value is determined by the socially necessary labour put into making a product. Soon enough, though, the competition will adopt the same new technology and machinery, thus reducing their costs and prices, and overall the rate of profit will tend to fall over time, a tendency that Marx predicted would eventually lead to the destruction of capitalism by its own contradictions.

The ugliness of these developments, that is, the oppression of the working class via wage slavery, the degradation of the environment, and the globalization of imperialism, is expressed in “Industry” through the angular guitar growling of Belew and Fripp. The former’s guitar makes us think of the grinding of machinery, and the latter’s trademark screaming phrases suggest the cries of suffering humanity.

Towards the end of the instrumental, the music quietens down, finally ending as it began, with the low Cs on the synth and Bruford’s snare drum.

Dig Me

The only song on The Right Side with vocals begins immediately after “Industry” ends, suggesting a continuity between the two tracks. Such a continuity is perfectly valid, since the problem of pollution as expressed in this track is of course a direct result of industrialization.

In a live performance of both “Industry” and “Dig Me,” back to back in Montreal in 1984, Belew addressed the audience by asking them, in between the performance of the two pieces, if they wanted “some more of the weird stuff.” The audience cheered for it enthusiastically, but of course most listeners would be alienated by such avant-garde music. Alienation, nonetheless, is the whole point, given the themes dealt with in this music.

The song begins with more of Belew’s metallic, machine-like guitar rumblings, and these, combined with his scratching, dissonant rhythm guitar chords, are a fitting musical complement to the lyric, which is a surreal monologue given by a junked, rusty car in a junkyard, but the car has human consciousness.

I see this song as a sequel to “Neal and Jack and Me,” in which, recall, the speaker is “moving wheels…a 1952 Studebaker/Starlight coupe.” We thus note here a sad decline from the wild and carefree days of going on the road with Cassady and Kerouac to languishing as a wretched car among other totaled automobiles and metallic garbage.

This decline can be seen as allegorical of how the West has gone from the post-WWII economic prosperity to, as of the writing and recording of “Dig Me,” the beginnings of Reaganite/Thatcherite neoliberalism, something that since those ominous beginnings has in turn continued its steady decline into the 21st century schizoid world we live in today. Indeed, the Right Side of Three of a Perfect Pair is, in my opinion at least, as prophetic a set of music as In the Court of the Crimson King is.

When Belew’s alliterative, spoken-word monologue complains of how “the acid rain floods [the car’s] floorboard,” etc., and the car lies “in decay, by the dirty angry bay,” we’re reminded of how industrial capitalism has resulted in environmental degradation.

Now, the opposition between the radio-friendly accessibility of the Left Side vs the experimentation of the Right Side isn’t any more absolute than is the Apollonian in Discipline or the Dionysian in Beat. Like the white dot in yin and the black dot in yang, there are brief moments of simpler music on the Right Side as well as briefly progressive moments on the Left Side (e.g., the 7/8 passages).

The chorus of “Dig Me” is an example of something more human and relatable for the listener among the otherwise “weird stuff” on the Right Side. As I’ve said a number of times already, the three phases of the dialectic aren’t in a state of permanent fixity: they’re just there to simplify our understanding of the actual fluidity of the dialectic.

The spoken-word verses emphasize the mechanical aspects of the ‘car-man.’ The chorus emphasizes the human aspects. Accordingly, Belew sings with a harmony vocal from Levin, and we hear a straight-forward guitar melody of G major added second, then B, C, and E, Levin backing it up on the bass, with Bruford playing a simple 4/4 beat. This simplicity contrasts with the chaos of the dissonant chords and free rhythm drum bashing of the distorted spoken word verses.

As Belew and Levin are singing about wanting “to ride away” and not wanting to “die in here,” we can empathize with the car-man, for today, we too “wanna be out of here,” out of this ecocidal, neoliberal dystopia, in which high technology is increasingly taking us over.

That the car-man has metallic skin reinforces his half-man, half-machine nature, symbolic of how so many of us today feel alienated from our species-essence as a result of living in the high-tech capitalist world, one that reduces human beings to mere commodities who must sell our labour in order to survive. The car-man’s skin is “no longer an elegant powder blue,” the colour of the Beat album cover, and thus a reminder of the “moving wheels” of the album’s first track.

His “body” is “sleeping in the jungle of…metal relics,” reinforcing the identifying of the human body and of nature with metal, machines, cars, and other forms of modern technology. Recall that Ginsberg was making similar complaints about how modern industrial capitalism is driving us all mad, in the Moloch passages of “Howl.” We can see in this verse of “Dig Me” how it develops the themes of the Right Side of Three of a Perfect Pair: modern industry has resulted in a decline in the quality of our lives. “What was deluxe becomes debris.”

No Warning

At first, I had difficulty figuring out where this instrumental improvisation would fit into the overall themes of this album, given the vagueness of the track’s title (no warning of what?). Then I discovered these outtakes, “Industrial Zone A” and “Industrial Zone B,” and on hearing their sonic similarity to “No Warning,” now I know how to interpret them.

“No Warning,” therefore, is a sequel instrumental to “Industry.” It’s not that no warning was ever given: lots of leftists back in the 1980s warned what the policies of politicians like Reagan and Thatcher would lead to; it’s that no warning was heeded by the mainstream population.

The music of this instrumental is even darker and more ominous than that of “Industry” because, if we see these two tracks as musical chronicles of modern history, then where “Industry” gave us the beginning and early growth of industrial capitalism, “No Warning” gives us the late-stage capitalism of the mid-1980s and since then. Things have gotten far, far worse, with not only the rise of neoliberal reactionaries, but also the increasing damage being done to the Earth.

The use of high-tech instrumentation, such as guitar synthesizers, the Stick, and electronic drums, can be heard as an ironic commentary on how technology isn’t always a good thing (e.g., nuclear weapons). Of course, we get more of Belew’s mechanical guitar sounds as part of this commentary; notice also the conspicuous absence of animal noises from his guitar, since in our day, animals are fewer and fewer; a further discussion of that issue is coming shortly. Bruford’s bashing of his drum kit in free rhythm, combined with the guitar dissonances, just adds to the feeling of dystopian unrest. The dark tones from Levin’s Stick, played as they seem to be through a volume pedal, top off the eerie atmosphere.

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part III

This instrumental is yet again an example of “three of a perfect pair,” the pair in this case being parts one and two of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic,” the first and last tracks of the album of the same name, released back in 1973, and the first Crimson album to have Bruford on drums, since he’d just left Yes after finishing Close to the Edge.

This third part opens with Fripp playing fast arpeggios that shift back and forth between tonality and atonality, a Frippian idiosyncrasy we’ve heard a number of times before, such as on a few tracks on Exposure, in collaborations with Daryl Hall around the same time, and most significantly, at one point in the middle of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part One,” a passage that in turn has a precedent in an instrumental recorded, but not yet released, by the Islands Crimson lineup.

After this comes a guitar-dominated riff in a cycle of two bars of 4/4, then one in 2/4, repeated several times. The crunchy guitar chords vaguely remind one of those played by Fripp at the beginning of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part Two.” The rest of the music of Part Three bears hardly any resemblance to that of the first two parts.

Next comes an energetic riff in 7/4, interrupted in the middle by variations of that riff in 4/4, 4/4, and 2/4. After a repeat of the 7/4 riff, we come to a harmonized duet of soft guitar arpeggios mostly in 5/8, but with the beats subdivided first as 3+2, then as 2+3, then there’s one bar of 4/8 before the 5/8 cycle begins again. The last part of the track is a simple jam in 4/4, with Fripp soloing dissonant music on guitar synthesizer.

Fripp’s soloing here (please don’t mistake this for a criticism: he’s my favourite guitarist!) makes me think of the cries of pain of an animal killed for food, the kind of thing that shows us that the vegetarians have the moral side of the dietary argument. Larks’ tongues, incidentally, were a delicacy enjoyed by the ancient Roman wealthy; this historical fact links this last track on the album to the overall theme of the Right Side. The wealthy have harmed the poor, the environment, and animals.

V: Conclusion

I wish I could have finished and published this analysis earlier on during the Beat tour, in which Belew and Levin have joined forces with Steve Vai and Danny Carey to play concerts of the music from these three albums. In spite of Vai’s and Carey’s obvious skills, they knew they had a formidable challenge in filling the shoes of Fripp and Bruford; and in spite of this challenge, they pulled it off admirably, as the many YouTube videos from the shows clearly demonstrate.

With the resurrected appreciation for these albums that this tour has engendered beginning in the fall and the winter of 2024, I hope this analysis of mine will strengthen that appreciation. It’s music from one of the greatest lineups of one of the greatest prog bands.

Analysis of ‘The Old Man and the Sea’

The Old Man and the Sea is a 1952 novella by Ernest Hemingway. He wrote it between December 1950 and February 1951, but published it in September 1952. It was the last major fictional work he published in his lifetime.

The novella was highly anticipated and released to record sales. Initial critical reception was highly positive, though its reputation has been more varied and somewhat less enthusiastic since, with a number of critics deeming it inferior to Hemingway’s earlier works.

Nonetheless, TOMATS has continued to be popular, as a book in English lessons around the world, according to Jeffrey Meyers‘s Hemingway: A Biography–1985). The Big Read, a 2003 BBC survey of the UK’s 200 “best-loved novels,” ranked TOMATS at #173.

Hemingway was directly involved in the 1958 film adaptation of the novella, with Spencer Tracy as Santiago, but Hemingway ended up disliking the film. He won the Pulitzer Prize for Fiction in 1953 for TOMATS, the first time he’d ever received the award. Even Fulgencio Batista, the new dictator of Cuba (the setting for the novella), gave Hemingway a Medal of Honor for the novella; though Hemingway disapproved of the new regime, he did accept the medal.

TOMATS got its highest recognition in 1954, when it won Hemingway the Nobel Prize in Literature. The Swedish Academy praised the novella for its “powerful, style-making mastery of the art of modern narration.”

Here are some quotes from the novella.

John Killinger in the 1960s connected TOMATS with Albert Camus, Jean-Paul Sartre, and Friedrich Nietzsche, that is, with philosophical existentialism and absurdism. I find such connections to be apt, given these philosophies’ focus on the meaninglessness of life in a world without God, and the absurdity of trying so hard to achieve something, only to fail, then to realize that one must nonetheless keep trying, in spite of one’s efforts’ futility.

We see this absurdism in Santiago’s painstaking efforts to catch the huge marlin, only to have it eaten down to the bone by sharks. Still, after this great disappointment, which in turn has come after an 84-day losing streak of never catching any fish, he as a fisherman must keep trying to catch fish in the future. Santiago thus is like Sisyphus, doomed to roll a boulder up a hill, only to have it roll back down and have to roll it up again, over and over, throughout eternity.

Another way to look at TOMATS is to do a comparison and contrast of the novella with such literary works as Moby-Dick and Life of Pi (which I will get into later on). Santiago thus corresponds with Captain Ahab, though their personalities are practically diametrical opposites: the former, a humble Cuban fisherman, is linked to St. James the Apostle, whose Spanish name is Santiago; mad, monomaniacal Ahab the whaler, on the other hand, is linked by name to the wicked King of Israel who introduced the worship of Baal to the ancient Hebrews and caused his kingdom to lapse into decadence.

In this analogy, the giant marlin corresponds, of course, to the white whale, though again the two are opposites in crucial ways. Santiago kills the marlin, as opposed to Captain Ahab being killed by Moby Dick. Santiago lashes the killed marlin to his skiff, whereas Captain Ahab is tangled in the line of the harpoon he’s thrown at the whale, tying him to the whale and being taken out to sea with it, dying as it swims away.

So in these ways, TOMATS is Moby-Dick in miniature and the anti-Moby-Dick, if you will, the two books being a kind of Hegelian dialectic of each other.

TOMATS is a miniature Moby-Dick not just in terms of literal size, that of the books and that of the marine animals…or of the boats and bodies of water in which the two stories are set, for that matter. Moby-Dick has a grand theme about seeking out the truth, symbolized by the white whale, while putting oneself in danger of self-destruction if one carries this quest too far, as Ahab does (see my blog post, link above, for details). TOMATS has a theme of searching for meaning and purpose, as symbolized by the marlin, yet failing to get that meaning (all Santiago has to show for his catch is the marlin’s skeleton, lashed to his skiff).

Santiago’s wounded pride is also a miniature of Ahab’s. The whale’s having bitten off Ahab’s leg, a symbolic castration, is a narcissistic injury infuriating the captain so much that he’s obsessed with finding the whale, sailing all over the world with his crew in the Pequod to find it and get his…revenge…on an animal?

Santiago, on the other hand, is merely saddened by his bad luck streak of eighty-four days of not catching any fish, gaining the bad reputation in his Cuban fisherman’s community as salao (very unlucky). He doesn’t sail out to the ends of the earth, as Ahab does, in the hopes of catching something to restore his sinking reputation. He merely sails further out into the Gulf Stream. In fact, after encountering the many difficulties he’s had in catching the marlin and having sharks bite off chunks of it, he regrets his having gone out so far; Ahab, even in dying, never regrets his lust for revenge.

As for the “anti-Moby-Dick” aspects of TOMATS, recall Ahab’s undying hate of the whale, as contrasted with Santiago’s love of the marlin, calling it his “brother” and feeling appreciation, respect, and compassion for it. Since Santiago (Spanish for St. James, recall, who was originally a fisherman himself, incidentally) can also be linked with Jesus, with the cuts and injuries Santiago gets in his struggles to reel in the marlin being compared by some critics to Christ’s wounds during His Passion and crucifixion, then his love of the marlin can also be linked with Christ’s words on the Cross about those who put Him up there: “Father, forgive them, for they know not what they do.” (Luke 23:34)

Another example of how TOMATS is Moby-Dick in miniature is in how the latter uses grandiose diction, whereas the former uses simple diction and shorter sentences. Instead of there being complex symbolism coupled with a deep analysis of that symbolism, as happens in Moby-Dick with its “Etymology,” “Cetology,” and “The Whiteness of the Whale,” in TOMATS we have a simpler symbolism with no breaks from the narrative that go off into tangents. Whereas Moby-Dick is a deluge of allusions and references to all kinds of literature, there’s very little of that in TOMATS.

Manolin, the boy who helps Santiago and would do anything for him, sympathizing with him to the point of weeping for him at the end when he sees the old man’s disappointment with the skeletal remains of the marlin lashed to the skiff, is again in stark contrast to Starbuck, who says all he can to discourage Ahab from going through with his self-destructive lust for…revenge?…against the white whale. In these characters’ opposing natures, we again can see how TOMATS is the anti-Moby-Dick, or rather that Moby-Dick could be renamed The Madman and the Sea.

To go into other aspects of TOMATS, Manolin and Santiago have a conversation, during which the old man says that eighty-five is a lucky number (superstitious nonsense, of course), and he fancies that he’ll bring in a fish “over a thousand pounds”, to which the boy, unlike Starbuck, gives no objections. Then they discuss what the newspaper will say about American baseball.

For a poor fishing community in Cuba, the only interesting baseball teams would be the American ones, like the Yankees, the Detroit Tigers, the Cincinnati Reds, the Chicago White Sox, or the Cleveland Indians. Santiago’s hero is Joe DiMaggio (whose father was a fisherman, as Santiago later notes–page 105). This looking to the US for role models instead of those inside one’s own country is symbolic and reflective of the influence of US imperialism, including its cultural forms.

Though Batista’s US-backed government wasn’t yet in power as of Hemingway’s writing of the novella, the resentment among many Cubans against US imperialism was already keenly felt, and it would have led to the nationalist and anti-imperialist Orthodox Party and Authentic Party leading in the polls in 1952, with Batista’s United Action coalition running a distant third. He had to take power in a coup that year in order to preserve an American political and economic hegemony that many Cubans had already been tiring of.

Hemingway, as a leftist who recognized the huge debt the world owed the Soviet Union for defeating the Nazis, would consciously or unconsciously have added this detail of Cubans worshipping American baseball players as an example of American cultural hegemony over Cuba, the cultural superstructure over the base of social relations that manifests internationally through imperialism. I’ve already mentioned Hemingway’s disapproval of Batista’s regime. Santiago’s painstaking efforts to catch the giant marlin, ultimately ending in failure, also reflects the reality of the doomed attempts of the poor to improve their lot in society, a reality underscored by how living in a Third World country under the boot of US imperialism will ensure that such attempts at improvement are, at best, no more than mere millimetres away from being absolutely impossible.

On pages 29-30, Santiago contemplates whether to think of the sea as feminine (la mar) or masculine (el mar). When the sea is understood to be feminine, she is loved by the fishermen, even when they are mad at her for withholding her bounty. If the sea is seen as masculine, though, then the fishermen regard him as a contestant or as an enemy. These fishermen tend to use buoys as floats for their lines, and they have motorboats–that is, they have the conveniences of modern technology that Santiago lacks. Still, in his humble simplicity and disadvantage, he still has more love for her than they have for him.

Just as I observed in my analysis of Moby-Dick (link above), the sea or ocean is symbolic of the unifying oneness of Brahman, a dialectical monism in which the water’s crests and troughs represent duality within the unity of the ocean as a totality. Sometimes the sea gives, and sometimes it takes away. Like Job, Santiago can accept this reality.

The marine life in TOMATS, like the white whale as I discussed it in that analysis, represent all of the things–as fixed entities that don’t seem to go through the endless flux and change of the sea–that are either desired, objects of attachment like the marlin, or are hated and dreaded, like the sharks that eat up the marlin.

As the Buddhists understand, these things have a way of tricking us into thinking that they have a permanence, when they are no more permanent than the constantly moving sea. The absurdism of Santiago’s trying to catch and keep the marlin is in his futile hope that it will be there with him, intact, all the way back on his trip to the shore.

Remember that while there are opposing tendencies between TOMATS and Moby-Dick, there are also parallels. One example is when Santiago, on having realized that the marlin has taken the bait, expresses his determination to keep struggling, even to the death, until he catches it. ‘”Fish,” he said softly, aloud, “I’ll stay with you until I am dead.”‘ (page 52) This is just like Ahab’s words on having harpooned the whale: “to the last I grapple with thee.” Santiago will harpoon the marlin, too.

Still, with this parallel, there is also the dialectical negation, as I mentioned above, of Santiago’s professed love of the marlin: ‘”Fish,” he said, “I love you and respect you very much.”‘ This is to be contrasted with Ahab’s words: “from hell’s heart I stab at thee; for hate’s sake I spit my last breath at thee.” But in the end there’s a sublation of both Santiago’s and Ahab’s attitude in these words of the former: “But I will kill you dead before this day ends.” (page 54) One harpooner loves his prey, the other hates his prey–both are determined to kill their prey.

The comparisons between the suffering of Santiago and that of Jesus are exemplified with the injuries to the hands of the former, a fisher of the marlin, and the hands of the latter, a fisher of men (Matthew 4:19). Santiago “felt the line carefully with his right hand and noticed his hand was bleeding.” (pages 55-56) The cut on his hand is like one of the stigmata. The absurdism of his suffering is that it’s all in vain, as if Christ hadn’t risen, making Church teaching and faith also in vain (1 Corinthians 15:14).

Moby-Dick isn’t the only book with a narrative of someone at sea and having deep religious, mystical, and philosophical themes that can be compared to those of TOMATS: another such novel is Life of Pi (The Young Man and the Sea, if you will), a book I plan to do an analysis of in about a month or so after this writing is published. One such a comparison is in how alone Santiago feels, so far away from the shore in his skiff (pages 60-61). The sight of ducks flying reminds him, however, that one is never alone at sea.

Pi is in a lifeboat with Richard Parker, a Bengal tiger, and though he insists that his tense relationship with the animal has saved his life by giving it purpose, he’s still starving for human company. Santiago may imagine that the flying ducks are giving him company, and that the marlin is his “brother,” but he’s still alone enough to wish he had Manolin with him. Ahab has a whole crew of harpooners to help him, but in his madness, he’s alienating all of his colleagues and thus making himself all alone at sea.

The point is that in all three stories’ cases, the ocean represents that formless void from which everything comes–Brahman, primordial Chaos, tohu-wa-bohu, Bion‘s O, Lacan‘s Real, or the Jungian collective unconscious and its Shadow, call it what you will. The marine animals swimming about in it–whales, marlins, flying fish, etc.–represent all those things we are attached to, and which cause us pain and suffering when we cannot get them. The quest for them must be undertaken alone, regardless of whether we choose to go on the quest, as Ahab and Santiago do, or if we’re thrown into the quest against our will, as happens to Pi.

The lone man’s confrontation with the briny Absolute is symbolic of Jung’s notion of Individuation. It’s a necessary spiritual quest fraught with danger, including the possibility of losing one’s mind, as almost happened to Jung himself. Santiago suffers terribly, with his stigmata-like cuts and overexertions, and ultimately in vain, like the absurdist Sisyphus rolling up the rock again and again; but he keeps his sanity, thanks to his abiding humility.

On the other hand, Ahab, in his narcissism and bloated self-concept, is doomed not only to death but also to an unquenchable madness in his attempt at this Individuation. Pi’s experience seems similar to Jung’s: he has a humility similar to Santiago’s, but the intense trauma that Pi goes through (the loss of his entire family, the ongoing fear of being killed and eaten by the tiger, no human contact or sight of land for what seems months, near starvation, etc.) brings him dangerously close to madness.

To take my point further, a confrontation with the Absolute, with Brahman, with ‘God’–whichever–is an attempt to reach heaven by unavoidably going through hell first, as I discussed in my analysis of Allen Ginsberg‘s “Howl,” and as Christ‘s Passion and harrowing of hell, properly interpreted, are an allegory of. Attaining divine blessedness isn’t a walk in the park; it shouldn’t and mustn’t be sentimentalized. To overcome suffering and enter nirvana, one must accept and embrace suffering.

Another point of comparison with all three books is how the animal objects of desire, hate, or dread are all male, at least symbolically so, as opposed to the essentially feminine sea–la mer est la mère, or la mar, as Santiago calls her. Moby Dick, a sperm whale, spouts masculinity like an ejaculation. Santiago’s marlin (a pun on man, with the added rli?) has a phallic “sword…as long as a baseball bat and tapered like a rapier” (page 62). Pi’s unlikely marine companion, Richard Parker, has a name to reinforce his masculinity in our minds. These animals, in their…phallic?…solidity, make for a decidedly male contrast to the feminine sea, whose waves flow like a dancing woman’s curves, and whose liquidity is like a mother’s milk, or like a pregnant woman’s amniotic fluid, released when her “water breaks.”

Parallel to this masculine/feminine opposition is that of the fire of desire, hate, or dread versus the calmly moving waves of nirvana’s water. The hard, unbending solidity of desire, hate, or dread is the samsara that the flowing ease of nirvana is antithetical to. There are things we desire, and want to keep; there are things we hate and dread, and thus wish to keep away. Neither the wanted nor the unwanted, however, can be kept or kept away; both must be allowed to flow in and flow out, as the oceanic waves of Brahman do. Still, there are storms at sea, which Santiago dreads in the hurricane months (page 61), the hell one must go through, as Pi does, before reaching heaven.

On page 63, Santiago has discovered that the marlin “is two feet longer than the skiff,” hence his need to lash the fish to the side of the boat after he’s reeled it in and killed it. This will be a tiring task.

When Santiago decides to pray “ten Our Fathers and ten Hail Marys” (pages 64-65), though he admits that he isn’t religious, we come to another point of comparison among TOMATS, Moby-Dick, and Life of Pi: to believe, or not to believe. Santiago is essentially the agnostic–he will “say his prayers mechanically” (page 65), not able to remember all the words and thus saying them fast so they’ll come out automatically. He makes an attempt at faith without making a commitment to it.

In his unswerving wickedness and vanity, Captain Ahab is a kind of anti-theist: his irreligiousness is horrifying to pious Starbuck. As for Pi, though in his maritime ordeal his faith is tested and he thus experiences temporary doubt, he manages to go to hell and back and, finally back on land in North America, he finds his faith restored and even stronger. Ahab’s impiousness, on the other hand, leads to his destruction.

Santiago’s use of prayer as a crutch, in contrast to both Pi and Ahab, results in his raised and ultimately frustrated hopes. Pi is willing to accept atheists for at least being committed to believing that there’s no God (Martel, pages 37-38), and while Pi would assuredly abominate the impiety of Ahab, it is especially the doubters, those committed neither to belief nor unbelief, like Santiago, with whom Pi is irritated. Santiago’s catching and losing of the marlin would seem to be his just desserts for his all-too-half-hearted prayers.

On page 66, Santiago wishes a flying fish will come on board that night, since they are “excellent to eat raw” and he wouldn’t have to cut one up. Within the same thought, he concludes with “Christ, I did not know [the marlin] was so big.” I find it significant that Santiago would speak of a fish and Christ (even if just swearing) in the same breath.

Recall that the fish is a Christian symbol, Ichthys, a Greek acronym for Iēsous Chrīstos Theoû Yἱός Sōtér, or “Jesus Christ, God’s Son, Saviour.” That the fish in question is a flying fish reinforces such symbolic associations as Christ ascending to heaven or walking on water.

The multi-religious Pi is plagued with guilt over his killing of a flying fish (Martel, page 245). He feels “as guilty as Cain.” One might also think of Judas Iscariot’s guilt over betraying another fish, Christ, then killing himself (Acts 11:18).

In Moby-Dick, though Ishmael acknowledges that whales are, of course, mammals, he stubbornly insists on calling them “fish” in the “Cetology” chapter, using Jonah (who was swallowed by “a great fish”, which Ishmael identifies with a whale) as his trustworthy source. For the sake of the symbolic association, I’ll go along with Ishmael’s mischievous scholarship here, and thus relate this killing of fish with Ahab’s bloody lust for revenge.

In these three men’s respective attitudes toward the…fish?…we can see a parallel symbolic attitude toward religion, God, and Christ. In Ahab’s hatred of Moby Dick, we see anti-theist impiety. In Pi’s repentant feelings for the flying fish he’s killed, we see his earnest religiosity. In Santiago’s wish to kill and eat a flying fish, we see not Ahab’s malice, but just a sense of how religion has its uses.

Santiago is so tired from his efforts to reel in the giant, powerful marlin that he wishes he could sleep (page 66). He must save all his strength; this is why he wants to eat a flying fish. He wants to kill the marlin “in all his greatness and his glory”–how like the greatness and glory of God on the Cross, the Christ-like fish.

He wishes both he and the fish could sleep…like being asleep in Christ (1 Corinthians 15, 1 Thessalonians 4:13-14). He would dream of the lions, as he’s done before and will do again, at the end of the story, after his disappointment with the marlin. “Why are the lions the main thing that is left?” he wonders.

Well, as with the fish, the lion is also a symbol of Christ, the lion of Judah (Revelation 5:5). You might also recall Aslan in C.S. Lewis‘s Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, published just two years before TOMATS. Santiago, being of little faith, can only dream of Christian ideas, and can pray only mechanically, not remembering all the words. His determination to catch the marlin is only physical and faithless, hence his absurdist failure.

Examples of injuries that Santiago suffers, those which can be symbolically associated with Christ’s Passion, include a cut the old man gets below his eye (page 52). Such a cut may remind us of the crown of thorns. When he rests against the wood of the bow just after he gets that cut, we’re reminded of Christ resting against the wood of the rood.

Later, on page 66, he advises himself once again to “Rest gently now against the wood and think of nothing.” Just as with dreaming of the Christ-like lions, resting against the Cross-like wood is symbolically a leaning on the crutch of the Church, but, being without thought, it’s a mentally lazy, passive reliance on faith without putting the kind of commitment to that faith that Pi would put into it. Hence, Santiago fails in the end. The mini-tragedy here is in how Santiago suffers like Christ, but that suffering is all in absurdist vain.

A little later on, Santiago switches from one hero (Christ) to another (DiMaggio). On pages 67-68, he thinks of the Big Leagues (Gran Ligas), the New York Yankees and “the Tigres of Detroit.” Just as religion is the opium of the people, so is the hero worship of American pop culture, so fully appropriated by the Cubans that Santiago even mixes a bit of Spanish into the baseball league and its teams. These idols of his have a way of distracting people like him from what they should be focusing on: overcoming imperialist hegemony. Pressing on the wood and not thinking is just a distraction, just as wanting to be “worthy of the great DiMaggio who does all things perfectly” is (page 68).

DiMaggio “does all things perfectly” just as Christ does, for our “Heavenly Father is perfect.” (Matthew 5:48) Would “the great DiMaggio…stay with a fish as long as [Santiago] will stay with this one?” (page 68) Just as people often ask, ‘What would Jesus do?’ in any difficult situation, so does Santiago ask, ‘What would DiMaggio do?’ in this difficulty of catching the marlin. DiMaggio is like Christ, because for Santiago, it’s all about worshipping an idealization rather than fully using one’s own agency.

During his sleep the night before he went out in his skiff on his eighty-fifth ‘lucky’ day, he dreamed of “lions on the beach.” (page 25) He dreams of them again (page 81). In his dream, “he rested his chin on the wood of the bows…” As we can see, the lions and wood are reinforcing the Christian symbolism, and in his passive, dreaming state, this Christianity truly is the opium of the people, a drug to take one’s mind off of one’s suffering.

As he continues struggling with the marlin later on, Santiago says, “God, help me endure. I’ll say a hundred Our Fathers and a hundred Hail Marys. But I cannot say them now.” (page 87) He speaks as though he’d make a deal with God in order to catch the marlin, but faith doesn’t work that way. One doesn’t believe as thanks for getting what one wants, and one’s faith isn’t supposed to be dependent on whether or not one has good fortune. He won’t even pray now. Small wonder he fails in the end.

When, on page 92, Santiago says, “Do you have to kill me too?” in response to the marlin’s making the catch so difficult, and he thinks, “You are killing me, fish…But you have a right to. Never have I seen a greater, or more beautiful, or a calmer or more noble thing than you, brother. Come on and kill me. I do not care who kills who”, we see yet more comparison and contrast with Ahab, who would be killed by the whale, and even willingly, yet Santiago sees the marlin as his brother and doesn’t hate it, as Ahab hates Moby Dick.

Once Santiago has finally caught the marlin, he imagines “the great DiMaggio would be proud of [him] today” (page 97), since the culturally imperialist object of his worship is on a level with that other opium of the people, Christ…though Santiago never gets around to praying those ten Our Fathers and ten Hail Marys.

With the marlin lashed to the side of the skiff, Santiago wonders if he’s bringing it in, or vice versa (page 99). It’s rather like Ahab caught in his harpoon and stuck to the side of the whale as it swims away. Still, Santiago and the marlin are brothers, not mortal enemies, as are Ahab and the white whale.

After killing the first shark to bite at the marlin, Santiago implicitly imagines his use of his harpoon with which to brain the shark to death as being like DiMaggio hitting a ball with a baseball bat (pages 103-104). It makes him feel as if he were identified with his hero, an imitator of him, almost like an imitator of Christ (1 Corinthians 11:1).

Santiago believes it’s a sin not to hope (pages 104-105), just as he who doubts is damned (Romans 14:23). Of course, killing the marlin may have been a sin (page 105); but since everything is a sin in Santiago’s mind, in a Godless world, he feels he shouldn’t think of sin. He can assuage his guilt, however, by reminding himself that DiMaggio’s father was a fisherman. He feels guilt that he killed the marlin out of pride, though, not just because it’s his work, so he can’t stop thinking about sin.

So when two sharks come after the marlin, he must feel as though the eating away of it is his punishment (page 107). Indeed, he is “feeling the nail go through his hands and into the wood”, like Christ on the Cross.

Back on shore and with Manolin, who has been weeping over the disappointing sight of the marlin’s mere skeleton lashed to the side of the skiff, Santiago can at least enjoy the pleasure of having another human being to talk to (page 124), as opposed to his loneliness at sea. The boy wants to fish with the old man again, regardless of how unlucky he is. After all, companionship is more important than success at fishing.

Santiago’s inability to bring the marlin onshore intact is related to his shaky faith in God, but his weak faith is not his fault. In the mundane banality of an absurdist universe–as opposed to the grandiose, pantheist divinity of Pi’s universe on the one extreme, or the melodrama of Ahab’s Satanic drive to self-destruction on the other–there is no God and there is thus no meaning in the world. The absurdity of life, as seen in Sisyphus happily rolling the boulder up the hill again and again, is in making attempts to find meaning where there is none, just like Santiago’s half-assed attempts, if any, to pray to God. We try and fail, then try and fail again, just like praying over and over, with no answer from a God that’s dead.

Yet we keep trying all the same, as Santiago will keep on trying to catch a fish.

Ernest Hemingway, The Old Man and the Sea, New York, Scribner, 1952

Analysis of ‘Howl’

I: Introduction

“Howl” is a poem by Allen Ginsberg, written in 1954-1955 and dedicated to Carl Solomon, hence it’s also known as “Howl for Carl Solomon.” It was published in Ginsberg’s 1956 collection, Howl and Other Poems.

“Howl” is considered one of the great works of American literature. Ginsberg being one of the writers of the Beat Generation, “Howl” reflects the lifestyle and preoccupations of those writers–Jack Kerouac, William S. Burroughs, Neal Cassady (“N.C., secret hero of these poems”; also, “holy Kerouac […] holy Burroughs holy Cassady”), etc.

The preoccupations of the Beat Generation writers included such subculture practices (as of the conservative 1950s, mind you) as drug use, homosexuality, free love, interest in non-Western religions, etc. Such practices are described with brutal, uncensored frankness in “Howl,” hence the poem was the focus of an obscenity trial in 1957.

Here is a link to the entire poem, and here is an annotated version of it (without the ‘footnote’).

The very title of the poem, one that gives vivid description to so much suffering, must be–on at least an unconscious level–an allusion to the final scene in King Lear, when the grieving king enters, carrying his freshly executed daughter, Cordelia. He calls out “Howl, howl, howl, howl! O, you are men of stones!” As in “Howl,” King Lear demonstrates, as I argued in my analysis of the play, that in the midst of so much suffering and loss, one can also gain something: Lear loses everything, but he also gains self-knowledge. Similarly, “the best minds of [Ginsberg’s] generation” suffered much and engaged in much self-destruction, but they also searched for forms of spiritual enlightenment, as I’ll demonstrate below. By the ‘footnote‘ section of the poem, we’ll find Ginsberg gaining that “Holy!” enlightenment.

II: Part I of the Poem

Now, “the best minds of [Ginsberg’s] generation” were those Beat Generation writers and their socially non-conforming ilk, engaging in all the wild behaviour we associate with them–doing drugs, having promiscuous sex, etc. As a result, they have been “destroyed by madness,” and have been “starving hysterical naked.”

“Naked” could be a reference to illicit sex, but it more likely refers to a lack of possessions in general, as the word is used in Hamlet, Act IV, Scene vii (in which Hamlet writes, in a letter to Claudius, “I am set naked on your kingdom.”). After all, these “best minds” are “starving hysterical naked.” Their wildness comes in large part because of their poverty, the cause of which, in turn, is an issue I’ll delve into in more detail later.

These drug addicts are going “through the negro streets at dawn looking for an angry fix”, yet in spite of their Dionysian sinfulness, they’re also “angelheaded hipsters burning for the ancient heavenly connection”. They seem to be offering their own idiosyncratic interpretation of Luther’s injunction to “sin boldly.”

Indeed, there is a duality permeating these pages, cataloguing on the one hand sin, obscenity, and excess, and on the other, a search for spirituality and salvation. They are in “poverty and tatters […] high […] smoking” and “contemplating jazz,” for this music was an important soundtrack to the lives of the Beats, as one can note many times reading Kerouac’s On the Road. Yet they also “bared their brains to Heaven under the El and saw Mohammedan angels…”

The El is the elevated train in New York, but it’s also a Hebrew name for God. Note also that the words “Mohammedan” and “negro” were being used here before they were considered unacceptable. Ginsberg’s reference to the Muslim faith is one of many examples of the Beats taking spiritual inspiration from non-Western sources. Some Beats having hung out in Tangiers (in the International Zone in particular) can, in part, be seen as an example of this influence.

The use of “who” beginning many of the long lines of this first part of “Howl” is paralleled with the refrains of “Moloch” in Part Two, “I’m with you in Rockland” in Part Three, and “Holy” in the ‘footnote.’ “Who” reminds us that the subject of Part One, an almost interminable sentence, is Ginsberg’s beatnik friends. The refrains of the other three parts also, of course, remind us of their respective subjects, an explanation of which will come when I get to those parts below.

Special attention should be given to Ginsberg’s use of long lines, something he derived from Walt Whitman, whose non-conforming behaviour (including homosexuality) could make him a kind of Beat Generation poet of the 19th century. One could compare these long lines to the sometimes lengthy verses of the Bible, giving Whitman’s and Ginsberg’s poetry a near-sacred feel, in spite of (or perhaps because of) its sensuality (recall in this connection the sensuality of the Song of Solomon… could the dedication to Carl Solomon be linked to this Biblical association?).

Long lines are oceanic, inclusive, requiring deep breaths to take in everything before expressing everything. They are universal because the poetry of Whitman and Ginsberg is universal: these two men are bards of Brahman, seeing holiness in everything (read Ginsberg’s “footnote” to see what I mean). The two poets embrace all religious traditions, like Pi, but they also reject the limitations of any one religious tradition or dogma. These long lines, in including everything but eschewing the rigidity of traditional short and exact metres, exemplify the same paradox in poetry.

In “Blake-like tragedy”, we find another example of a spiritual non-conformist in whom Ginsberg found inspiration. I discussed William Blake‘s unconventional approach to Christianity in the “Jerusalem” section of this analysis of an ELP album.

Ginsberg was once “expelled from the academies for crazy […] obscene odes…”, that is, he was kicked out of Columbia University for writing obscenities on his dorm room window. His friends “got busted in their pubic beards returning through Laredo with a belt of marijuana for New York,” that is, they were caught in Laredo with weed stashed in their underwear.

They “ate fire” and “drank turpentine in Paradise Alley…”, referring to the ingesting of toxic substances (drugs and alcohol) in a slum in New York City, full of run-down hotels, brothels, and dope dealers. Nonetheless, in a poem, Paradise Alley also has heavenly associations, and thus in this line we have another juxtaposition of the sinful with the spiritual.

Those readers who may have difficulty reconciling my close associating of sin with mysticism should take into account the idea of the dialectical unity of opposites, an idea I’ve symbolized with the image of the ouroboros in a number of blog articles. Two extreme opposites meet, or phase into each other, where the serpent’s head bites its tail, and all intermediate points are found in their respective places along the middle of the ouroboros’ body, coiled into a circular continuum.

Applied to “Howl,” this means that the harshest Hell phases into the highest Heaven and vice versa. One cannot understand this idea while adhering to traditional Christian dogma and its literal reading of an eternity in either Heaven or Hell. My interpretation of the ‘afterlife’ is metaphorical. In our moments of darkest despair, we often see the light and come out the other side (“It’s always darkest before the dawn.”); this is what Christ‘s Passion, harrowing of Hell, and Resurrection symbolize. Note also that those who rise to the highest points of pride tend to fall, as Satan and the rebel angels did. Finally, keep in mind the BeatitudesMatthew 5:4 and 5:11-12 in particular.

This Heaven/Hell dialectic can be seen in the four parts of “Howl.” This first part is the Hell thesis, with the second, “Moloch” part representing the Satanic cause of that Hell; the “Rockland” third part is the Purgatory sublation (though therapy in an insane asylum must be judged to be a remarkably ill-conceived purging of sin), and the “footnote” is the antithesis Heaven that stands in opposition to this present first part.

In this way, we can see “Howl” as Ginsberg’s modern Beat rendition of Dante‘s Divine Comedy. And just as Dante’s Inferno is the most famous first part of his epic poem, so is the infernal first part of “Howl” the most famous part, with its emphasis on human suffering. Similarly, Pasolini‘s Salò, with its sections divided up into Circles of Manias, Shit, and Blood–like Dante’s nine circles of Hell–is also focused on suffering, sin, and sexual perversity.

To come back to the last line discussed before my dialectical digression, and to link both discussions, this inferno part makes fitting reference, in this line, to the paradiso of Paradise Alley and the purgatorio of the “purgatoried […] torsos”. These torsos may be purged of sin through the ingesting of alcohol and drugs, or through sex (“pubic beards”, “torsos”, and “cock and endless balls”).

Just as there’s a dialectical unity of Heaven and Hell (i.e., one must go through Hell to reach Heaven, as Jesus did, the passing through the ouroboros’ bitten tail to get to its biting head), so is there also a dialectical unity of sin and sainthood (i.e., one uses drugs or sexual ecstasy to have mystical visions or spiritual ecstasy). The fires of Hell are those of desire, in samsāra; blowing out the flame leads to nirvana. The Mahayana Buddhist tradition, however, sees a unity between samsara and nirvana–the fire is the absence of fire…Heaven is Hell. The Beats, in their excesses, understand these paradoxes.

Part of those Dionysian excesses are, as mentioned above, the alcohol and drug abuse (“peyote” and “wine drunkenness over the rooftops”). Similarly, the Beats were “chained […] to subways for the endless ride from Battery to holy Bronx on benzedrine“, that is, they were so high on the benzedrine that they were frozen from doing anything while on their endless joyride on the subway, “chained” to it, all the way from Battery to the Bronx. Note how the Bronx is “holy”: in their sinful indulgence on drugs, the beatniks attain sainthood in the Bronx.

At Fugazzi’s…Bar and Grill, at 305, 6th Ave. in New York City?…they are “listening to the crack of doom on the hydrogen jukebox”. In Macbeth, “the crack of doom” is the end of the world, and a “hydrogen jukebox” suggests the hydrogen bombs that had been created, recently as of the writing of “Howl,” a bomb whose destructive power, greater than the original atomic bomb, can bring us even closer to “the crack of doom.”

Ginsberg and company, however, are getting wasted listening to music–jazz, presumably, on the jukebox. They are creating their own armageddon of drunken self-destruction. That end of the world, though, is followed by the Kingdom of God: the beatniks, in their rejection of the conservative values of the nuclear family, are getting nuclear bombed drunk; and the hellish fires of “the crack of doom,” the ouroboros’ bitten tail, will be passed through to attain the heavenly Kingdom of God, the serpent’s biting head.

The dialectic is manifested once again in how this “lost battalion of platonic conversationalists” are “jumping down the stoops off fire escapes off windowsills off Empire State…” Since sorrows “come not single spies but in battalions,” it’s easy to see them leading to despair and suicide. Yet the beatniks would express platonic ideals in philosophical discussion, an Apollonian trait; of course, in true Dionysian fashion, they would also jump off of buildings to their deaths to escape the egoistic experience for that of the oneness of Brahman.

Thus, the juxtaposition of jumping suicides with platonic conversation is a case of “whole intellects disgorged […] for seven days and nights”…the seven days and nights of Biblical creation, ending in a day and night of rest–that Heaven of intellectual bliss? It’s fitting to include the Sabbath–“meat for the Synagogue”, since Ginsberg was Jewish.

Indeed, the Beats return from debauchery to spirituality in not only the Synagogue, but also “Zen New Jersey”, “suffering Eastern sweats and Tangerian bone-grindings and migraines of China under drunk withdrawal”. We’re reminded of the Opium Wars, the victimizing of China under Western imperialism, and maybe the jumping “off Empire State” is Ginsberg’s rejection of that very imperialism.

These hipsters “studied Plotinus Poe St. John of the Cross telepathy and bop kabbalah because the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas”. Plotinus was a neoplatonist who believed that all of reality is based on “the One,” a basic, ineffable state beyond being and non-being, the creative source of the universe and the teleological end of all things. St. John of the Cross was a Spanish mystic and poet who wrote The Dark Night of the Soul, both a poem and a commentary on it that describe a phase of passive purification in the mystical development of one’s spirit.

What’s interesting here is how Ginsberg sandwiches, between these two writers of spiritual, philosophical matters, Edgar Allan Poe, also a great writer, but one whose death at the relatively young age forty was the self-destructive result of alcoholism, drug abuse, and/or suicide, his last moments having been in a delirious, agitated state with hallucinations.

Though St. John of the Cross hadn’t intended this meaning, “the dark night of the soul” has the modern meaning of ‘a crisis in faith,’ or ‘an extremely difficult or painful period in one’s life.’ The combining of these three writers in the above-quoted line in “Howl” suggests a dialectical thesis, negation, and sublation of them respectively: the wisdom of philosophy (Plotinus), the destructiveness of the Dionysian way (Poe), and a combination of passive mystical purification with a spiritual crisis and a painful time in life (St. John of the Cross).

Such an interpretation dovetails well with the Heaven and Hell, saintly sinner theme I’ve been discussing as running all the way through Ginsberg’s poem. The juxtaposition “bop kabbalah” continues that theme, with “bop” representing the contemporary jazz that he and his beatnik pals were grooving to while drunk or stoned, and “kabbalah” representing Jewish mysticism, a fitting form of it for Ginsberg.

This “bop kabbalah” dialectic is further developed in how “the cosmos instinctively vibrated at their feet in Kansas,” since Kansas was the Mecca of jazz and bebop for hipsters at the time; and a ‘vibrating cosmos’ suggests the oceanic waves of Brahman, or Plotinus’ One. The hipsters were also going “through the streets of Idaho seeking visionary Indian angels…”, even more of a juxtaposition of the common and the cosmic.

They’d be “seeking jazz or sex or soup”, and they would “converse about America and Eternity”. These hipsters led bohemian lives, but also wanted to know the rest of the world, so by “America” it is not meant to be only the US but also Latin America–the Mayan ruins of Mexico. To escape the evil of American capitalism, Ginsberg “took ship to Africa”. These are examples of the Beats immersing themselves in the wisdom of other cultures. The protesting of capitalism is part of the basis of the Beats’ destructive Dionysian non-conformity; hence, they “burned cigarette holes in their arms”.

Note how the Beats’ protesting of “the narcotic tobacco haze of capitalism”, having “distributed Supercommunist pamphlets” would have been done in 1950s America, at a time of welfare capitalism, higher taxes for the rich, and strong unions. Imagine the passion the Beats would have had distributing “Supercommunist pamphlets” in today’s neoliberal nightmare of a world!

They “bit detectives in the neck”, those protectors of private property and the capitalist system. Recall how Marx compared capitalists to vampires, as Malcolm X called them bloodsuckers; Ginsberg’s vampire-like Beats biting cops’ necks is indulging in amusing irony here. After all, he insists that the Beats’ non-conforming sexuality and intoxication are “committing no crime”. They “howled on their knees in the subway […] waving genitals…”

More obscenity and saintliness are merged when Ginsberg says they “let themselves be fucked in the ass by saintly motorcyclists and screamed with joy.” This line in particular got him in trouble with the law, though in the end, “Howl” was ruled to have “redeeming social importance.” Similarly, the Beats “blew and were blown by those human seraphim”, and “balled in the morning in the evening […] scattering their semen freely…”

When a “blond and naked angel came to pierce them with a sword”, we see an allusion to The Ecstasy of St. Teresa, a fusion of sexual ecstasy with spiritual ecstasy.

Now, “the three old shrews of fate” who have taken away the Beats’ boy lovers are the Moirai. These can be seen to personify the kind of conformist, nuclear family that the Beats are rebelling against. Each shrew is one-eyed, for in her conformity, she cannot see fully. One is “of the heterosexual dollar”, a slave to the capitalist, patriarchal family, and in her complaining of her lot in life, she seems shrewish. One shrew “winks out of the womb”, since by limiting her life to that of a career mother, she also sees little. The last shrew “does nothing but sit on her ass and snip the […] threads of the craftsman’s loom”; she is Atropos, who in cutting the thread ends people’s lives, yet in limiting herself to doing traditional women’s work, she’s ending her own life, too.

The Beats “copulated ecstatic and insatiate […] and ended […] with a vision of ultimate cunt and come eluding the last gyzym of consciousness”. Here again, we see Ginsberg uniting the sexual with the “ecstatic” spiritual: in “ultimate cunt”, we have a fusion of the final with the beginning of life; similarly, “come” and “gyzym” would begin life, yet here we have “the last” of it. The end is dialectically the beginning–the Alpha and the Omega, the eternal, cyclical ouroboros.

Such heterosexual Beats as “N.C.”, or Neal Cassady, “sweetened the snatches of a million girls”. He “went out whoring through Colorado in myriad stolen night-cars”. Indeed, a reading of On the Road will reveal how Cassady (i.e., Dean Moriarty) did exactly this.

When it says that the Beats “ate the lamb stew of the imagination”, since there’s so much juxtaposition of sensuality with spirituality in “Howl,” I suspect that “lamb” here refers at least in part to the Lamb of God. Ginsberg may have been Jewish, but as a Beat poet, he would have been interested in religious and spiritual traditions outside of his own. The ‘eating of the lamb stew of the imagination’ would thus be yet another example of “Howl” fusing the sensual and the spiritual.

The Beats were “under the tubercular sky surrounded by orange crates of theology,” yet another example of such fusions, as is “rocking and rolling over lofty incantations”. They “threw their watches off the roof to cast their ballot for Eternity outside of Time,” indicating a preference of the transcendent over the mundane; yet they’ve also engaged in suicidal acts, indicating the despair that bars one from entry to Heaven. Such suicidal acts include “cut[ting] their wrists three times successfully unsuccessfully,” as well as having “jumped off the Brooklyn Bridge this actually happened”.

Some Beats were “burned alive in their innocent flannel suits”, an apparent allusion to The Man in the Gray Flannel Suit, by Sloan Wilson, another Beat book. One Beat, Bill Cannastra, was with those “who sang out of their windows in despair, fell out of the subway window”: Cannastra died drunkenly trying to exit a moving subway car.

Some “danced on broken wineglasses barefoot”. Some went “journeying to each other’s hotrod Golgotha jail-solitude watch or Birmingham jazz incantation”. Again, we see a merging of the sensual (“wineglasses,” “jazz,” “hotrod”) and the spiritual (i.e., the Christian imagery of “Golgotha”), as well as a fusion of salvation (Christ’s crucifixion at Golgotha, the place of the skull) and condemnation (“jail”).

The Beats hoped, in their travels, “to find out if I had a vision or you had a vision or he had a vision to find out Eternity”. They were often in Denver, as Kerouac and Cassady were (represented by Sal Paradise and Dean Moriarty, respectively) in On the Road. All of the drinking and partying therein is Dionysian mysticism, if properly understood.

For in spite of how antithetical this drunken partying may seem to the spiritual life, the Beats also “fell on their knees in hopeless cathedrals praying for each other’s salvation”. The cathedrals were “hopeless” because there’s no salvation in conventional, orthodox religion.

So instead, they “retired to Mexico to cultivate a habit, or Rocky Mount to tender Buddha or Tangiers to boys […] or Harvard to Narcissus…” Alternative forms of spirituality may have been Buddhism (consider Kerouac and The Dharma Bums), or the dialectical opposite of spirituality, indulgence in drugs or pederasty, or a generally narcissistic attitude. In any case, the “hopeless cathedrals” would never have sufficed for the Beats.

Just as there’s a fine line between Heaven and Hell as described in “Howl,” so is there a fine line between genius and madness here. Ginsberg has celebrated the inspired creative genius of Kerouac, Cassady, Burroughs…himself in this very poem…and others. Ginsberg has demonstrated many of the acts of madness of the Beats. Now we must examine the attempts ‘to cure’ madness.

Now, what must be emphasized here is that it’s not so much about curing mental illness as it is about taking non-conforming individuals and making them conform. Recall that at this time, the mid-20th century, homosexuality was considered a form of mental illness. The proposed cures for these ‘pathologies’ were such things as lobotomy, “Metrazol electricity hydrotherapy psychotherapy occupational therapy pingpong…”

Recall that “Howl” is dedicated to Carl Solomon, who voluntarily institutionalized himself, “presented [himself] on the granite steps of the madhouse…” Solomon, mental institutions (what Ginsberg calls “Rockland”), and pingpong will return in Part Three of this poem.

The psychotherapy in these mental institutions will include such fashionably Freudian ideas as the Oedipus complex, as we can see in Ginsberg’s line about “mother finally ******”. The ultimate narcissistic fantasy, about sexual union with the mother, Lacan‘s objet petit a, has to have a four-letter word censored, for a change in this poem, since it’s a gratification too great for even Ginsberg to discuss directly: “ah, Carl, while you are not safe I am not safe…”

Still, while mired not only in madness but, worse, also in the prisons of psychiatry–those cuckoo nests–these incarcerated Beats can still experience the divine. They have “dreamt and made incarnate gaps in Time and Space […] trapped the archangel of the soul […] jumping with sensation of Pater Omnipotens Aeterna Deus…”

This connection with the divine is achieved through the use of language, a kind of talking cure, entry into the cultural/linguistic world of Lacan‘s Symbolic, as expressed in Ginsberg’s poetry and the prose of Beats like Kerouac and Burroughs. They’ll use “elemental verbs and set the noun and dash of consciousness […] to recreate the syntax and measure of poor human prose…”

The Beats are thus a combination of “the madman bum and angel beat in Time,” a marriage of Heaven and Hell (recall the “Blake-like tragedy” above), the best and the worst, “speechless and intelligent and shaking with shame,…” They “blew the suffering of America’s naked mind for love into an eli eli lamma lamma sabachthani saxophone cry…” In this, we see how the Beats combine jazz sax partying with suffering, despair, Lamb-of-God salvation and love.

“Howl” describes the individual experiences of men like Cannastra, Cassady, Kerouac, Solomon, and Ginsberg as if all the Beats had experienced them collectively, since in their solidarity of non-conformity, they felt the Dionysian unity, Plotinus’ One, Brahman’s nirvana. Ginsberg will feel that solidarity with Solomon in Part Three, but first,…

III: Part II of the Poem

Note how Moloch is described as a “sphinx of cement and aluminum” who “bashed open [the Beats’] skulls and ate up their brains and imagination”. Moloch, an ancient Canaanite god depicted in the Bible and understood to have been one requiring child sacrifice, is a Satanic figure in “Howl,” the Devil responsible for the Inferno of Ginsberg’s Divine Comedy here. But what does this Satanic figure in turn represent?

The “sphinx of cement and aluminum” that is also “Filth! Ugliness! Ashcans and unobtainable dollars” is modern-day industrial capitalism. Children are sacrificed to this Moloch, this Mammon of money, by having their skulls bashed open and their brains and imagination eaten. In our education systems, children’s energy, individuality, and creativity are all stifled and replaced with obedience and conformity, that energy redirected towards making money for the Man, never for the people, for whom it’s “unobtainable.”

The “Solitude” of Moloch is alienation, the lack of togetherness among people, which has been replaced by cold-blooded competition. This had led to “Children screaming under the stairways!”

In this second part–instead of the preceding part’s long lines ending in commas, which suggested an ongoing problem seemingly without end, the hopelessness of eternal infernal punishment–we have lines ending in exclamation points, to express the rage Ginsberg feels against an economic system to which we all feel we’ve had to sell our souls. Small wonder the non-conforming Beat writers were going mad in a drunken, Dionysian frenzy.

Moloch is an “incomprehensible prison!” It’s a “soulless jailhouse and Congress of sorrows! Moloch whose buildings are judgment! Moloch the vast stone of war! Moloch the stunned governments!” Ginsberg recognizes, as so many right-wing libertarians fail to do (or are dishonest about not recognizing), that capitalism very much requires a state and a Congress to make laws that protect private property. Government only does socialist stuff when it’s a workers’ state, not the dictatorship of the bourgeoisie, as the US has always been.

These “buildings [of] judgment” that are “the vast stone of war” are symbols of the modern, industrial world. The capitalist government has far too little funding for the poor, for education, for healthcare or for affordable housing, but it has plenty of money for the military. The Moloch government is “stunned” because it’s confused over who should have access to this tax revenue.

The evil industry of capitalism “is pure machinery!” It’s “blood is running money!” Since capitalism in our modern world spills into imperialism, as Lenin pointed out, then it’s easy to see how money can be linked with blood, death, and human suffering in war. Moloch’s “fingers are ten armies!” These are the armies of the Americans who, already in the 1950s, were occupying South Korea, making their women into prostitutes for the enjoyment of the GIs, and making their men fight their brothers and sisters in the north. Moloch’s “ear is a smoking bomb”, like those dropped all over North Korea.

The specifically modern, industrial nature of the capitalism that Ginsberg is excoriating here is found in such lines as this: “Moloch whose skyscrapers stand in the longs streets like endless Jehovahs! Moloch whose factories dream and croak in the fog! Moloch whose smoke-stacks and antennae crown the cities!”

These skyscrapers will be office buildings, places of business, the nerve centres of capitalism. Just as Moloch and Mammon are false gods, so are the “endless Jehovahs” a heathenizing of the Biblical God by pluralizing Him. The irony mustn’t have been lost on Jewish Ginsberg to know that Elohim can be the one God of the Bible as well as the many gods of paganism. Indeed, Judeo-Christianity has often been used to justify capitalism, imperialism, and settler-colonialism.

Moloch’s “love is endless oil and stone!” Note the endless coveting of oil in the Middle East. This would have been evident to Ginsberg as early as 1953, when the coup d’état in Iran happened to protect British oil interests in the region. The indictment against capitalism continues in these words: “Moloch whose soul is electricity and banks!”

Note also that Moloch’s “poverty is the specter of genius!” By “genius,” we can easily read Communism, since European poverty in the mid-19th century inspired the spectre that was haunting the continent.

“Moloch in whom I sit lonely! Moloch in whom I dream Angels! Crazy in Moloch! Cocksucker in Moloch! Lacklove and manless in Moloch!” Again, Ginsberg addresses the problem of alienation caused by capitalism. He also explains in this long line how one resolves the contradiction between sinning and the pursuit of salvation. One “dream[s of] Angels” in a desperate attempt to escape Moloch’s inferno. Still, that very desperation, in finding the escape so impossible, causes one to go “Crazy in Moloch!”

Conservative society’s moralistic condemnation of homosexuality, something gay Ginsberg would have been more than usually sensitive to, reduced his form of sexual expression to mere pornographic language, hence “Cocksucker in Moloch!” Recall Senator Joseph McCarthy‘s vulgar homophobia when he said, back at a time when such language would have been far more shocking, “If you want to be against McCarthy, boys, you’ve got to be either a Communist or a cocksucker.” Of course, the taboo against homosexuality was so aggravated at the time that it would have been so much more difficult for LGBT people like Ginsberg to find love, hence “Lacklove and manless in Moloch!”

“Moloch…entered [his] soul early!” It brainwashed him as a child into thinking he needed to conform to the ways of a capitalist, heterosexual society. He’d later have to work to unlearn all of that poisonous conditioning. “Moloch…frightened [him] out of [his] natural ecstasy!” He had to “abandon” Moloch.

Moloch is an industrial capitalist world of “Robot apartments!” (Imagine how much more robotic they’re becoming now, in our world of smart cities, with AI surveillance.) The “blind capitals! demonic industries!…invincible madhouses!” [to be dealt with in the next part] “granite cocks! monstrous bombs!” are those of a capitalist state, far more totalitarian than a socialist one could ever be.

“They broke their backs lifting Moloch to heaven!” Those phallic skyscrapers are “granite cocks!” Moloch is “lifting the city to Heaven”, with these skyscrapers as Towers of Babel: this tireless, slavelike construction has confused our language, making us incapable of communicating with or understanding each other, more capitalist alienation.

The pain and Hell of Moloch’s Inferno, though, is also in close proximity, as I described above, with the Heaven, the Paradiso, to which the Beats were trying to escape. Hence, “Visions! omens! hallucinations! miracles! ecstasies!” One has mystical experiences of bliss and psychotic breaks from reality at the same time. One thus also has “Dreams! adorations! illuminations! religions! the whole boatload of sensitive bullshit!” One has “Breakthroughs!…flips and crucifixions!…Highs! Epiphanies! Despairs!…suicides!…Mad generation!”

Though this is the Hell of Moloch, there is also “Real holy laughter…!…the holy yells!” The “Howl! Howl! Howl!” of Hell leads to holiness, that passing from the bitten tail of the ouroboros to its biting head. To reach the very best, one must pass through the absolute worst.

Still, some tried to purge the Beats through the dubious mental institutions, and this is where we must go next…

IV: Part III of the Poem

This part of “Howl” is most directly addressed to Carl Solomon, to whom, recall, the entire poem is dedicated–this ‘Song of Solomon,’ if you will. Ginsberg met Solomon in a mental hospital in 1949; he calls it “Rockland” in the poem, though it was actually Columbia Presbyterian Psychological Institute. In fact, among Solomon’s many complaints about Ginsberg and “Howl” was his vehement insistence that he was “never in Rockland” and that this third part of the poem “garbles history completely.”

As much of a fabrication as “Rockland” is, though, we can indulge Ginsberg in a little poetic license. After all, “Rockland” has a much better literary ring to it than “Columbia Presbyterian Psychological Institute,” or “New York State Psychiatric Institute,” or even “Pilgrim Psychiatric Center,” this latter being another psychiatric hospital to which Solomon was admitted.

In any case, maybe the point isn’t so much about Ginsberg being literally, physically with Solomon in the correctly-named mental institution, but rather that the poet was with Solomon in spirit, in solidarity with him, in a metaphorically therapeutic state of being, a true purging of Solomon’s sin and pain, which Ginsberg called “Rockland.” As such, this ‘mental hospital,’ as it were, is the Purgatorio that the actual hospital could never have been. The actual hospital would have just pushed conformity onto Solomon. The solidarity of Ginsberg and the other Beats, being with Solomon “in Rockland,” is the real cure.

So as I see it, the refrain “I’m with you in Rockland” means that Ginsberg was in solidarity with Solomon in his process of mental convalescence, a far better healer than the best shrinks in his actual loony bin. Ginsberg’s love and friendship, as that of all the other Beats, is a therapy to make that of his doctors and nurses seem like wretched Ratcheds in comparison. This part of “Howl” is the Purgatorio because of the Beats, not because of the therapists.

Solomon is “madder than” Ginsberg is, in both senses: more insane, and so voluntarily in a mental institution that the poet is only visiting; and angrier, because of the conformist society he was so at odds with that he chose to be put in the institution.

Solomon “imitate[s] the shade of [Ginsberg’s] mother”, who also had mental health issues, and so Ginsberg’s love for her inspired his empathy for Solomon. Similar empathy can be seen between Ginsberg, Solomon, and all the other Beats, since they were all “great writers on the same dreadful typewriter”–the Beats tended to type, rather than write, their literary works. Recall the caustic words of Truman Capote about the Beats: It “isn’t writing at all–it’s typing.”

Recall how the first part of “Howl” had its lines ending in commas, making it one interminable sentence with only breaths to break it up. The second part had its thoughts ending in a plethora of exclamation marks…endless screaming about the agonies that Satanic Moloch was inflicting on all the Beats. In this third part, however, there are neither commas nor exclamation marks. No periods, parentheses, or dashes, either. There’s no punctuation at all, unless you count the apostrophe in “I’m”. This lack of an indication of pauses suggests a kind of rapid-fire speaking, a frantic dumping-out of words, a therapeutic release of feelings that have been pent up for far too long. Such expression is a true purging of pain.

Now, in direct contrast to this verbal purging, this Symbolic expression of the undifferentiated, ineffable Real, Solomon suffered from the staff of the mental hospitals and their bogus therapy. The “nurses [are] the harpies of the Bronx”. He would “scream in a straitjacket that [he was] losing the game of the actual pingpong of the abyss.” I assume that a pingpong table was provided in Solomon’s hospital, in an abortive attempt to allow the patients to enjoy themselves.

He would “bang on the catatonic piano”, trying and failing to express himself artistically on instruments presumably also provided by the hospital. The immobility of catatonia, a perfect metaphor for the lifelessness of the patients, results in discords ‘banged on the piano’ instead of flowing, expressive music.

One’s innocent soul “should never die ungodly in an armed madhouse […] where fifty more shocks will never return your soul to its body”. This, of course, is a reference to the particularly egregious practice of electroshock treatments for the mentally ill. Ginsberg felt that shock therapy robbed Solomon of his soul. This practice is critiqued in Ken Kesey‘s One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest.

Solomon would “accuse [his] doctors of insanity”, given such truly psychopathic practices as described in the previous paragraph. Indeed, this Purgatorio of Ginsberg’s poem, set in a mental institution, is ironic in how the opposite of purgatory occurs here, where a restoration to mental health is expected, while the friendship and solidarity Ginsberg has with Solomon is the real cure.

Ginsberg and Solomon, both Jews, would “plot the Hebrew socialist revolution against the fascist national Golgotha”, the American political establishment of the 1950s that was right-wing and, ironically, Christian. American imperialism crushes revolutionaries just as Roman imperialism crucified Christ. The Rockland “comrades [will be] all together singing the final stanzas of the Internationale.”

The American government, whose FBI and CIA were monitoring men like Ginsberg in the 1950s for their subversive activities, “coughs all night and won’t let [them] sleep”.

Their “souls’ airplanes” will “drop angelic bombs”, and the “imaginary walls” of the hospital will “collapse”. The “skinny legions” thus can “run outside […] O victory forget your underwear we’re free”. As I said above, the true healing from mental illness will come outside of the mental institutions, not inside them. Without underwear, the freed inmates will be naked, allowed to be their true selves, with no need to cover up who they really are.

Solomon thus will go “on the highway across America in tears to the door of [Ginsberg’s] cottage”. This cottage will be the locale of restoration to mental health that the loony bins could never be. His cottage will be the real purgatory, cleansing all the Beats of their sins and readying them for Heaven, for Ginsberg’s Paradiso, which is…

V: Footnote to Howl

Allegedly, Ginsberg stated in the Dedication that he took the title for the poem from Kerouac. I still believe, however, that the title for “Howl” was inspired, whether in the conscious or unconscious of Ginsberg or Kerouac, by Lear’s repeated cry of “Howl!” over Cordelia’s death.

I insist on this allusion in part because of how the “footnote” begins, with its uttering of “Holy!” fifteen times. On the one hand, “Holy!” can be heard as a pun on “Howl!” On the other hand, “Holy!” is the dialectical opposite of “Howl!” It is yet another instance of the Heaven/Hell dialectic that permeates the entire poem.

This repetition of “Holy!” implies the repetition of the title, just as Lear repeated the word four times.

Like the second part, the ‘footnote’ ends each statement with an exclamation point. The second part, with its Satanic Moloch, is like the Centre of Hell in its Ninth Circle, as depicted by Dante in his Inferno. This area is the worst part of Hell, where Satan is trapped waist-deep in ice, his three faces’ mouths feasting on Brutus, Cassius, and Judas Iscariot.

My point is that the same punctuation is used in the very worst and best places in “Howl.” Here is where the bitten tail of the ouroboros, where Satan’s mouths are feasting, leads immediately to the serpent’s biting head of Heaven, Ginsberg’s Paradiso. The exclamation points represent screams of horror in the “Moloch” part, and screams of joy in this “Holy!” footnote.

“Everything is holy!” to Ginsberg. “The world is holy! The soul is holy!” As a convert to Buddhism, following such Mahayana forms as Tibetan Buddhism, Ginsberg would have understood the unity of samsara and nirvana. So while all life is suffering, or the duhkha of samsara, it’s all manifestations of Buddha-consciousness, too, or “Holy!” Once again, Heaven and Hell are unified.

Even the ‘sinful’ or dirty parts of the body are holy: “The tongue and cock and hand and asshole holy!” Furthermore, “everybody’s holy! everywhere is holy!”

“The bum’s as holy as the seraphim! the madman is holy as you my soul are holy!” People from the lowest ranks of society to the highest orders of angels are of equal worth, the greatest worth…holy!

The typewriter may have been “dreadful” back in the third part of “Howl,” but here it’s holy, as “the poem is holy”. Of course, the Beats are holy, including Ginsberg himself, Solomon, Kerouac, Burroughs, and Cassady, “the unknown buggered and suffering beggars holy the hideous human angels!”

Ginsberg must also acknowledge the sanctity of his “mother in the insane asylum!” He similarly praises the sanctity of “the groaning saxophone!…the bop apocalypse! Holy the jazzbands marijuana hipsters peace peyote pipes and drums!”

While he condemned the skyscrapers of Moloch in the second part, here he sees them as holy, as well as the solitude of alienation he called evil earlier. The “mysterious rivers of tears under the streets!” are also holy. What is painful is also divine. Heaven and Hell are one. So the “lone juggernaut,” a Hindu god whose worship was once believed in the West to involve religious fanatics throwing themselves before its idol’s chariot, to be crushed under its wheels, is actually holy and good.

“Holy the vast lamb of the middleclass!” The petite bourgeoisie of 1950s American would still have been predominantly Christian, of the Lamb of God, and thus disapproving of Ginsberg’s homosexuality, but he deems them holy nonetheless, as he does “the crazy shepherds of rebellion!” And since Jesus was “the good Shepherd,” we can see in these “shepherds of rebellion” another paradox of conformist Christian with rebellious Beats.

He praises as holy many cities of the world, including New York, San Francisco, Paris, Tangiers, Moscow, and Istanbul, reinforcing the sense of a pantheistic universe.

Ginsberg, as a gay activist and socialist, was somewhat disenchanted with, for example, the social conservatism he saw in Cuba and its persecution of homosexuals in the mid-1960s, as well as with China, who turned against him as a “troublemaker,” and with Czechoslovakia’s arresting him for drug use. Because of these kinds of disappointments (these above examples having happened long after the writing and publication of “Howl,” of course, but still illustrative of the general kind of disillusion he must have already felt toward the, for him, insufficiently progressive Third International), he spoke of a “fifth International” as holy.

Note also “holy the Angel in Moloch!” Once again, we see the dialectic of Heaven and Hell, of angels and devils, and of nirvana and samsara. Similarly, the sea and the desert are holy, visions and hallucinations are holy, miracles and the abyss are holy, and “forgiveness! mercy! charity! faith!…suffering! magnanimity!” are holy.

Finally, the “intelligent kindness of the soul!” is holy.

VI: Conclusion

What makes “Howl” a great work of literature, like any great literature, is its embrace of the All. The dialectical unity of opposites is a kind of shorthand for expressing the universal in its infinite complexity. Such merisms as “the heavens and the earth” or “good and evil” are unions of opposites as a quick way of including everything between them, like the eternity of the cyclical ouroboros. The unified Heaven and Hell of “Howl” thus include everything between them, too.

Howling is holy, and vice versa.

Analysis of ‘Payback’

Payback is a 1999 neonoir film directed by Brian Helgeland, written by him, with rewrites for the theatrical release by Terry Hayes. The film is based on the 1962 novel, The Hunter, by Donald E. Westlake, writing under the pseudonym of Richard Stark; this novel had earlier been adapted into the 1967 film, Point Blank.

Payback stars Mel Gibson, with Gregg Henry, Maria Bello, Lucy Liu, Deborah Kara Unger, David Paymer, Bill Duke, William Devane, James Coburn, Kris Kristofferson, and John Glover.

There are actually two substantially different versions of this movie, with different colour grading, different soundtracks, and most importantly, with completely reshot third acts, leading to totally different endings. The test screenings for the film, right after it wrapped, didn’t yield a positive result. It was felt to be excessively dark and violent, with a wife beating, a shot dog, and other characters killed in cold blood.

A more crowd-pleasing version was wanted, so Helgeland was out, Hayes’s rewrites were made, and the central villain–done in a voice-over by Sally Kellerman–was replaced by Kristofferson (both seen and heard), while removing the objectionable parts mentioned above and adding a voice-over narration by Gibson.

Helgeland’s version–the director’s cut–is called Payback: Straight Up, and it was released on DVD, Blu-ray, and HD DVD in 2007. According to The A.V. Club, Straight Up is “a marked improvement on the unrulier original.” Indeed, the theatrical release was not all that well received, and with the generally better critical reception of the director’s cut–which has a darker, more ambiguous ending–one realizes that the reaction of the test-screen audience perhaps should not have been taken too much to heart.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, here is a link to the director’s cut, and here is a link to a PDF of The Hunter. I’ll be comparing both film versions and the plot of the novel.

The main theme of the film is, most obviously, theft, since it’s not just the $70,000 cut that Porter (Gibson–Parker in the novel, who is double-crossed out of $45,000) loses after being double-crossed by his heist partners, Val Resnick (Henry–Mal Resnick in the novel) and Porter’s wife, Lynn (Unger). They’ve stolen the total amount of money from a rival Chinese mafia organization. Porter’s wish to get his $70,000 back from “the Outfit,” a powerful mafia organization Val has given the money to so he can rejoin them after having been kicked out for committing a blunder, is seen by the Outfit as a theft in itself.

Since the film deals with a number of mafia organizations, as well as two corrupt cops (Detectives Hicks and Leary, respectively played by Duke and Jack Conley), and since I have a habit of seeing mafia as representative of competing capitalists, we can see how the alienating, dog-eat-dog world of Payback is allegorical of our own, oh-so-troubled times.

When we don’t have solidarity among the working class, united in their struggle for liberation from capitalist exploitation, those very common people end up attacking each other, fighting with each other, hurting each other. Such is the kind of dog-eat-dog-world we see in Payback.

The theatrical release begins with a scene in a room where a doctor…or sorts…removes bullets from Porter’s back–bullets put there by Lynn during the double-crossing. Because Porter is a professional thief, and therefore would be tracked by the cops if he went to a hospital, he has to resort to this kind of low-quality ‘healthcare.’

The novel begins with Parker as a penniless, shabbily-dressed drifter (one might remember young Hitler during his destitute days…I’ll go into why I’m making this comparison later) crossing the George Washington Bridge into Manhattan and bent on getting his money back. The beginning of the director’s cut is similar (since it’s far more faithful in general to the novel), and after the crossing of the bridge, Porter comes out of a train station that looks like the one at the end of this film version, where he again gets shot, and he needs Rosie (Bello) to drive him to that ‘doctor’ before he dies, thus making the plot of the director’s cut come full circle.

Since The Outfit, as I see it, represents the capitalist system (an idea that can be seen more vividly in the novel, when it’s described as having branches all over the US–in New York City and Chicago, for example–and how it grew from the old Prohibition days into a corporation with an outer veneer of legitimacy, to keep the cops away), and violent, criminal types like Porter/Parker and Val/Mal work sometimes inside (the latter), and sometimes if not always (the former) outside of The Outfit, these two men can be seen to personify fascism in its different aspects.

If that observation seems odd to you, Dear Reader, let me elaborate.

Neither of these men are concerned with how the exploitative, hierarchical structure of capitalism as represented in The Outfit is harmful to the world’s most vulnerable…as fascists aren’t concerned with it, either. Val/Mal wants into the system in order to enjoy its perks (just as Hitler enjoyed the backing of big business to help him come to power). Porter/Parker is only concerned with getting back the money he was cheated from; since Val/Mal gave his stolen share to The Outfit, Porter/Parker wants them to give it back to him…and he’ll kill anyone who stands in his way.

Naturally, The Outfit doesn’t want to part with $70,000, so their top brass refuse to give Porter ‘his money.’ This refusal is similar to how the Western imperialist powers didn’t want to cede such territory as Poland to Nazi Germany, who wanted their piece of the pie…hence the Nazi invasion of Poland started the inter-imperialist WWII.

Remember that what our protagonist wants back is something he himself helped to steal…just as Nazi Germany ‘took back’ Poland, some of which (West Prussia and Silesia) was once part of the German Empire before it was lost at the end of WWI. This land was felt to have been ‘stolen’ from Germany, and the Nazis used all violence imaginable to get it back, as Porter does.

Like fascists, he couldn’t care less about the suffering of the poor; he just wants to bring himself out of pennilessness and back into wearing stylish suits as quickly as possible, like the petite bourgeoisie, who often side with fascism, especially if they lose power to the haute bourgeoisie (whom The Outfit could be seen to personify). At the beginning of the film, Porter steals paper money from a homeless man, justifying his theft (in the theatrical release, significantly) by noting that the homeless man is faking his lameness. There’s to be no sympathy for the destitute if they aren’t disabled, apparently. Those are neoliberal values for you.

The theatrical version changed the film to make Porter more likable, in spite of the fact that he’s hardly less sociopathic than Val…or your average fascist, for that matter. The scene of Porter fighting with and beating Lynn in her kitchen was removed, as was his killing, near the end of the film, of an Outfit soldier in cold blood in a truck for speaking to Rosie as if she were a mere whore.

But even without these scenes, Porter is still a nasty piece of work. He kicks Lynn’s apartment door in while her back is to it; she’s pushed into a wall, knocking the wind out of her. There’s all of his other, unfeeling violence, all just to get $70,000, which keeps being mistakenly thought to be $130,000. The very tagline of the theatrical release is “get ready to root for the bad guy.”

The crucial difference to be found between the theatrical release and the director’s cut is that the latter presents a dark, gritty world that is so harsh that one cannot watch it without thinking there’s something unacceptably wrong with it…it’s implicitly a social critique…whereas the former–with its more sympathetic Porter–makes his violence seem ‘hip.’ It’s significant that this glamourizing of sociopathic Porter should be in a film from the late 1990s, by which time the replacement of welfare capitalism with the neoliberal ‘free market’ variety had been firmly established.

You see, Porter demonstrates a kind of ‘triumph of the will’ that we’ve already seen in Conan the Barbarian. There’s a message advocating an acceptance of this kind of colder- and colder-blooded competition that has insidiously crept into otherwise mainstream liberal Hollywood movies, implicitly encouraging viewers to adopt the same unfeeling attitude.

First, we make it ‘cool’ and ‘badass’ to show a macho man killing and killing to get what he wants–in this case, seventy grand. Then, we make it hip to use racial slurs, as Tarantino did, and as we hear Val doing, calling the Chinese mafia “chows” and “fuckin’ slants!” All we need is for economic times to be hard–symbolically expressed in scruffy, penniless Porter itching to get his $70,000 at the film’s beginning–while one never challenges the capitalist system that caused these problems, of course, and the stage is set for fascist violence to come in.

After ripping off the homeless guy, Porter surveys the busy sidewalks to find a man who looks similar enough to him for a photo ID he can fake as being of himself. He finds a suitable guy, bumps into him and apologizes, brushing his suit to distract him while pickpocketing his wallet. As we can see, the theatrical release glamourizes a thief and killer, ruthlessly stopping at nothing to get ‘his’ money, whereas the director’s cut presents him as such not to make him seem ‘cool,’ but as an implicit social commentary, a dark one, meant to raise eyebrows.

Just before the wife-beating, Lynn tells Porter that Val has arranged to pay her rent, just as in the novel, Mal does this for her in return for a sexual relationship with her. Resnick has stolen far more than just money from our prickly protagonist.

In the film, a far better motive is given to Lynn to double-cross and kill Porter than is given in the novel: she thinks he has been having an affair with Rosie (which he claims happened before he met Lynn). In the novel, Mal threatens to kill her if she doesn’t shoot Parker…because he’s too much of a coward to do his dirty work himself.

Val, even more overtly violent than Porter, enjoys beating women–prostitutes in particular, suggesting a…shall we say, Joy Division mentality about them?–and has a racist attitude, at least towards Asians. His favorite prostitute is the S-and-M-leaning Pearl (Liu), who is linked with the Chinese mafia, and with whom he trades punches. One is reminded of Freud‘s comment: “A sadist is always at the same time a masochist.” Val utterly personifies fascism.

As I mentioned above, he stole Porter’s cut to buy his way back into The Outfit, which as I also mentioned above, represents capitalism in its more presentable form. There are different levels of viciousness in capitalism. When economic times are good, capitalism can pretend to be democratic; when they’re bad, the democratic mask falls off, and the ugly, violent face of fascism shows itself.

Val represents the kind of fascist who wants to hide in, and get the benefits of, capitalism’s respectability in the form of The Outfit. Porter, however, represents the kind of fascist who sees through the phony masquerade of The Outfit and the capitalism it represents, so he’d rather work outside of it, even butting heads with it, if necessary.

A middle-man between Val and Lynn’s seller of drugs is Arthur Stegman (Paymer), who also owns a taxicab operation (in the novel, the Rockaway Car Rental). As with the ‘legitimacy’ of The Outfit, Stegman’s cab business is the respectable one he, as a dealer of drugs like the heroin Lynn has ODed on, hides behind (in the novel, she kills herself by ODing on sleeping pills).

The point I’m trying to make–about the outer mask of respectability we have in capitalism (The Outfit, Stegman’s cab company) vs. the naked aggression of fascism as personified in Porter and Val–is that we shouldn’t have any illusions about the former as being somehow contrasted against the latter. To many of you readers, the point may be too obvious to need to be said; but remember that, as of my writing of this article, millions of Americans are voting for Harris or Trump, fully believing that who they’re voting for are acting in their interests.

Recall that quote by Frank Zappa–who was no supporter of socialism, yet nonetheless had no illusions about the American political and economic system he lived in–about how the illusion of freedom will last only as long as it remains profitable to do so. Once that illusion is too expensive to maintain (as it has been for several decades now), it will be removed, and we will see the naked reality of our hierarchical system based on money and power, and given expression in the form of fascism.

When the comfortable life of liberals is safe and intact, they can pretend to be magnanimous and gracious. When their class privileges are in any way threatened, though, they show their true, violent colours. Val, in the comfort and discreetness of his Outfit hotel room, can hide his sadism with Pearl. When he’s been told by Stegman at a restaurant that Porter is alive and well and presumably wants to kill Val, he shows how nasty he’s capable of being right out in public, right out in the open.

He’s speaking out loud at his table, with no regard for the other patrons. He speaks of having Porter killed for sure, again, loud enough for everyone to hear and not caring at all about it. He even threatens another customer, walking right up to his table, for merely looking at him.

When Val goes to see Carter (Devane), a superior to him in The Outfit, he’s all deferential, because of course he has to be. He’s hoping for help from Carter, but now that Carter’s class interests are also being compromised (as are those of The Outfit in general) by Porter’s visit to Val’s room the night before, Carter not only won’t help Val at all with doing away with Porter, he also wants Val to move out of the hotel, not coming back until he’s removed Porter all by himself (the same thing happens to Mal in the novel). The liberal in Carter has shown his true colours, too. There is to be no more “unpleasantness” from Porter at the hotel.

In the director’s cut, Val is standing outside The Outfit building, angry about having been cut loose from them. He shouts that to do something right, one must do it oneself; then, facing and gesturing to the two US flags by the front doors of the building, he shouts, “It’s the American way!”

Once again, this moment seems to demonstrate Helgeland’s original intentions for Payback, the implied critique of capitalism. When you’re in a bad situation as Val is, those in power won’t help you. You have to deal with the problem yourself–no government handouts, for that would be ‘vile socialism.’ Val is so brainwashed by American capitalist ideology, though, that he won’t even admit that the system is screwing him, knowing full well how screwed by it he is.

After all, it’s the American way. Long live the free market!

He has a racist attitude towards the Chinese (and presumably by extension, towards Asians in general), but this doesn’t mean he won’t enlist their help in killing Porter for him. It’s just as when the Nazis, though regarding the Japanese as racially inferior to them, nonetheless were content to have them in the Axis to keep the Americans occupied during WWII. Politics makes strange bedfellows, and Val has to make do with what little he has.

Though he helped Porter rip off the Chinese mafia, he’s enough of a snake to blame the entire robbery on Porter in order to motivate them to kill him and have their satisfaction in him alone. Unfortunately for Val, though, those two cops intervene just in time to scare the Chinese mafia away.

Now, Detectives Leary and Hicks are thoroughly corrupt, willing to be bought off by Stegman for selling heroin, as well as to save Porter from being charged with the killing of Lynn, etc. (i.e., by having Porter give them the $70,000); but that doesn’t mean they’ll let Val and the Chinese mafia finish off Porter after running into him with their car.

You see, Leary and Hicks represent the kind of capitalism in which the government intervenes, as opposed to the theoretical ‘free market’ capitalism as represented in the lawless Chinese mafia and The Outfit. Just as these two cops will extort money from Porter or Stegman, the state will gladly take cash gifts from capitalists, be they liberal, moderately conservative, or fascist in ideology, in exchange for government protection. Only right-wing libertarians and their extreme, deluded version–‘anarcho’- capitalists–entertain the fantasy that the state and the market are mutually exclusive, and that an unholy alliance between the two cannot be ‘true’ capitalism, but is ‘corporatism’ instead.

Leary and Hicks are a rewrite of cops in the novel who, investigating a shop-owner named Delgardo for moving marijuana from Canada into the States, suspect that Parker is in on the drug-dealing, too (Part III, Chapter 1). In the, to be frank, rather anti-climactic ending of the novel, Parker manages to get his money with minimal difficulty, as opposed to the bloody injuries Porter sustains in both the theatrical release and the director’s cut.

The cops in the novel, however, being incorruptible types compared to Leary and Hicks, finger Porter for helping Delgardo to move the marijuana into the country (Part IV, Chapter 4), and while he manages to get away from the cops, he flees with the wrong baggage, one with clothes rather than the one with the money. The novel ends with him, having enlisted the aid of three men, ripping off The Outfit again, but for a smaller sum of money.

While Parker kicks the asses of the cops in order to escape them in the novel, in the film, Porter plans to frame Hicks and Leary for his killing of Val; he does so by stealing Hicks’s badge, tricking Leary into getting his fingerprints all over the pistol he’s used to put a bullet in Val’s head, and putting Hicks’s badge in the hand of Val’s corpse.

In the novel, Parker needs Rose only to get an address so he can find Mal. In the film, Porter does more than that with her: he revives a relationship with Rosie, now that Lynn is dead. When killing Val, after learning that he needs to contact Carter and Fairfax (Coburn) about getting his money, he saves her from a brutal rape in her apartment. (In the director’s cut, he arrives too late, unfortunately, to stop Val from shooting and killing her dog.)

When Porter goes to Carter’s office, we come to the greatest divergence between the theatrical release and the director’s cut: the identity of the film’s central villain–respectively, Mr. Bronson (Kristofferson) and Ms. Bronson (Kellerman, in voice-over). Since we only hear her voice and never see her, this lends her a fascinating aura of mystery: she’s like a vengeful mother goddess after Porter has shot Carter.

Though I tend to prefer the soundtrack of the theatrical release, with the five-note, chromatic sax ostinato of its main title, I must say that I prefer the darker, more ambiguous ending of Helgeland’s version to the crowd-pleasing, raised-stakes version with Kristofferson, as superficially thrilling as it is. Hence, I’ll deal with the director’s cut ending.

Having not only a woman as the head of the mafia Outfit, but also a woman who surprises and shoots Porter at the train station, the director’s cut ending defies the stereotype of the ‘innocent woman’ vs. the necessarily male villain. This ending, though closer to the novel version (i.e., the payoff happens at a subway station–Part IV, towards the end of Chapter 3), also improves on its disappointingly anti-climactic denouement.

Helgeland’s ending can also be seen to reflect the relationship between fascism (as personified in cold-blooded killer Porter and sadistic Val) and the mainstream imperial ruling class (The Outfit). As Carter has observed, the sadism of Val “comes in handy,” but anyone…anyone…who causes trouble for The Outfit must be removed–either kicked out of the hotel (Val), or killed (Porter).

Similarly, the ruling class has always found fascists to be useful in beating the working class into submission; hence, for example, when Hitler was allowed to take the Sudetenland and encouraged to go east and invade the USSR. When he and Mussolini started to move in on such territory as that of the British Empire, though, they were making themselves into troublemakers of a sort that Porter could be seen to represent, with his fascist-like bent towards violence.

Hence, the violent, he-who-lives-by-the-bullet-shall…die?…by-the-bullet, fate of Porter is comparable to the crushing defeat of Hitler and Mussolini by the end of WWII. The two dictators died…as Porter just might die…but their fascist legacy lived on, through Operations Paperclip and NATO-backed Gladio, Western support of Ukrainian Nazi sympathizers to this day, etc.–as Porter just might survive.