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.

The Tanah–Beginnings, Chapter Nine

[The following is the tenth of many posts–here is the first, here is the second, here is the third, here is the fourth, here is the fifth, here is the sixth, here is the seventh, here is the eighth, and here is the ninth–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]

Rawmios, now forty years old, went to the city of Lumios wearing his black silk coat. There he found five followers, eager to hear his teachings. They were two men of the ages of thirty-four and thirty-two, a woman aged thirty-five, a boy aged fourteen, and a girl aged thirteen.

They went to a park and sat on a small hill there. Standing at the top of the hill, Rawmios began teaching.

“The whole universe, and everyone and everything in it, is like a huge ocean extending everywhere,” he began. “We are all drops of water in that endless ocean, all united. Our fortunes are like the waves, ever rising and falling. When they rise, we must beware of the coming troughs; when they fall, we must be patient, waiting for the coming crests. Sometimes the crests and troughs come quickly, sometimes slowly, but they will come.

“We drops of water are not separate from each other: we’re all as one. Our joys and sorrows are all as one, too, but we forget that. Remembering our togetherness makes us selfless; forgetting makes us selfish.

“No time is more important than now, for now is the only temporal reality. We must use now in the best way possible.

“These Three Unities, of space, time, and action, rule the world. If we live by their laws, we will be happy. If we forget them, we will be sorrowful. Remembering how all of us–man, animal, and plant–are one, and that our joys and sorrows are one, will teach us to be kind, giving, caring, and thoughtful to each other. Forgetting our oneness will make us cruel, greedy, selfish, and uncaring.

“Caring and kindness beget happiness; selfishness and cruelty beget suffering. Remembering to use now wisely brings the most out of us; forgetting to use now, by brooding over the past and worrying about the future, brings the least out of us. Remembering that good actions from us send out waves of good that will return good to us; forgetting this, and sending out ripples of evil in our sinful actions, brings those evil ripples back to us.

“Remembering that good fortunes will pass away teaches us to be prepared for difficulty, thus reducing its pain; forgetting this makes the pain sharper. Remembering that ill fortune will end teaches us to be patient, thus reducing our pain; forgetting this makes the pain more stinging.

“Do not just learn my teachings,” Rawmios concluded. “Remember them.”

The youngest of his five followers, the girl Zilas, asked him, “How can I rid myself of the pain my mother gives me? She calls me ‘ugly’ and ‘plain.’ She says I must marry the first man who asks me, for few will ever ask me.”

To this Rawmios said, “Her words are lies. Do not believe them. You are not an ugly girl. If your mother does not stop lying to you, you must leave her as soon as you can take care of yourself, but no sooner.”

Next, the boy, Dolnyeros, spoke: “What you say is wise, but new and different from what I was taught. My father told me never to trust any teachings other than what I have learned.”

Rawmios said, “His words are lies. Do not believe them. Wisdom’s details always change in time, though the basic truths stay the same. What I teach is the same wisdom as before, only I use new words. Do not honour your father’s bigotry.”

Next, the woman Yatacas said, “I have a younger brother who shows no love or caring in my family. I get angry with him and chide him for this, but he still doesn’t change.”

Rawmios said, “Probably your anger and chiding are what make him show no love. One cannot even make a show of love; it must be real, from the heart.”

Then the younger man, Noigos, spoke to Rawmios. “I, too, have a younger brother who frustrates me. He shows no concern for the needs of others. I get angry and push him to do better, but he won’t heed me.”

The teacher said, “Again, your anger and pushing are probably what make him withdraw. Maybe he shows no concern, but still has concern. It is better to have goodness than merely to show it.”

Finally, the man Dolhonyeros, the oldest of the five followers, spoke: “My father was disappointed with my capacities, and spoke cruelly to me for years. He has seen improvements in me since then, and he is now loving to me. Still, I have this rage inside me, and I shout cruelly at my stepson whenever he disappoints me. I know I should not, but I cannot stop it.”

Rawmios said, “Your anger should be directed at your father, not your stepson.”

“But I must honour my father,” the man insisted.

Rawmios explained, “The five of you remind me so much of my own family. I see their folly reflected back at me through your troubles. The Fifth Error is family fighting, not confessing the faults of our parents. Mothers and fathers are not gods; they are frail human beings, susceptible to the same weaknesses as everyone else. To see these faults in our parents–when the faults are evident–is not to dishonour our parents. Far more dishonourable it is to deceive ourselves about their strengths or weaknesses than it is to acknowledge them. Admit that your father’s excesses were wrong, admit that your own excesses against your stepson are wrong, and you can begin to tame your rage against both of them.”

Rawmios continued with his teachings to all five of them: “Families can be a bright beacon of light for us, or they can be a void of darkness. If our families are the former, teachers like me are not needed. If our families are the latter, they are a sickness to be cured of, and to be avoided. It is no sin to guard oneself against an infection. By avoiding a wicked family, or husband, or wife, one isn’t fighting them: one is protecting oneself. Therefore, this avoidance is no error.”

Dolnyeros spoke again, “What you say is wise, but I fear you are introducing new gods, false gods, to us.”

“I am introducing no gods at all,” the teacher answered. “Nor am I denying any of the old gods. I am not interested in speculating about any god or gods. You may hear my words and still follow your religion, or no religion, if you wish.”

Soon after, the five followers spread the word about the man in the black silk coat, and about his teachings. Many more people now followed the man, and learned from him. He became a voice of inspiration to thousands.

Commentary

Rawmios’ five followers uncannily resemble the five members of his family. Their bitter words mirror the abuse he suffered from his family. He learned that his family’s teachings were lies, and now his teachers, as it were, have become his learners.

This is the way of the world: the Unity of Action shows us the close, dialectical relationship between all the pairs of opposites–teacher and student, good and evil, wisdom and folly. This relationship can be seen in the symbol of the serpent biting its tail, or in the symbol of the undulating water of the ocean, with its crests and troughs.

The crests and troughs image also reflects the Hindu and Buddhist idea of karma, or as it says in the Bible, that we reap what we sow. All of this is part of the Unity of Action.

Here is yet another poem reflecting this teaching, given again in a visual, concrete poem form.

………self……………………….the past
The………..and………souls,……………and
……………………other…………………………..future,

………all good………………….teachers
and……………..and…….even…………….and
………………………..evil,…………………………..learners

…………contraries………………………..the surfaces:
aren’t……………….but………….under……………………look
……………………………..unified……………………………………inside,

……..black………………………………and you
so……………and……….have grey,……………and…..are we.
……………………..white…………………………………..I

The crests………………………………move–they
………………and…………..of waves………………..are not
…………………… troughs………………………………………..rigid.

……………………before……………………nothing,
What’s called………….and…………is……………..for now
…………………………………….after……………………………….is all.

……summer,………………………………..night,
In………………prepare………………..at…………wait for
……………………………..for winter;…………………………..the day.

Analysis of ‘Larks’ Tongues in Aspic,’ ‘Starless and Bible Black,’ and ‘Red’

I: Introduction

As I did with my analysis of Discipline, Beat, and Three of a Perfect Pair, I’m doing another trio of King Crimson albums here. And just as the 1980s lineup of leader/guitarist Robert Fripp, guitarist/singer/lyricist Adrian Belew, Stick-man/bassist/back-up singer Tony Levin, and drummer Bill Bruford was one of the very best versions of King Crimson (and I’m far from being alone in this opinion), so was this early 1970s era’s lineup, including core members Fripp, Bruford, and bassist/singer John Wetton one of the very best versions of the mighty Crims (and again, I’m far from being alone in that opinion).

This early 70s era of King Crimson was far more stable than that of the first four albums (which include, of course, In the Court of the Crimson King and In the Wake of Poseidon), which typically saw around half of the band members replaced from studio album to studio album. Instead, from late 1972 to about the beginning of the fall of 1974 (when Fripp broke up the band), this version of King Crimson could be described as ‘the incredible shrinking band,’ initially existing as a quintet consisting of Fripp, Wetton, Bruford, David Cross (violin, viola, Mellotron, Hohner Pianet, and occasional flute), and Jamie Muir (percussion and random noise-makers); for Muir would quit after the recording of Larks’ Tongues in Aspic in early 1973 to join a Buddhist monastery, and Cross would be fired in mid-1974, after the release of Starless and Bible Black and its ensuing tour.

Instead of Peter Sinfield, who wrote King Crimson’s lyrics for the first four albums, and was gone by the time of the band’s first live album, Earthbound, the lyrics of these three albums were largely written by Richard Palmer-James, a guitarist and singer on Supertramp‘s debut album.

Though, as I said above, this era’s lineup was more stable than those of the first four King Crimson albums, I suspect that Fripp was greatly affected emotionally by that ongoing revolving door of personnel changes, perhaps even a bit traumatized by all the stress of having to deal with it. I suspect that he was expecting, early on, that this new band would also fall apart in short order, since there’s a sense in the song, “Starless,” from Red and played in gigs with Cross earlier, that the song’s topic of an ending friendship is a kind of metaphor for a premonition of the band’s imminent break-up.

This sense of loss and impermanence, feared by Fripp perhaps even as early as the release of LTIA (with Muir’s quitting so soon after the album’s completion, and thus confirming, to some extent, Fripp’s fears), is something that I see as relatable to certain Buddhist ideas. In fact, just as I saw a triadic theme of the Hegelian dialectic in the three 1980s King Crimson albums, so do I see a triadic theme in LTIA, S&BB, and Red, a theme centred on the Buddhist concept of the three poisons: rāga, or attachment (LTIA), dveșa, or aversion (S&BB), and moha, or delusion (Red).

II: Larks’ Tongues in Aspic

Apart from the mellower “Book of Saturday,” “Exiles,” and the softer sections of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part One,” we can hear on this album a departure from the daintier, woodwind-oriented, and more structured music of the first four albums…though live albums from the first era, including Earthbound, did demonstrate a significant amount of improvisation. Still, this next era of King Crimson will have decidedly more improvisation, particularly of a European, free improvisational style. The music also grew noticeably darker in tone.

The title for the first and last instrumentals of the album, as well as the name of the album itself, was thought of by Muir, whose eccentric choices in percussion noises (including chimes, bells, musical saw, shakers, rattles, and such found objects as sheet metal) are evident in both of those tracks. Fripp found the title apt, saying that it is “something precious which is stuck, but visible…precious, [and] encased in form.” Bruford once claimed that Part One’s soft middle section, with Cross’s violin and Muir’s zither, is the “lark’s tongue” in the middle of the “aspic” that is the wildness of the rest of the music.

As for my personal thoughts on any possible meaning for the title of these two instrumentals and the album, I discussed in my analysis of Part III in Three of a Perfect Pair (link above) that the delicacy depicted in the title brings to mind the killing of animals for food, turning a part of the birds’ bodies into a commodity (ancient Romans, especially the wealthy, ate larks’ tongues as a delicacy and as a symbol of extravagance). This idea ties in with a recurring theme in a number of King Crimson songs, that of capitalist consumerism and materialism. This idea also ties in with the dominant theme, as I see it, of this album–rāga, or desire, lust, attachment.

In connection with this notion of lust or desire, we can see in the cover of Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, with the blue crescent moon united with the sun, an idea that would later find its variation on the cover of Three of a Perfect Pair: the (sexual) union of the male and female principles–the feminine moon and masculine sun, and the phallus and yoni of the later album cover.

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part One

The opening instrumental begins with Muir playing a tune on a mbira, or African thumb piano. The music is very soft here, but it will get much louder later. Behind the mbira, you can hear other percussion instruments–glockenspiel, rattling metal, etc.–and Cross playing two As, an E, and an F-sharp high on the violin, over and over again, in 6/8. The metal shaking gets louder and predominant as the glockenspiel, violin, and eventually the mbira all fade out, leaving only the shaking of metal in the end.

The next section begins with a C minor staccato violin ostinato of simultaneous two-note intervals (sometimes minor thirds, sometimes octaves, etc.) in 5/4 time. These intervals tend to rise chromatically in threes while Fripp is playing eerie chromatic descensions on his guitar, put through distortion.

The tension builds, with a snare drum roll by Bruford, then I have to turn the volume down, because the music gets really loud here. Fripp and Wetton are playing a six-note riff mainly in 7/4, sounding like an early example of prog metal.

Then the music goes back to the staccato violin part in 5/4, though live versions of “Larks’ One” tend to have Fripp play this part here, as he does in the coda, with Cross playing the violin part he plays in the coda. Hearing this latter violin part, with the eerie chromatic descension on Wetton’s distorted wah-wah bass, now makes a lot more harmonic sense.

Another drum roll leads into the ‘prog-metal’ riff again. Next comes a passage with Fripp playing dissonant, quick arpeggios abounding in tritones and shifting in and out of tonality. He originally wrote this part with the Islands lineup of Boz Burrell on bass and vocals, Ian Wallace on drums, and Mel Collins on saxes and flute, recorded as “A Peacemaking Stint Unrolls.” In Larks’, however, the guitar part is backed with the band playing in 7/4, with eighth notes subdividing the metre as 3+3+4+4.

The next passage is a frenetic one with Muir bashing away on all kinds of percussion instruments, Wetton playing more distorted, wah-wah bass, and Fripp playing his trademark screaming phrases, his chords growing dissonant by the end of the passage.

After this mayhem comes the aforementioned subdued centre of the instrumental, the “lark’s tongue” in the “aspic,” also called the “water section” by Muir, with him on zither (or autoharp, if you prefer) and Cross on violin. Towards the end of this section, it almost sounds Asian, Japanese. Then we come to the coda.

This final section is a variation on the 5/4 part leading up to the snare drum roll. This part invariably has Fripp playing what was originally Cross’s staccato violin part, but there isn’t the eerie chromatic descension on the bass.

Instead of that eerie part, indeed, replacing it, is recorded voices–first, a discussion of someone convicted of murder who is to be hanged, this death sentence mentioned right at the drum roll; then, we hear Bruford, Cross, and Muir reciting magazine passages, their words unintelligible, while we hear the band playing something peaceful in G major.

Fripp is playing chord arpeggios, Wetton is playing more wah-wah bass, Cross is playing a violin melody of G, G-flat, and D, then B-flat, A, and D (an octave lower than the first D), and the glockenspiel can be heard finishing off the instrumental.

I’ve mentioned that rāga, or desire, lust, and attachment, is the dominant theme of this album. Now, the discussion of a convicted murderer condemned to death is, of course, rather an example of dveșa, or aversion, hate–the opposite of rāga.

What one must remember, though, is that opposites are properly understood in a dialectical sense, that there is a unity of opposites. One cannot properly have a sense of the one extreme without a sense of the opposite extreme. One cannot know attachment without knowing aversion.

Book of Saturday

This song is a soft love ballad. (I previously mentioned that “Heartbeat,” off of the Beat album [link above], is extraordinarily for King Crimson a simple pop love song; now, the uniqueness of my description of that song is not contradicted by my statement here, since “Book of Saturday” has its proper share of prog elements, including shifts from 4/4 to 5/4 time.) It begins with Fripp playing an electric guitar chord progression in the key of A minor, a progression including a harmonic in B.

In the lyric, we can see the theme of desire, or attachment, clearly in how Wetton sings of the push and pull of attraction and repulsion towards the girl of the love relationship. Part of him wants to leave her, but he can’t, because part of him wants to stay, as is evident in the first verse. Love can be an addiction.

I doubt that the interpretation I’m about to make was Palmer-James’s intention, but I find it fitting to think that the sexual relationship depicted in this song is the same one of the pimp and underage prostitute in “Easy Money” (see below). The “lay[ing of] cards upon the table” and “the jumble of lies [they] told” suggests how sex is just a game to them (the game they’re “forgetting”). Furthermore, her “people, the boys in the band,” suggest that she’s had experience as one of those “Ladies of the Road,” like Lori Maddox. His swearing he likes her people reeks of a cuckold pimp’s jealousy.

Fripp does a solo that’s played backwards, perhaps a musical representation of going back in time to “reminiscences gone astray,” and “the shuddering breath of yesterday.” Cross then does a violin solo that I’ve never heard repeated in any of the live performances of this song (I suspect that he was getting nervous playing live, so he became more reticent); instead, Fripp would play some pretty chord substitutions to fill in the space.

I think that “the crewmen…[of the] banana boat ride” are all the johns who have had her at night (it should be obvious what part of the crewmen’s anatomy the bananas are that she rides on…daylight come and he wants [them] go home). Her response to his waking-up and getting rid of them is a lively one, as if wising to gave them all another ride in her “limousine.”

The “succor of the needy” sounds like a pun on “sucker,” “the needy” being all those johns, who are also “the cavalry of despair,” riding her like a horse, though the despair is all his, the cuckold pimp who has been tossed aside, while they “take a stand in the lady’s [pubic] hair.” That she’s making “sweet sixteen” reminds us of the girl in “Easy Money” who he never knew was “a minor.”

She makes his life “a book of bluesy Saturdays,” which makes me think of the Hebrew Bible, read on Saturday synagogue services, a day that he must keep holy. He has to be good and abstain from sin or work, while she’s free to be as sinful as she likes. He’d like to leave her and escape his humiliation, but he can’t, not only because she’s so beautiful and exciting (part of her attraction, of course, is that being underage, she’s forbidden fruit), but also because she’s a source of income (easy money) allowing him to sit around idly at home, not needing to find a real job.

Exiles

This song opens with a theme on the Mellotron (cellos tapes) in E; this theme was originally from something the original King Crimson played live, “Mantra,” a tune played on Fripp’s guitar.

This then changes to a violin melody by Cross over a chord progression of C major, B minor, and A minor; he then plays the same melodic contour, but higher, and over a progression of D major and C major (twice), then B minor and A minor again.

The lyric is an autobiographical one for Palmer-James, in which he feels sad about having to leave his home country of England to perform with Supertramp in continental Europe. This having to leave (“But Lord, I had to go”) made him and his bandmates “exiles,” as it were.

This sadness over leaving England is yet another example of attachment causing suffering, hence rāga is one of Buddhism’s three poisons. The palms of Palmer-James’s hands are “damp with expectancy” because of that expectant wish to leave “this far-away land” and return home.

Since this new version of King Crimson is going to get heavier over these two years of its existence, we will hear Fripp play a lot less acoustic guitar than before, which he does only on this song and on “Fallen Angel,” from Red. His playing here is typically beautiful and full of arpeggios. We also hear Cross play a little flute, and in the middle of the song, Wetton is sitting at a piano.

Leaving England with Supertramp to play gigs in Munich, Palmer-James had “to face the call of fame, or,” if success eluded him there, to “make a drunkard’s name for [himself].” His “home was a place by the sand,” that is, he grew up in Bournemouth.

Would his friends ever understand the kind of sadness he feels at having to leave his home country? To know the “rain…of an afternoon out of town,” the feeling of alienation from the town one grew up in?

Easy Money

In this song beginning Side Two of the album, we can hear the beginnings of Crimson’s move in a heavier direction. The song starts with a blistering riff by Fripp in E minor, backed by Cross on the Mellotron (string section tapes), and Muir’s sloshing his hands in buckets of mud to augment Wetton’s and Bruford’s rhythm section.

After hearing Wetton sing nonsense syllables with overdubbed vocal harmonies, the music quietens, and he starts singing the lyric, which is about a pimp making “easy money” off of his desirable, but…underage…prostitute. (It would seem that, because of his exploitative wickedness, the pain he expresses in “Book of Saturday” (as I see it, anyway) is a result of karma biting him in the arse.

Fripp arranged the music for the verses, which are in 7/8 and in E minor (though Bruford plays a cross-rhythm in 4/4), then after three bars of that, it switches to 4/4 and to A major. Wetton arranged the music for the “Easy money” refrain, which is a progression of C major, B major, C major, and A major.

Potential johns see the girls curves as she “twinkle[s] by” “on the street,” and they like what they see. The next verse, as it appears on the studio album, must be the result of the record company being nervous about the risqué verse (“Well, I argued with the judge,” etc.) usually heard in live performances of the song. When King Crimson played “Easy Money” on The Midnight Special, it wasn’t at all surprising that Wetton sang the clean verse (“And I thought my heart would break,” etc.) instead.

Whereas the clean verse seems to be Palmer-James sheepishly backing off from the smut and saying the girl is just helping her man make winning bets at the races, the risqué verse is surely the authentic one, making explicit what is merely implied in the other verses.

The judge insists on hitting the pimp with a charge of statutory rape, for no one ever told him the girl was “a minor.” That Wetton chirps of “licking fudge” makes me see a possible ulterior meaning in “lark’s tongue in…ass?” (Forgive me, Dear Reader–I couldn’t resist.) In any case, we can see here more of the theme of rāga, desire.

The clean verse, however, included a line put on the album’s inner sleeve, but never sung: “but you always make money.” It’s regrettable that we never heard Wetton sing this line, particularly in between “And they never told me once you were a minor” and the “Easy money” chorus, for the unsung line would have clarified the progression of events in the story that the lyric is telling.

“Easy money,” as understood in the way I’m describing it, isn’t just money easily made by the pimp in his capitalistic exploitation and commodification of the girl; it’s also that she is easy, eagerly servicing man after man, thus leading to his cuckolding. So we can see how “Book of Saturday” gives us his future, where he gets what he deserves. Note also Muir’s use of the musical saw at the first singing of the chorus, giving the men a ‘boing’ response to the girl.

She’s “strutting out at every race” of men running after her. I suspect that the glass being thrown around the place is a euphemism for a phallus: I’m reminded of when Steven Tyler would later sing of a groupie drinking from his glass backstage.

“Sit[ting] around the family throne” implies the large sum of money the pimp and prostitute have been able to take home. They can rest and relax for two weeks, without (her) needing to work, for with all that cash, they can “appease the Almighty” dollar…or in the case of those living in the UK, the Almighty Pound Sterling.

After Fripp does a solo, Wetton comes back with the nonsense syllables and a return to the first verse. Then he sings of the money being put in a jar, and driving her around to find more johns. This pimp exploiter is “getting fat on [her] lucky star.”

The Talking Drum

This instrumental begins with Muir playing a talking drum, hence the name of the track. I sense an intriguing connotation in the title, though, which also ties in with the previous track. “Talking” implies a human being, while a drum is a thing used by another human being. To play a human being like an instrument is to manipulate and exploit him or her, as the pimp has done with the prostitute. The selfish use of people as things again ties in with rāga, desire.

After hearing Muir’s talking drum playing, the rest of the band fades in with Wetton’s bass playing a riff based on a tritone (the ‘diabolus in musica‘) of A and E-flat, Bruford playing a straight 4/4 beat, and Cross playing a viola. Melodically, the viola, bass, and later, Fripp’s guitar lines are based on the octatonic scale, though notes outside the scale are also used.

The hypnotic improvisation rises in volume to a climax, with Bruford hitting the crash cymbal on every beat. It ends with Cross playing high screeches with his bow, and this segues into…

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part Two

Unlike Part One, which is credited to the entire band and thus gives more or less equal attention to all five members, Part Two was written by Fripp and is therefore a guitar-riff-based instrumental. He begins it with a stack of perfect fourths–C-F-A-sharp–strummed with some scratching of the dubbed-out strings to create a rhythm in 5/4. Wetton roots the stack with a bass line of F, G, G, F, G, G, F, G, F, G.

This rhythm guitar part, in G, is a slower variation on the staccato C minor violin motif heard in Part One. Similarly, Fripp’s guitar arpeggios of G, D, G-sharp (an octave above)–these three notes played twice, then D-flat, G, then the development of that melodic motif shortly thereafter, are slower variations in 4/4 of that fast-picked, dissonant passage I described above, which originally appeared as part of “A Peacemaking Stint Unrolls.”

Typically, the 5/4 rhythm guitar part shortens in its last bar to 4/4 before switching to the 4/4 arpeggio motif. After switching back and forth between these two motifs and their variations, the music softens with Fripp playing F and A together, then D, these three guitar notes being the fifth, flat seventh, and ninth to the tonic of G in Wetton’s bass, and the three repeated twice before the F and A go up to G and B before repeating the whole motif and later doing variations on it higher up the frets. It’s mostly in 5/4 time, with only the first bar in 11/8. Towards the end of the instrumental, when this passage is heard a third time, after Cross’s dissonant violin solo, even that first bar is in 5/4.

The opening 5/4 rhythm guitar part is heard again, with Wetton and Bruford adding a tight 5/16 behind Fripp, Wetton playing the notes of a diminished triad, C-sharp, G, A-sharp, G, A-sharp three times, then ending with another C-sharp. The rest of the band comes in, with Muir hitting a piece of sheet metal. This passage is essentially a shortened version of the opening part, followed by a return to the softer passage, with one bar of 11/8 and the rest in 5/4, as I described above.

This softer passage crescendos into a climax in G-sharp, then going up a tritone to D (five bars of 4/8 and one in 5/8), then back to G with Fripp playing the tonic, fifth, and octave of G to G-sharp, G-sharp back to G, F to G, G to G-sharp, G-sharp to G, and F, then repeating the cycle (after a break with Wetton and Bruford, which I’ll describe in a moment), which is in two bars of 6/8, then one in 4/8. In between Fripp’s playing of this, we hear Wetton playing F down to G, to the rhythm of Fripp’s opening G chord of fourths; Bruford is backing Wetton on the snare and bass drums.

The whole band joins Fripp in playing the G, G-sharp, and F riff, and Cross does a scorching violin solo over this. They come back to the softer passage, but without the 11/8 bar as I said above, and Cross is ending his solo with a high glissando. The passage crescendos again to the ending, in which Fripp plays chords, in his trademark screaming style, of descending inversions in D major, with G major as a subdominant added to the resolution.

Larks’ tongues in aspic are a delicacy, a dish that is a commodity sold for the pleasure of eating, as is the teenage prostitute for the pleasure of “licking fudge,” or the talking drum, its ‘talking’ having connotations of life. Living things, metaphorical or literal, are used for consumption and for profit, for “easy money.” The use of such things is the result of desire, rāga, that one of Buddhism’s Three Poisons given symbolic expression in the fires of the sun on the album’s cover, a fire reflected also on its blue moon.

III: Starless and Bible Black

Where the dominant theme, as I see it, of Larks’ Tongues in Aspic was of the fire of desire, as captured mainly in the sun of the light of day, as seen on the album cover, as for Starless and Bible Black, the dominant theme is dveșa, aversion, hate, an idea symbolized by the darkest of night. This night is so dark that it’s starless and as black as a Bible cover. The title comes from a description of the night sky at the beginning of Dylan Thomas‘s radio drama, Under Milk Wood.

Added to this theme of endless darkness is a quote, on the back of the album cover, from Tom Phillips‘s book, A Humument: “this night wounds time.” Ironically, the cover design for S&BB is a light beige background, with only somewhat darker lettering for the title and inner sleeve. Recall in this connection that day and night, light and dark, the Good Book and black evil are all dialectical opposites, as are rāga and dveșa.

The pressures of touring and coping with the sudden departure of Muir to join a Buddhist monastery (Did he feel the danger of the Three Poisons of rāga, dveșa, and moha as already explored somewhat in LTIA?), a coping that included Bruford’s absorption of an equally extensive and creative collection of percussion instruments, King Crimson had very little in original music to record for their next studio album. They did, however, have a lot of live improvisations on tape, so these became the bulk of S&BB.

“The Great Deceiver” and “Lament” were recorded entirely in the studio. Most of “The Night Watch” was recorded in the studio, except for the opening, which was recorded live at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, where “Trio,” “Starless and Bible Black,” and “Fracture” were played and recorded (The entire Concertgebouw performance was released in 1997 as The Night Watch.

The improvisation “We’ll Let You Know” was recorded live in Glasgow. A more complete version of it, coming right after a performance of “Easy Money,” can be found on Disc 2 of The Great Deceiver box set.

“The Mincer” was originally a live improvisation recorded at the Volkhaus in Zurich. Wetton’s vocals were later overdubbed in the studio. An extended version of the improvisation, called “The Law of Maximum Distress” (parts 1 and 2, excluding “The Mincer”), was released on Disc 4 of The Great Deceiver box set. A smooth version, with both parts merged together as a repairing of the original tape problem breaking the continuity of the performance, can be heard here.

The Great Deceiver

The song begins with an energetic rock riff in A and 4/4. It’s safe to assume that Wetton arranged most of the music on the song (he even added some guitar to the track), since it’s credited with his name before Fripp’s on the back cover, instead of the usual “Fripp, Wetton, Palmer-James.”

During this beginning, we can hear Cross’s violin doubling Wetton’s bass line: we never hear the violin during live performances of the song–again, I suspect it’s because Cross was getting nervous and increasingly alienated from the other three during gigs, a problem that ultimately led to his dismissal. Elsewhere in the background, we can hear Bruford shaking maracas.

Just before Wetton sings the first verse, he plays A, G, C (twice), and G-flat on the bass in a section in 6/8. According to Fripp, “Health food faggot” is not a derogatory reference to a gay man. Palmer-James was talking about “the health food version of a meatball”; he only later realized that the word can be a homophobic slur.

The song is actually about the Devil (“Once had a friend with a cloven foot”), someone to whom we should naturally feel an aversion. The one “in a chequered suit” is a harlequin, an archetypal trickster, and another great deceiver to be avoided.

This great deceiver is a personification of capitalist consumerism, a clash between the sacred and the profane that is also expressed, when you think about it, in “Bible black” and “cigarettes, ice cream, figurines of the Virgin Mary.” The deceitful use of religion to make money is a thing so hateful that it even made Jesus angry and violent (Matthew 21:12-13). A false Christ is clearly another devil (2 Corinthians 11:3-4).

The “gin-shop slag” with the “shoe-shine boy” whom “she raised…up,” “called him son,” and “canonized the ground that he walked upon” sounds like a Satanic parody of the Madonna and Child. These lines thus tie in with the chorus line of “cigarettes, ice cream, figurines of the Virgin Mary,” this last line being, incidentally, the one time Fripp ever contributed to a King Crimson lyric. Juxtaposing “Cadillacs, blue jeans,” as well as, later, “Dixieland playing on the ferry,” and “camel hair, Brylcreem, drop a glass full of antique sherry” with Fripp’s lyric all just reinforces the theme of consumerism contaminating the would-be sacred.

Fripp’s lyric was inspired by a visit to the Vatican, where he saw souvenirs being sold, rather like Jesus’ confrontation with the money-changers at the Temple in Jerusalem. The issue is a turning of religion (“figurines of the Virgin Mary”) into yet another commodity (“cigarettes, ice cream, Cadillacs, blue jeans,” etc.). The commodification of the Virgin Mary is tantamount to transforming her into a whore (the “gin-shop slag”). In this connection, we’re also reminded of the commodification of the teen hooker in “Easy Money” (“throw a glass around the place,” and “drop a glass full of antique sherry”).

We get our first reference to the night theme in the next verse: “In the night, he’s a star in the Milky Way,” perhaps a Satanic parody of the star the Magi followed to find the baby Jesus. The star is in the Milky Way because, like Macbeth, the great deceiver would seem to be “too full o’ the milk of human kindness.” Under cover of darkness, he would seem all good; but “he’s a man of the world by the light of day,” when we can see his true colours, as god of this world (2 Corinthians 4:4).

The false, superficial charm of the great deceiver’s “golden smile and a proposition” shows us the con game of religion’s promise of happiness, blessedness, and edification through the “sweet sedition” of “the breath of God.”

“Sing hymns” and “get high” off of the opium of the people. Be fruitful and multiply, or “make love” and the great deceiver will “bring his perfume to your bed,” a perfume that “smells of sweet sedition.” Note in this connection how one of the subliminal commands in They Live was to marry and reproduce. Since They Live was also a critique of capitalism, we can see in this verse of “The Great Deceiver” a connection between blind faith in and obedience to God on the one hand, and on the other, the channeling of sexual energy into the making of yet another petite bourgeois family.

The devil of capitalist consumerism and commercialism will “charm your life ’til the cold wind blows,” that is, when the hard times come (as we’ve experienced all through the schizoid 21st century so far, and more than probably, will continue to do), and all our hopes and dreams will be sold off (as has been especially the apparent in the 2020s).

Lament

The song begins with a dreamy passage in F-sharp major, with Fripp playing rootless chords with a major 7th, a flat 7th, a major 6th, and back to the flat and major 7ths. After hearing these chords repeated with Wetton’s singing of the lyric’s first two lines, the same progression goes up to G-sharp major, which is heard for the next two lines of the lyric, then the same in A major, then in B major, then back to A major, then to the dominant, and back to F-sharp major and a repeat of the whole ascending cycle.

The rest of the song is essentially variations on this harmonic progression, starting with a passage in 6/4, with Wetton playing some slapping bass, and Bruford hitting percussion instruments, such as temple blocks and cowbells; then the music gets loud and hard.

Lyrically, Wetton is singing about the dreams of a teen who is learning to play the guitar, fantasizing about becoming a big rock star. Hence, the dreamy quality of the music, with the added Mellotron (strings tapes) and the saccharine violin lines (sometimes also played on the bass and guitar, too). The harmonic ascent from F-sharp major to G-sharp major, then to A and B as discussed above, reinforces the sense of a kid’s fantasy of rising in status to stardom.

Next, as I said, is the 6/4 passage with the slapping bass and the percussion. Fripp is playing a variation on the chord sequence, with pull-offs as a variation on the up-and-down movements from major 7th to flat 7th to major 6th and back. This section suggests the passage of time, from the kid’s adolescence to his young adulthood. Fripp ends the section with the gentle strum of a B major chord, then after two pull-offs, he hits a loud E 7th chord.

Now the music gets loud and heavy, suggesting that reality has punched the young man hard in the face. No, he won’t be a great rock star: he’ll be struggling, starving, and poor. Now, the ascending chord progression, in all irony, no longer represents the dream of rising to stardom, but rather the reality of escalating financial difficulties. One would naturally feel a great aversion to, a hatred of (dveșa) such a situation.

The young, would-be rock-and-roller is on the phone, asking the man on the other end to lend him some money. The loan will come with interest of ten percent, “maybe thirty, even thirty-five.” To gain sympathy and perhaps clemency from the loan shark, the kid is willing to lie about his (actually dead) father having a stroke.

The next instrumental section has Bruford playing a drum rhythm to go with Wetton’s bass part, which is a faster variation of the slapping part from before. Fripp and Cross (the latter on Hohner pianet with distortion) are playing descending and ascending chromatic octaves, going from F (leading tone) down to B (perfect fourth), then back up to and passing the F to an F-sharp (tonic), then back down to the B again. These chromatic ups and downs (representative of the kid’s fortunes) go through the typical paralleled harmonic ascension as already described.

The final verse is a reflection of the young man and a bandmate on how they tried and failed to make it in the music business: “I took my chance and you took yours; you crewed my ship, we missed the tide.” Now all they have left to comfort themselves is listening to other bands make music, and to discuss how good those bands are.

The song ends with a 7/8 riff with Fripp, Wetton, and Cross (again, on Hohner pianet with distortion) playing F-sharp, C, E, and F-sharp (an octave higher) four times, then transposing that melodic line up by a whole tone, also to be played four times, then all up again by a whole tone, played four times again.

We’ll Let You Know

As I said above, this improv was played live at a gig in Glasgow (at the Apollo Theatre), and it begins after a performance of “Easy Money.” Because “Easy Money” ends in A major, that’s the key this improvisation will be in, and since that song ended with Cross on the violin, he begins with it still in his hands, though the few notes he bows (which include a few half-hearted C-sharps and D-sharps) seem to indicate the absence of his Muse for the moment, so he puts his violin down and goes over to the Hohner pianet. Fripp hits pairs of A harmonics, as if he were tuning his guitar.

The music really starts to liven up when Wetton does some slapping bass. Bruford is hitting some syncopations on the drums and percussion (temple blocks, cowbells, gongs), contributing to what must have been a Crimson first–toying with funk.

Indeed, when Bruford lays down a beat on the drums, he and Wetton are leading the show, with Fripp bending a lot of high blue notes and, sadly, Cross drifting into the background, with his electric piano being mostly drowned out by the other three. One senses that he is feeling an aversion to his growing alienation from the other three here.

You see, Cross was originally important as a textural element in the band, especially as contrasted with Muir’s percussion and random noisemakers on the other side. But after Muir’s departure, Cross seemed to have lost his original context in the band (On pages two and three of the booklet that came with The Great Deceiver box set, Fripp observed these realities, too.). Accordingly, Cross grew frustrated with his growing marginalization in a Crimson that was getting louder and heavier.

None of this is to say, however, that his contributions no longer mattered. Even in this improv, Cross–at one point in the middle of it, as the other three are really starting to take off–hits a bluesy perfect-to-augmented fourth (D to D-sharp) high on the Hohner pianet, right at a fortuitously-timed moment when the other three leave a brief, silent gap for him. Wait for my discussion of “Trio,” when Cross really shines on the violin.

The funkiness soon winds down after some fast drumming on the snare, and the music plods about awkwardly for a moment, then in the recording studio afterwards, they decided, in all eccentricity, to cut the tape and end the recording when Wetton hits an A-sharp on his wah-wah bass.

The Night Watch

As I said above, the opening of this song is from a live performance of it at the Concertgebouw, but the band’s Mellotron broke down during the performance, so from the point of Wetton’s beginning to sing, the rest of the song was recorded in the studio.

Lyrically, the song is about Rembrandt‘s painting, Militia Company of District II under the Command of Captain Frans Bannick Cocq, but popularly called The Night Watch (in Dutch, De Nachtwacht), from 1642. Actually, though, this latter title is a misnomer, since the painting does not depict a nocturnal scene. For much of its existence, the painting was coated with a dark varnish, giving the mistaken impression that it’s showing a night scene. This mistaken impression is reflected in Palmer-James’s lyric in such lines as “That golden light, all grimy now,” and “upon the canvas, dark with age.”

Now, such is the historical, physical explanation of the darkness of the painting and its popular name. As far as the lyric’s musing over the picture and its meaning in a literary sense, though, we’re free to interpret it as we wish.

The common name of the painting and its darkness tie in with the night theme of the album. Just as the great deceiver is a star in the night, but a man of the world in the light of day, so is the night watch really “a squad of troopers standing fast” by the light of day. And just as “The Great Deceiver” dealt with Catholic capitalist consumerism, so does “The Night Watch” deal with Calvinist capitalist consumerism.

The “Spanish wars” referred to in the song were the Eighty Years’ War between the Dutch Republic and the Spanish Empire, which went on from the mid-to-late 1560s to 1648. The causes of the war were, among other things, the Reformation and excessive taxation. The reaction against Catholicism was the Dutch Reformed Church, which was Calvinist.

One important aspect of Calvinism is how the Protestant work ethic contributed to the growth of modern capitalism, in that Calvinists believed that their material success was proof of God’s grace and their inclusion among the Elect, or their assurance of salvation in the context of predestination.

So, when Wetton begins by singing “Shine, shine, the light of good works shine” (Matthew 5:14-16), Palmer-James is alluding to this Calvinist notion of doing the good works of the Protestant ethic, which result in the kind of prosperity described in Max Weber‘s book. These Dutch Calvinists were early capitalists, these “creditors and councillors…the merchant men.”

These “merchant men” in turn can be linked, at least in part, to the Dutch East India Company, who were one of the very first multinational corporations, and were also responsible for almost absolute monopoly, colonialism, exploitation, violence, environmental destruction (including deforestation), excessive bureaucracy, and slavery.

It’s interesting how the notion of a militia guarding a district of a Dutch city masks the colonialism and exploitation of, surely, at least some of these “merchant men,” when it’s actually the homes of the indigenous people being colonized and exploited that could have used a militia of their own to protect them from the Dutch colonizers. Imperialists and colonialists often rationalize their aggression against other peoples by claiming they’re acting only in self-defence and the betterment of their own people.

The watch may have been “depicted in their prime,” that is, as a reflection of what seemed the auspicious beginnings of Protestant capitalism, as a breath of comparatively fresh air, in contrast to the previous tyranny of feudal Catholicism; but “that golden light” that did “shine [as] the light of good works” is “all grimy now.” Historically, the painting became dark from the varnish, but we’ll give Palmer-James poetic licence in calling “the canvas dark with age,” since over time, the improvement of capitalism over feudalism would grow empty from being just another form of class conflict and oppression.

Palmer-James’s lyric gives us the painting from three perspectives: those of the subjects of the picture, of Rembrandt, and of a modern viewer of the painting, this last being the most relatable to us listeners of the song, and thus the perspective I’m by far most interested in using to give an interpretation of the picture’s, and lyric’s, meaning.

Of course, these ascending upper middle-class Dutch, representative of any bourgeoisie anywhere in the world–including, for example, the US after declaring independence from British rule, or contemporary China after shaking off the yoke of Western imperialism–are all preoccupied with “Dutch respectability.” The newly-gained wealth of these bourgeois allows them to pay for such luxuries as “guitar lessons for the wife.”

The bourgeoisie are always concerned with their social status–music lessons, foreign language lessons, etc.–to make them appear ‘cultured’…all the while enabling the kinds of colonialist, imperialist savagery that goes on overseas. ‘The blunderbuss and halberd-shaft” represent these forms of aggression that are masked by a pretense of protecting one’s own town against perceived threats from outside.

After all the Spanish wars, these Dutch bourgeoisie can now sit back, relax, and reflect on their accomplishments, enjoying “quiet reigns behind [their] doors.” To translate this experience into that of our modern world, such quiet contemplation is the privilege of the rich First World’s relaxation, as opposed to the ongoing toil, poverty, and misery of the Third World that the colonialists and imperialists cause to this day.

Still, religion can be used as a mask to hide this exploitation and abuse, like the Calvinism of the 17th century Dutch, who pretended to embody good Christian virtues. “So the pride of little men, the burghers good and true,” is a case of golden light darkened with age, the age of the consequences of all that colonialism and imperialism. One should think of this in connection with what Wetton would later sing: “gold through my eyes, but my eyes, turned within, only see–starless and Bible black.”

Trio

This live improvisation, from the Concertgebouw show, was made up of Cross, Wetton, and Fripp on Mellotron (flute tapes), while Bruford sat with his drumsticks across his chest, waiting for an appropriate moment to join in, but feeling that such a moment never came. Even though Bruford added not a single note or beat to the other three’s performance, he was given a writing credit all the same, since his silence showed “admirable restraint,” as stated in the liner notes to the compilation, A Young Person’s Guide to King Crimson.

They’re playing in C major, so Fripp, finding the keyboards to be a secondary instrument to his guitar, need only worry about playing the white keys. Nonetheless, the playing of all three is transcendently beautiful–not one note is superfluous or misplaced. This is a music of great serenity and spiritual bliss. Apart from its referring to the three players, “Trio” could represent the spirituality associated with the Trinity.

Now, no grasp of dveșa–aversion, hate–is possible without a grasp of its dialectical opposite, rāga–desire, which here could be heard as, for example, Jesu, Joy of Man’s Desiring. Still, as discussed in “The Great Deceiver” and “The Night Watch,” this Bible is a black Bible.

The Mincer

Because, as I said above, this track was part of a much longer live improvisation recorded in the Volkshaus in Zurich and later named “The Law of Maximum Distress,” it fades in here with an eerie atmosphere brought about by a high ascending glissando on Cross’s violin, Bruford’s tapping of the tom-toms, and Fripp’s dissonant Mellotron (strings tapes). Cross then puts down the violin and goes over to the Hohner pianet, which he plays through distortion.

Wetton’s bass anchors the improvising with a line of A, A pull-off to G, C-sharp, D, E, and variations on that. The spooky, dissonant music of Cross’s electric piano and Fripp’s Mellotron (the latter soon switching to guitar) is heard over those bass variations and those of Bruford’s rhythms of rim-shots, hi-hat, and bass drum, for several minutes before we hear Wetton’s vocal overdubs.

Wetton seems to be singing about a home invader or killer, like someone out of a slasher film. In other words, the mincer (one who cuts into tiny pieces) is someone to whom we can only feel the greatest aversion. One ought to be reminded that the Devil, or great deceiver, was “a murderer from the beginning” (John 8:44).

The night motif returns with the ironic “good night, honey.” Killers like this one often “come better looking” than he is (that is, they’re often deceptively charming), but the mincer is as insane as they get. The abrupt cutting-off of the tape just makes it all the more frightening.

Starless and Bible Black

Rather than hearing them in this live improvisation from the Concertgebouw, the words of the title are heard in the song “Starless,” from Red (see below). One could find some thematic links here between both tracks: a starless night, the “Bible black” of religion corrupted by bourgeois consumerism (in its Catholic and Protestant forms) and colonialism, as we already explored in “The Great Deceiver” and “The Night Watch,” and finally, the ending of friendships.

This ending of friendships is a move from love to hate (dveșa), and the rāga, attachment to one’s friends leads to an aversion to the breaking-up with them. Nonetheless, impermanence is a reality in the world, as well as a central tenet in Buddhism. The delusion (moha) that all we see and hear around us has a permanent reality, which leads to rāga and dveșa, will be the dominant theme of Red.

For King Crimson, the impermanence of the band and the ending of friendships among the bandmates was already being keenly felt, as Cross was withdrawing from the other three and, as I said above, feeling more and more frustration over his contributions to the music being drowned out by the others’ loudness. For Fripp, sensing the immanent collapse of this band must have been a disconcerting reminder of the ongoing instability of 1970 to 1972.

As these improvs generally do, this one begins softly and slowly, building to a climax. We hear Fripp’s sustained guitar leads, Cross on the Hohner pianet, Bruford playing a glockenspiel, and Wetton’s bass lines centering on the tonic.

Soon, Cross’s pianet will be played through distortion, Bruford will be shaking a tambourine, Fripp will be getting feedback from his guitar, and Wetton will be doing a slapping bass line of G hammering on to A. Then Cross will switch to playing dissonant Mellotron lines (string tapes), and Bruford will be hitting temple blocks and cowbells. The music sustains this eeriness, an eeriness we’ll later hear in 13/8 in this track’s sequel song, “Starless.” Losing everything, including the loss of friends, is scary.

Bruford will soon switch to the drum kit and improvise some great licks. Wetton is playing variations on a line that anchors the music around him: G, hammer-on to A, C, E, and back to G and A. Fripp is bending high blue notes through distorted guitar.

After the climax, the music softens a bit, and Cross switches the Mellotron from the strings setting to flute tapes. He plays some dense chords, including a stack of fourths at one point.

Finally, he picks up the violin and has a moment where, for a change, he’s the centre of attention. His violin licks ending off the track seem like an omen for his departure from the band later in the year of S&BB‘s release. He’ll have a similar moment to shine on “Providence,” but on “Starless,” a song he’s credited with cowriting and one he played live with King Crimson, he won’t be heard on the studio version.

Fracture

Like “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part Two” and the title track from Red (see below), “Fracture” is a guitar-based instrumental credited only to Fripp. It is called “Fracture” because, according to Fripp, it is a kind of étude, a study meant to help a musician to tackle a certain technical challenge, which is immediately apparent about three minutes into the piece, a moto perpetuo section that goes on uninterrupted for about another three minutes and ten seconds.

Fracture is like the break between the possible and the impossible, between joy and torture, and between what is challenging and what is despairingly frustrating. A guitarist named Anthony Garone, from the Make Weird Music channel on YouTube, took up the challenge to learn this “impossible” guitar part, and wrote of the difficulty of playing it in his book, Failure to Fracture. Few guitarists would have the guts to take on the challenge of playing the moto perpetuo section: most would feel only an aversion to the formidable task.

Fripp’s guitar technique is particular to him, with cross-picking as his specialty, a playing style associated with banjo playing in bluegrass. His playing is also influenced far more by avant-garde jazz and European classical music than by blues-based rock. The middle section of “Fracture” is far from the only piece that showcases Fripp’s playing in moto perpetuo. When we think of guitar virtuosi in rock, we usually think of shredders like Steve Vai or Yngwie Malmsteen, who play lightning-speed ‘sprints,’ as it were. Fripp, while not playing quite as fast, instead is more like a ‘marathon’ runner, continuing to play fast for a long time, as he does not only on “Fracture,” but also during the dissonant arpeggio sections in “Larks’ Tongues” one (as described above) and three (on Three of a Perfect Pair), and on “Frame by Frame” (on Discipline). Vai has an apt word to describe Fripp’s technical virtuosity: “relentlessness.”

Melodically and harmonically, “Fracture” is based on the whole-tone scale, with some quasi-Lydian mode variations (i.e., the sharpened fourth and perfect fifth of the mode). It begins with a fade-in of Fripp playing arpeggios from whole-tone scale notes. The recording is from a live performance at the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam.

In spite of the tonal ambiguity of the whole-tone scale, the music has essentially an A major, or A augmented, tonal centre. After the arpeggiated fade-in described above, we come to the main theme, in which the rest of the band comes in, with Cross playing a viola, often using a wah-wah pedal. We hear a theme of A, F-G-B and back to A to be repeated, then the theme is transposed to C-sharp, A-B-D-sharp-C-sharp, then transposed to G, C-sharp-D-sharp-A-G, then it returns to the A-to-A contour.

All of this music, from the opening arpeggios to the augmented-triad-based melodic contours described in the previous paragraph, is heard a second time, then we come to the moto perpetuo section. Those rapid-fire sixteenth notes are about ten per second, by Fripp’s estimation. He never takes a break from them, not even once, for a little over three minutes! It’s one of the hardest passages he ever wrote for himself to play; it pushes his abilities to the limit.

Most of the passage is in 4/4, though some of it is in 5/4, during which you can hear Bruford adding glockenspiel and xylophone. There’s another part of the passage with a bar of 6/4, then of 5/4, then of 7/4, which features viola lines from Cross.

Then it returns to the main riff of the A to A, C-sharp to C-sharp, and G to G contours as I described them above. Then there’s a soft lull in the music before the loud climax.

One interesting section of the climax is when Wetton and Bruford are playing a polymetre against Fripp and Cross. The former pair are playing alternating bars in 7/4 and 8/4 to the latter pair’s three-bar sets of 5/4, all adding up to a fifteen-beat cycle. After that, all four members are playing in 5/4 after a couple of bars in 4/4.

The building climax ends with Bruford banging a gong and some feedback from Fripp’s guitar.

IV: Red

Now, the band has become a ‘trio’ (with a number of guest musicians, at least one on each of the five tracks, if you include Cross’s violin on “Providence” as ‘session work,’ that is), judging by the front cover photo of the album, with Wetton smiling, Bruford seemingly daydreaming, and Fripp looking intensely serious behind his spectacles.

This album, with the photo on the back cover showing one of the meters on the studio’s mixing desk going over to the red, indicating distortion, was a move in an even heavier direction. Indeed, the British music magazine Q rated Red as one of the fifty “heaviest albums of all time.” Kurt Cobain of Nirvana considered the album to be a major influence on him.

The choice of session musicians on Red seems like an omen for King Crimson’s imminent demise, for having not only former members like Ian McDonald (alto sax) and Mel Collins (soprano sax), but also Robin Miller (oboe) and Mark Charig (cornet)–these latter two having been session musicians on Lizard and Islands–suggests that Red was meant to sum up everything that King Crimson had been up to that point.

The red that indicates distortion can also symbolize the idea of distortion of perceptions of reality, or delusion, illusion–moha, the dominant theme of this album, as I’ll soon demonstrate through my interpretation of the lyrics of the three tracks with vocals on the album: “Fallen Angel,” “One More Red Nightmare,” and “Starless.” There’s a sense in all three songs that things aren’t what they seem to be.

But first, let’s look at the title track.

Red

The album has been called the first prog metal album (though perhaps Rush‘s Fly by Night is another early contender for that title), and such a judgement seems justified already from hearing the beginning of this instrumental, another guitar-based one written by Fripp. Apart from the heaviness with which it explodes, we also have two bars of 5/8, one of 6/8, and one of 4/4. These time changes are repeated twice before going into the main 4/4 riff in E.

During this opening, Fripp plays ascending leads that go from being octatonic-scale-oriented to resolving in C, then to E (the first and third times), and resolving in D major (the second time). While the first resolution to E has Fripp’s lead going up to a perfect fifth (B), the second resolution to E has his lead going up to the E’s tritone (B-flat).

The main riff in E has Fripp playing a yo-yoing pair of barred major thirds on the third and first frets of the G and B strings on his guitar, so A-sharp and D, then G-sharp and C. The barre then goes up to the fourth fret (B and D-sharp), then down to the third and first fret barres as already described, then the riff is resolved to E.

This riff is played twice, then transposed up a step, or up two frets, to F-sharp, then back down to E. Then the riff is transposed up three frets to G, played twice, and back down to E again.

Next comes a passage in 7/8, with Wetton anchoring the tonality in B-flat, a tritone from Fripp’s playing of parallel major thirds of E and G-sharp, and E-flat and G. This resolves to E major in 4/4, with Wetton playing some high notes in G-sharp and A, then E-flat and E. These 7/8 and 4/4 parts are repeated.

Next, they’re playing in B, with Fripp playing partially open-string chords, first with a suspension fourth, then one with just roots and fifths. Then they go up to D, and Wetton’s bass goes down to C, and they return to the main riff in E, which is a shortened version of what was heard before (i.e., without the transposition to G).

After a repeat of the alternating 7/8 and 4/4 section I described above, there’s a return to the key of B, but instead of going up to D, this time they go down to A, then to F-sharp and E.

There’s a new passage in 7/8 time, which rises in a crescendo to the middle section, an eerie one starting in G-sharp Dorian with a theme played by an uncredited cellist. It modulates back to E, then to B. This theme is repeated with minor variations, then the music goes back to the main riff in E.

We go through another sequence with the main riff, then the instrumental ends with the octatonic-oriented, ascending leads in 5/8, 6/8, and 4/4 that the piece began with. That pounding rhythm section of Wetton and Bruford drove Fripp to play as loudly so he could keep up with the two of them. Playing an instrument stereotypically associated with ‘nerds,’ Cross unfortunately couldn’t keep up with the other three’s ‘metal’ intensity. As a heavy trio now, King Crimson had nothing holding them back on Red.

Fallen Angel

The song begins in E minor with, alongside a lead from Fripp, that uncredited cellist. Then it goes to the relative major with Wetton singing over a progression of G major, C major, B minor, E minor, C major, B minor, and A minor. Fripp is doing overdubs of electric guitar leads and acoustic guitar arpeggios. Miller’s oboe will also be heard, as well as some Mellotron string tapes in the background.

Wetton sings of a young man’s love for his little brother, such a sweet, innocent little boy from his birth. Years later, the boy will join his big brother in a street gang in New York City. He’ll be killed in a fight with another gang, stabbed with a switchblade. The older brother wishes it was he who died instead.

He imagines his dead younger brother as a “fallen angel”…but if he was an angel, how did he allow himself to be involved in “knife fights and danger”? Surely, this brotherly love is blinding him from the reality that his kid brother wasn’t as sweet and innocent as he thinks him to be.

The boy fell to the ground, dead, but he also fell as Satan and the other rebel angels fell from heaven. The boy’s involvement in gang violence was a fall from grace, a case of the impermanence of innocence. So in the song’s narrative, we have the moha, illusion, of innocence and its apparent permanence masking the reality of guilt and impermanence. Fraternal love is a red distortion of the reality of the younger brother’s participation in crime and gang violence.

Now, why is there this crime and gang violence, causing one to “risk a life to make a dime”? The usual culprit–poverty, caused in turn by the mode of production that allowed for the ascendance of the “burghers good and true” sung of in “The Night Watch,” among others. Some get rich while many others get poor: “lifetimes spent on the streets of a city make us the people we are.”

All it takes is “one tenth of a moment” for the stab of a knife to change one from living to dead–such is the fragility of life’s impermanence. A protective young man would wish to tell his younger brother to “get back to the car” and avoid getting killed in a fight with switchblades.

The mellow music turns heavy, and with a switch from 4/4 to 6/4. Fripp starts playing distorted arpeggios in B minor. This switch from mainly acoustic guitar to distorted electric guitar, from mellow to heavy, musically represents the switch from a brother’s sentimental love, and its illusory idealizing of his “angel” kid brother, to the forced realization that this “angel” has fallen, from life and from grace. We also hear Charig doing a solo on the cornet.

The “West-side skyline crying” verse is mostly repeated, again a change from soft and acoustic to loud and electric, musically reflecting this switch from sweet illusion to harsh reality. A brother dying from a knife fight on the West Side implies the blue-collar neighbourhood of West Side Story, in which Bernardo, Maria’s brother and leader of the Puerto Rican gang, the Sharks, is stabbed by Tony in revenge for Bernardo’s stabbing of Riff. It’s doubtful, to say the least, that Wetton’s singing is meant to represent the voice of Anita, Bernardo’s kid sister, of course, but I don’t mean “Fallen Angel” to be a retelling of the fight-scene from the musical; rather, “West Side” is an allusion to it, to evoke similar feelings and a similar atmosphere.

“The snow white side streets” are “stained with his blood,” a stark contrast of the angelic purity of white with the violence of red. My West Side Story allusion above is to indicate that the Bernardo-like stab victim only seems an angel to his loving family, whereas his own violence shows him to be far from angelic. Rather, he was “wicked and wild.”

Growing up in poverty explains the gangs’ violence to each other, but it doesn’t justify it. Their anger should be directed at the ruling class instead. Then they’d be true angels…avenging angels, but true ones nonetheless. The song ends with that 6/4 part with Fripp’s distorted arpeggios and more cornet soloing from Charig.

One More Red Nightmare

The song begins with a dark riff in E and in 7/4 alternating with a pair of bars in 4/4, with notes of E, G-sharp, and A-sharp played three times, then a chord of tritones in E and A-sharp. This is all transposed up a tritone, then returns to E. Then it’s all transposed back up the tritone to A-sharp, then up another step to C, and we have the first verse. That melodic contour will also be heard with thirds in the guitar.

This is the one time a 1970s King Crimson song lyric was ever written by John Wetton, rather than by a lyricist from outside the musicians of the band. Instead of singing about an illusion of goodness masking evil, we have the reverse here: he’s dreaming of being on an airplane about to crash and kill everybody, but he wakes and realizes he’s on a Greyhound bus, perfectly safe. Moha goes both ways, with this “red nightmare” another distortion of reality.

The progression for the verses is C minor, G-sharp major, F-major, and back to C. As for that tritone-oriented riff in alternating 7/4 and 4/4 as I described above, Bruford doesn’t some great licks there. There’s one percussion instrument he uses on the album, and it’s featured on this track. I’d always assumed it was a piece of sheet metal, as was used by Muir from time to time on LTIA. Apparently, what it really was was a damaged cymbal left in the trash in the recording studio; Bruford took pity on it and fell in love with its “trashy sound.”

After the first two verses and refrain of Wetton singing the title of the song, it shifts to an E-minor section in 6/4. Fripp is playing arpeggios, and he’s overdubbed some guitar lines with the wah-wah pedal. Ian McDonald begins the first of two alto sax solos for this song, starting the first one off with a long trill of E and D.

Moha–or ignorance, delusion, illusion, confusion–comes from a failure to accept that impermanence is the only constant in the universe. One hopes that the good times will last forever, hence, rāga, or greed, desire, lust. One can’t imagine, on the other side of the coin, that the bad times will eventually be over, that ‘this too shall pass,’ hence, dveșa, or hate, aversion, hostility. So in the singer’s illusory dream, he thinks he’ll really die on the plane.

But then, “reality stirred [him]” and “the dream was now broken.” The song ends with a repeat of the 6/4 section and another alto sax solo by McDonald.

Providence

This live improv got its name simply from having been performed in Providence, Rhode Island, of course (a longer version can be heard on The Great Deceiver box set), but I’m intrigued with the connotations of the name of the city and improv, especially as juxtaposed with the spooky mood of the music played.

One of the oldest cities in New England, Providence was founded in 1636 by Roger Williams, a Reformed Baptist theologian, naming the area in honour of “God’s merciful Providence,” which he believed gave him and his followers a haven after having been exiled from the Massachusetts Bay Colony. This religious feeling ties in thematically with songs like “The Great Deceiver,” “Trio,” and “The Night Watch,” as I interpreted above. Protestant colonial settlement is linked with beginnings of capitalism, and the benefits gained therefrom are most impermanent.

“God’s merciful Providence” is surely a case of moha, or ignorant delusion, when one considers how selectively said-Providence is meted out. Those in the middle classes and upward, especially those in the First World, are provided for well enough in most cases; in the lower classes, and especially in the Third World, though, one isn’t provided for all that well, to put it mildly.

Thus the juxtaposition of the track’s title with its outright horror-movie-like music is most apt. The improv begins with Cross’s violin improvising sadly, and all alone. He wavers in and out of tonality, Wetton’s distorted bass is heard emerging from the background, Fripp plucks a note on his guitar, and Bruford hits a gong. The band seems to be finding its footing.

Fripp goes over to his Mellotron and uses the flute tapes to accompany Cross’s increasingly dissonant playing. Wetton’s distorted, feedback-swelling bass is adding to the tension, as is Bruford’s gong.

This music is such a demonic contrast to the symbolically Trinitarian serenity we heard in “Trio,” I’d say, dialectically so, for that serenity was a moha mask to cover the frightening reality of a world decidedly lacking in “God’s merciful Providence.”

As the horror builds, Bruford plays around with more percussion instruments, including the temple blocks and a xylophone. Eventually, Fripp leaves the Mellotron and goes back to his guitar.

The music starts to pick up the pace when Bruford gets behind the drum kit. The music reprises its heavy, Red nature, but not in the conventional, guitar-driven sense, for it’s Wetton’s aggressive bass and Bruford’s pounding on the drums–that “flying brick wall,” as Fripp described them–and not so much Fripp’s playing, that’s providing the heaviness.

After that heaviness reaches a climax, the music settles down a bit, and Cross resumes his dissonant violin playing, while Fripp can be heard in the background playing a rhythm part with his wah-wah pedal. Once the music has reached eight minutes, it is faded out, the last thing we hear being a repeated three-note phrase of descending violin notes.

Starless

This epic twelve-minute song sees the old King Crimson ending in a blaze of glory. It begins soft and sad and with vocals, is eerie and dark in the middle and building into an explosive climax, then fast and frenzied, and it ends with a loud, powerful but instrumental restating of the original, sad themes.

Since the band would soon break up after the completion of this album, the lyric’s subject matter, about the ending of a friendship, is most apt. Wetton wrote the sad opening, which had different lyrics and/or verses in a different order. The band originally didn’t like what Wetton had written, but after adding the later instrumental section, they played the whole song with Cross during their 1974 tour.

The song, in its embryonic, Wetton-composed form, was originally going to be called “Starless and Bible Black” and to be the title track of the previous album; but since the others didn’t like it at the time, disappointed Wetton shelved the song, and when in its completed form, the song was to be included on Red, its title was shortened to “Starless.”

It opens with sad Mellotron lines in sixths and backed with soft bass and drums. The bass is playing a D at first, and the harmonic progression is a D augmented chord and a D7, without the major third as a leading tone. It resolves to G minor, with a lead then played by Fripp–originally played by Cross on the violin, with a few changes of notes–over a progression of C minor, D minor, and G minor.

This is all repeated (the guitar line up an octave), then we go into the first verse. Mel Collins’s soprano sax can be heard improvising in the background.

As the sun is setting, Wetton sings of a “dazzling day,” with “gold through [his] eyes.” This beauty is an illusion, though, symbolizing the illusion of a permanent friendship; for when his eyes are “turned within,” they “only see” the friendless reality of a darkness so absolute, it’s “starless and Bible black.”

The love of that friendship would seem to be the kind of love preached in the Bible (e.g., in 1 Corinthians, chapter 13), but this is a love that does not bear or endure all things. This love does fail. It does not remain with faith and hope. It is of a black Bible. The original lyric had “gold through my eyes” changing to “steel grey,” but emotively speaking, it has about the same effect: a change from a pleasant illusion to a harsh reality.

At the word “black,” the progression goes from D to C, then to B-flat major, A minor, and to G minor. The second verse establishes the idea of a friendship going sour. The “charity” of the “old friend” may remind us, with bitter irony, of the three things that are supposed to abide forever, according to the King James translation: faith, hope, and charity. The “cruel, twisted smile” tells the singer that that ‘everlasting friendship’ “signals emptiness for [him].”

In the third verse, we hear that uncredited cellist in the background, playing a lamenting line as Wetton sings of a “silver sky” that “fades into grey,” which is “a grey hope that all yearns to be […] black.” In this line, we observe how a flawed friendship worsens until one actually wishes for hope to change into black despair, since continued hope is only sure to disappoint.

The rest of the song is instrumental, and with no disrespect intended to Wetton, by far the best part of the song. Wetton plays a dark bass line in 13/8: C, G-flat, G-natural, these three notes again, E-flat, and the cycle repeats. Fripp, as if taunting his fans with, “No, art-rock nerds, I’m not going to display my guitar virtuosity for you. Suck it up!” plays his ‘one-note solo’ here, starting on G.

Then, Wetton’s bass line changes to F, down to A, and up chromatically from there to B-flat, B-natural, and C, and to G-sharp (with Fripp playing a G-flat) and back to F to repeat the cycle. Then it will return to the cycle starting on C as described above (with Fripp playing G-natural). Finally, we’ll come up to G, and 13/8 will change to 4/4 for a brief while, then we’ll return to 13/8 and the bass line starting on C, to repeat all of this again and again.

This section will build to, as I described above, an explosive climax, with Wetton’s bass growing louder and heavier, Bruford adding percussion (including the clicking of temple blocks in a 4/4 cross-rhythm), and Fripp switching his “one-note solo” up to A, then A-sharp, B (by which time Bruford is playing an assertive beat on the drums), C, and finally D, which brings us to that climax, with Fripp leading us there by playing D-sharp, F, F-sharp, and G.

While he is bending high Gs and G-flats, Bruford is about to do some wild smashing about, and Wetton’s bass is at its ballsiest. In The New Rolling Stone Record Guide (published in 1983), the reviewer of Red says, “Bruford punctuates magificently.” These words perfectly describe his powerful bashing during this section, as well as his playing on “One More Red Nightmare.”

After this climactic section–which ends in a 4/4 swing time, with low, distorted G notes and Fripp playing squealing high notes–the 13/8 bass contour returns at double the speed, making the band race in 13/16 time. McDonald does a frantic alto sax solo, with the background music’s tonal centres going from C minor (tonic) to F minor (subdominant), back to the C tonic, then to G (dominant), thus sounding like King Crimson’s perverse parody of 12-bar blues again, something I discussed in my analyses of the band’s first two albums.

McDonald had expressed regret over leaving King Crimson with original drummer Michael Giles back in 1970, and was about to rejoin the band. His superb soloing here shows that had the band survived and done a tour to promote Red, he would have held his own just fine with Fripp, Wetton, and Bruford, and the new quartet would have been a formidable Crimson.

In between this and the next 13/16 section is a brief replaying of the melody sung by Wetton, but with Collins’s soprano sax and Miller’s oboe. In the background, Wetton is playing Cs on his bass, and Bruford is doing some fast tapping of the hi-hat. After Collins’s playing of the “starless and Bible black” melody, we go back to the frantic 13/16 part, but instead of hearing McDonald’s alto sax again, we hear Fripp playing screaming variations of his former high string bending of Gs and G-flats.

The song ends with a return to the opening theme, heard then as a guitar lead (or live, as a violin theme), but now played by Collins and Miller (live, it would have been a guitar lead). Instead of being soft and sad, though, it’s loud, heavy, and powerful, with our trio pounding away in D, then ending in G minor, with a high ninth from the soprano sax and oboe.

V: Conclusion

As I said above, a quartet of Fripp, McDonald, Wetton, and Bruford would have been an amazing band, but it wasn’t meant to be. Fripp abruptly broke up King Crimson, having gone through some kind of emotional crisis and wanting to take a year off (the capitalist consumerism of the record company’s wish for the band to produce hit singles must have added to the pressure of a musician who didn’t want to have to sacrifice his artistic integrity to the tyranny of profits). Parallel to Muir’s joining a Buddhist monastery, Fripp was yearning for some kind of spiritual enlightenment, and he believed he’d found it in the teachings of G.I. Gurdjieff through John G. Bennett.

Now, Gurdjieff’s “Fourth Way” is not Buddhism, of course, but one can glean the influence of Buddhism and Hinduism in it. In any case, one can see how in Gurdjieff’s ideas, our living in a hypnotic “waking sleep” and needing to “wake up” can be likened to what I said about about moha, illusion. Through Gurdjieff’s notion of “intentional suffering,” one can free oneself of desire (rāga) and overcome one’s aversion (dveșa) to all that one finds unpleasant.

Seen from this angle, Fripp’s and Muir’s departure from King Crimson shows how LTIA, S&BB, and Red all thematically demonstrate Buddhism’s Three Poisons. Fripp and Muir tasted the toxins, got sick from them, and had to leave in an attempt to cure themselves.

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.

The Tanah–Beginnings, Chapter Two

[The following is the third of many posts–here is the first, and here is the second–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]

  1. The worlds breathe out through their pores in all directions. The air inside is fiery hot; as it flows outwards, it slowly cools. When the breath reaches its farthest and coldest, it is inhaled, and it gradually heats again.
  2. The contents of the exhalations are fiery orbs that turn with imperceptible slowness, the heat tempering eventually. They are red, glowing balls, titanic in size to man, yet infinitesimal to the vastness of space. One of them has cooled, turning from red to blue.
  3. All of this, from breaths to orbs to our blue sphere, is in and of an endless sea of nothingness, where nothing and everything meet. Every drop of the eternal sea is an atom, and the waves undulate forever.
  4. The seas of our blue orb receded to give green to us. Creatures, great and small, extinct and extant, have inhabited both blue and green. Simple life progressed to compound forms, some that swim and others that crawl.
  5. Some skin has scales, and other skin has hair. Some limbs are legs, others, wings. Some made arms of their front legs, and straightened their backs. Their brains rose with their backs.
  6. The animals had two sexes, as did the final one: humanity.
  7. The male begets life in its first stage, then the female houses and nurtures that life in its growing stages in the womb. At the beginning, one didn’t know of the father’s role in giving life, but honoured only the mother in this; only later was the father acknowledged in this. Still, the mother is always seen as the seat of life.
  8. Man sees all things in pairs of opposites, therefore if woman is life, then man is death. Since man loves and honors life, he loves and honors woman, even facing death to preserve her life, and the lives she bears.
  9. Just as every body is ruled by a brain, and every family is ruled by parents, so has society been ruled by kings and queens from the beginning. Just as old inhalations and exhalations are replaced by new ones, and when old rotations of the orbs end, to be replaced by the beginnings of new rotations, so must old rule be replaced the the rule of the young. This is why new ideas replace old ones, and daughters leave their mothers and fathers to start their own families, and young kings replace old ones.
  10. Since woman is life, and man loves and honours woman, old queens may extend their rule while they replace their old husbands with young ones. Since woman is life and man is death, old kings are killed by young ones. This has been an ongoing, unending tragedy from the beginning, always remembered and dramatized.
  11. It would happen thus: a triumphant procession ushers in the king, who is accompanied by his queen. Among the crowd of admirers is the queen’s young paramour, who waits for a moment to be alone with her.
  12. The moment arrives, and he lies with her. Later, he walks in the garden in the evening, waiting to find the king alone. Soon he is alone with the king, and he kills him. The queen seems to mourn the dead king with an excess of tears, but she soon marries the young man, and he is the new king. Death follows copulation quickly, and more copulation ensues soon after.
  13. Thus life quickly begins, ends and begins again, as each orb’s cycles of rotation slowly do, and as the worlds’ breaths–in and out–do even slower. These are the rhythms of everything.

Commentary

While much of the cosmology of the manuscripts collectively known as The Tanah describes a flat Earth in a geocentric universe, every now and then one finds writings that seem to have an uncanny ability to anticipate, however vaguely, scientific ideas and theories millennia in advance of the time when these manuscripts are dated. These verses are an example of such an anticipation.

That said, though, those looking for scientific accuracy in this vague and poetic ‘retelling,’ as it would seem, of the Big Bang Theory (as a cyclical, endless series of big bangs and big crunches, in the context of a multiverse) and of evolutionary theory will be frustrated. These writings are far from being science; they’re meant to be understood as religious revelation. More accurately, though, they are part of a speculative system, a philosophical one, told in metaphors.

What should be focused on, instead of whether or not the ideas constitute an anticipation of modern science, is the reality of cycles in everything: breathing in and out, orbs turning on their axes, heat cooling and cold getting hot again (recall Nevil and Drofurb, Hador and Calt, as discussed in Chapter One). These cycles help us understand the true dialectical relationship between each pair of opposites.

We think in dualist opposites all the time, because it is so difficult to think in terms of a series of gradations from one opposite to another. Still, all is relative. One must not lose sight of how something seen one way can seem its opposite from another perspective, like the size of a planet to us as opposed to its size compared to the universe. All of our opposites, red heat and cold blue, everything and nothing, the blue sea and the green land, great and small, living and dead, male and female, must be known in this broader way.

We see evolution in animals, usually as progress upward: it is better to fly than to crawl, it is better to walk upright than to go on all fours. Reason seems superior to instinct. Is this necessarily so? Reason tends to be a weapon more than a comfort. Though things do advance, an apex is reached and the advancement must stop. If one dares climb higher than this, one falls to the bottom. Hence new rulers replace old ones.

In the sexes we see what seem to be two mere opposites; yet it is easy to see in many males considerable effeminacy, and in many females strikingly masculine attributes. Thus, between the black feminine and the white masculine edges, we see a vast grey area of grey humanity. The nuances of the original language of the manuscripts reflect this, though it’s virtually impossible to reflect this in English translation, hence my mention of this ‘grey area’ here. Furthermore, note the patrilineal assumptions of a daughter leaving her parents when marrying, yet also the matrilineal assumptions of a queen replacing her older, dead husband with a new king.

Indeed, a recurring nightmare throughout history, especially in ancient times, was that of regicide. When societies were commonly organized in a matrilineal fashion, a queen could replace her aged lord with a young one, as a tanist. This was when human sacrifice was customary. This butchery was as abominated then as now, but it was deemed equally necessary. The abhorrent practice abated over time, but the stories relating this horror stubbornly continued to be told. These terrible tales were recounted as myths and legends, in the garb of allegory and metaphor, not as history; hence the details were distorted.

Many of the greatest stories ever told are garbled versions of one of those ancient acts of ceremonial murder. The deaths of Osiris, Dionysus, Orpheus, Adonis, Tammuz, and even Christ bear an eerie similarity to those primordial regicides. These legends are like a bell ringing the peal of this unconscious memory.

Two of the greatest dramas ever written, Oedipus Rex and Hamlet, are about regicide. We love any great work of art through the centuries because it arouses our sympathy in a powerful way, unlike any other creative opus. Such masterpieces were these Sophocles and Shakespeare tragedies. The tanist, kinsman to the king, kills him and takes his place: thus did Oedipus kill his father, King Laius (however unwittingly), and thus did Claudius murder his brother, old King Hamlet. Two things are observed in these regicides–their necessity and their horror; Sophocles stressed the former and Shakespeare stressed the latter. Oedipus’s fate was preordained by the gods; it was ineluctable, though the family tried to circumvent it. Young Hamlet abominated his uncle for committing the crime, and was paralyzed with inaction because he would have to commit the same crime to avenge his father, so great was the prince’s horror in contemplating the bloody deed.

Along with the extreme horror of the killing of the king is, on the other side, extreme lewdness. Here we see extreme birth (resulting from orgiastic sexual unions) happening with extreme death (regicide). Sex and murder are juxtaposed as two extremes meeting each other. The extreme sexual aspect of this is seen in the lewdness of Oedipus committing incest with his mother, Iocaste (however unwittingly), and the birth of his sons/brothers and daughter/sister, Antigone. In Hamlet, the lewdness is in Claudius’s incestuous seduction of Hamlet’s mother, Gertrude, and their marriage “within a month” of the murder of old King Hamlet.

Necessity, horror, and cycles of birth, life, death, and rebirth. These are the eternal rhythms of the world.

The following fragment is a poem that expresses the same basic content as the opening verses just commented on. We have made an attempt to recreate the verse form: expanding and contracting orbs as represented in each word, as it is in the original language–a dazzling anticipation of concrete poetry! Unfortunately, rendering the verses in this fashion in English inevitably looks clumsy here. We beg the readers’ indulgence in our admittedly faulty presentation of the verses.

Hot,……………………………..burning………………………fire


blasted,……………………………………broke,……………………………..blew
compact………..matter,……………tightly……..compressed…………….into……..numberless
fragments………………………………….The………………………………pieces

flew……………………………outwards,…………………….expanding

in………………every………..direction…………They………cooled………as

they……………………………split…………………………….apart.

They……………………………….will………………………..return
to………….their…………….centres,…………….and……….heat…………up
while…………………………..closing……………………….together.

Red,…………..flaming……………sparks

are…………………………..these………………………fragments
of………..hot,………compact…….matter,…………These………balls
slowly…………………………turn,…………………………..seem

gigantic……………………..to…………………………….man,

who…………………sits…………on……………..an…………..orb…………cooler

and……………………….blue;…………………………yet

compared……………………….to………………………..wide,
infinite………..space,………….they……………are…………..no……………more
than…………………………….glistening…………………..molecules.

Small,…………………..empty,……………………infinite

nothingness………………..endlessly………………..grows
and…………expands………from…………our………..ball………of
blue…………………………..to…………………………..the

vast……………………………reaches……………………………of

everything…………………….This…….is………………….where…….all…………………..that

is……………………………..great…………………………….and

eternal…………………………meets………………………..everything
small,……………in…………………….a………..sea………………of……………naught–
nothing,…………………………….the………………………………void.

Home,………………………….blue…………………….Earth,

covered………………………………..in…………………………………..sea–
like…………………….the…………..ocean…………..where……………..nothing…………….and
everything……………………….meet,……………………………….our

vast…………………………………universe–…………………………….is

a………………………………..huge,………………….watery…………….ball……………….The

deep……………………………….seas……………………………….of

our……………………………….world…………………………….would
recede…………..and…………..give………………..green…………….to…………..this
small,…………………………..infant…………………………..planet.

Small,………………………..simple…………………animals

first………………………lived………………………here.
Life………..would…………evolve:………it………..would………..grow
into…………………..complex……………….forms.

Titanic………………………..lizards………………………….and

mammals…………..would………dominate………….air,……sea,…………….and

land……………………………..Then…………………………they’d

die,……………………………………or……………………………would
slowly…………….transform…………….into……………..birds……………or…………..today’s
smaller,………………………..humbler……………………..beasts.

Small,………………….simple……………………simians

straightened……………………………their………………………………backs,
and……………………..their………………..thinking………..grew…………..clever……………Front
feet………………………………..became…………………………….hands.

Men……………………………………..made………………………..societies,

civilizations………………..of……………….lasting………….grandeur…………………….His

achievements…………………………were………………………..glorious.

Hubris…………………………resulted………………………….in
decadence,………..and…………….the………….sad…………….gradual…………..demise
of………………………………..great………………………………..cultures.

Man,……………………………….woman,…………………child:

man…………………………….begets………………………………….life,
then………….woman……………gives………….shelter……………….to………..it
and………………………………….it…………………………………..grows

in…………………………………..her……………………………….womb.

We……………………..exalt…………..her……………..as………………giver……………….of

life:…………………………mother…………………………..goddess!

The…………………………………male………………………………..role
in……………….giving…………………life……………..not………………yet…………..known,
man……………………………….thus……………………………..retreats.

Woman……………………………is……………………………life,

Man…………………………………..is……………………death.
He………..loves…………..life,……………thus……….his………..heart
swells………………………..with……………………….love

for………………………….his………………………..lady

so………………….grand…………….He’ll……………protect……………..her,

preserve………………………her,……………………..and

honour…………………………….her………………………….till
he…………..retreats………..from…………life,……….crawling………..his
way……………………..toward………………………..death.

Minds……………………control………………….bodies,

fathers……………………..and………………..mothers
have………..sway………..over……….all…………….of…………….their
daughters………………………and…………………….sons,

thus………………………….societies’…………………governments

are……………………..in…………….the……………..thrall…………of………….their

kings………………………….and………………………queens.

New………………………….rule………………………replaces
the…………old,…………….for…………old………….kings…………….must
retreat……………………towards…………………….death.

New…………………………breaths……………………..blow

out,………………………………..all……………………………..the
orbs……………start…………..new………..cycles,…………..the…………….new
takes…………………………..the………………………place

of………………………………the……………………..old,

and…………………the………..rule………………of……..young………………kings

must……………………….commence……………..when

old………………………………….men,…………………………………old
rotations,……………and…………..breaths……………..can…………….no………………longer
continue…………………………………their…………………………….lives.

Woman…………………………….is……………………………life,

man……………………………….is…………………………death,
so…………the…………..rule………..of………….a………..queen
may…………………………go……………………….on

and…………………………….her…………………….glory,

like………………….that……………….of……………all…………goddesses,…………thus

is…………………………..extended…………………forever;

her………………………..husband,………………….however,
must………..die…………..like………….all…………..plants………………in
the……………………..autumn……………………….cold.

King,………………………..queen,…………………..youth:

enter……………………………the……………………………king,
and……….a………..handsome……….young…………man…………eyes
his…………………….beautiful………………………..queen.

He……………………………seduces………………………her,

and…………….she………….makes……………love…………….with……………..her

dashing,………………………….strong…………………paramour.

Cuckolded,…………………….castrated,………………….killed,
the…………..old……………….king………………..is………..lamented……………..by
whom?……………………..these………………………………..are

life’s…………………………..rhythms,…………………….always.

The Tanah–Beginnings, Chapter One

[The following is the second of many posts–here is the first–about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]

  1. Waves everywhere, that from the lowest, rise to the highest, then fall to the lowest, rise high, and fall low, everywhere, always, these are Cao–a never-ending ocean.
  2. Cao is one; the Pluries are many. The one breaks up into the many, all of which then drop into the ocean.
  3. How does the one become the many, and how do the many become one?
  4. The Crims make Cao the Pluries, and they make the Pluries Cao.
  5. One Crim, Nevil, is fire, heating another Crim, Priff, water, into a third Crim, Weleb, air. Nevil leaves, thickening Weleb back into Priff, then freezing Priff into the last Crim, Drofurb, which is earth, or stone, or ice.
  6. The fire of Nevil also brings the light of day, Dis, and the heat of desire, Hador. When Nevil leaves, what remains is the cool or cold of calm, Calt, and the darkness of night, Noct.
  7. These eternal flows that move everywhere–up high and down low and back up, from one to many and back, from cool to hot and back to cold, from water to hot air and back to cold and ice and stone, from the dark of night to the light of day and back to black, from calm to desire and back to calm–all of these are Cao, all are the Pluries.
  8. The waves of Cao flow from Drofurb to Priff, and from Priff to Weleb by the brightness and heat of Nevil’s fire of desire, then Nevil fades away, bringing Weleb back to Priff, then Priff to Drofurb, darkening, cooling, and calming. The waves move Noct to Dis, and back to Noct. The waves flow from Calt to Hador and back to Calt.
  9. These ups and downs, highs and lows, heating and cooling, desire and calm, light and dark, night and day, ice to water to vapour to water to ice,…these are what is all of the world.

[The text breaks off here.]

Commentary

The above verses express not so much a beginning of the universe as the beginning of an understanding of its basic building blocks. The poetry in the original language has a rhythm that evokes the rushing waves of the universal ocean in a way that English cannot effectively render, unfortunately. We can get only a basic sense of the pendulum swings of the primordial opposites: up and down, light and dark, night and day, solid to liquid to gas, passion and calm.

As explained in the translator’s introduction, the imagery of the verses give off that sense of the dialectical thesis, negation, and sublation as given in the undulating movements of t, s, n, s, t…etc. The purpose of this emphasis on the wavelike movements of all opposites is to give the reader a sense that these undulations are the foundation of everything–the secrets of the universe.

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

The Tanah–Translator’s Introduction

[The following is the first of many posts about a fictitious discovery of ancient manuscripts of a religious text of narratives and magic spells. Its purpose for my readers and me is to provide a cosmology and mythography on which I am basing much, if not most, of my fiction–short stories and novels. If anyone is interested in reading this fiction, he or she can use these blog posts as references to explain the nature of the magic and universe in my fiction.]

The manuscripts translated here were discovered in archaeological digs in northeastern Europe ten years before this writing. My colleagues and I have since been at work deciphering and translating this ancient text, a laborious, painstaking task that is still far from finished. These manuscripts, fragments full of lacunae, constitute only a portion of what has been unearthed; the translation of more texts is still underway, and ongoing digs just southwest of the Baltic region are expected to yield still more texts. This current publication is meant only as a taste of what is to come.

The manuscripts were found among the ruins, relics, and skeletons of an ancient Slavonic tribe; the writings are dated at about the first century CE. We say the tribe was Slavonic, but the language is far removed from that. In fact, the written script is unlike any known anywhere on Earth; one of our translating team even joked that The Tanah, as these writings are collectively known, is the product of extraterrestrials!

Now, the language seems outlandish, but the cultural attitudes expressed in that language reveal The Tanah‘s undoubtedly terrestrial origins. As one reads through its chapters and verses, one discovers the usual ancient, pre-scientific assumptions and prejudices, which skew and limit the expression of The Tanah‘s otherwise formidable wisdom.

The writers of The Tanah assume, for instance, that women’s main use of its spells should be to augment their physical beauty, help them find a husband, and acquire power and influence through ‘feminine wiles.’ Since its spells are of a paradoxical, dialectical nature, women are advised to use them to gain power through taking on a ‘submissive role.’ Curious.

Still, a surprising thing about The Tanah is that, in spite of these ancient presumptions about the world (a flat Earth in a geocentric universe, the chauvinistic belief in the superiority and centrality of the tribe owning The Tanah), there are also ideas about the world that, interpreted metaphorically, seem uncannily to anticipate certain insights in modern physics.

Examples of such scientific anticipations include what the texts call “Cao,” the undulating, unifying oneness of the entire universe, and the “Pluries,” the same atomic unifying reality that Cao is, but expressed in the form of an endless shower of particles, coming down like rain, hail, snow–some kind of precipitation. Since The Tanah is all to be read as allegory and metaphor, rather than as literal history, Cao and the Pluries could be understood to symbolize particle/wave duality.

Now, despite all of this apparent predicting of scientific ideas millennia ahead of their time, the texts are still essentially poetry, using the most vivid and striking imagery. Our translation does the best it can here, but as with any, much is inevitably lost in translation. There are nuances and multiple meanings in so many of the words of the original language that their ‘equivalents’ in English–or in any language, for that matter–can never bring out. Indeed, to cover all of those extra meanings of each word would require commentaries several times the size of the original texts and their translations.

The word “Cao” alone means so many things at once. “Oneness,” “infinity,” “universe,” “sea,” “ocean,” “waves,” “fundamental,” “void,” “chasm,” “nothing,” “everything,” and “all,” among many others. Similarly, “Pluries” can mean “particles,” “atoms,” “rain,” “precipitation,” “tears,” “snow,” “hail,” “sand,” “dust,” “ants,” “germs,” “plurality,” etc. The language these texts is written in is a most eccentric, idiosyncratic one. In reading any image used in the poetry and narratives, one must pause a moment and consider every possible association to be made with said image, just to begin to grasp the meaning of it in its fullness and totality.

If the reader finds it jarring to know that “Cao” can mean “nothing” and “everything” at the same time, he or she should bear in mind that this mystical concept has dialectical, yin-and-yang-like qualities. The imagery of the waves of the ocean that are associated with Cao suggest a dialectical shifting up and down, back and forth, between all the pairs of opposites, including every level between those crests and troughs, thus to embrace all things in the universe. This is an everything so comprehensive that it even includes nothing.

Cao represents that everything as understood as a oneness, whereas the Pluries represent everything as a plurality. Attempts at etymologies of these two mystical words suggest that “Cao” may be cognate with a composite of Greek Chaos and the Chinese Tao, though this latter derivation seems a bit of a stretch, given how far removed geographically Chinese culture and language were from where these texts were found, as well as the fact that “Tao” is modern Mandarin, not ancient Chinese. Still, Cao has both the mystical properties of Chaos and the Tao, so while the associations are probably just coincidental, they’re also fortuitous and appropriate.

Similarly, a speculative etymology of “Pluries” implies that the word is cognate with a combination of the Latin pluere, from which we also get the French word pleuvoir (“rain”), and the Latin pluralis, plures, and pluria (“plural”). Again, though, as with our speculative derivations of “Cao,” the surety of these etymologies is rather shaky and limited, given the geographic region from which we’ve found these texts. One would expect a Slavonic tribe to use a language more directly connected with actual Slavic roots. Then again, what is so fascinating about these texts is how mysterious they are: is this language an alien one after all? The written script is unlike any found on this Earth, as mentioned above.

So anyway, Cao and the Pluries are the source of all creation in the universe, as a unity and as a plurality. Not only does the natural world come from these two sources, but the supernatural, and all of magic, derive from them, too, hence the inclusion of many spells, which invoke Cao and the Pluries, and their creative power.

Cao and the Pluries aren’t the only ‘deities’ (if that’s what they are to be called) that are invoked in the many magic spells of The Tanah. Four particularly important ‘deities,’ or rather ‘basic forces,’ which is a better translation of dvami, are what the manuscripts call the “Crims” (krimso). These are the four elements: Priff (water, the first and most natural element to emerge from the watery Cao and Pluries), Nevil (fire, the first spark of passion and desire [Hador], causing the light of day [Dis] to emerge from the darkness of night [Noct]), Weleb (air, a thinning and diluting of all matter to near nothingness), and Drofurb (earth/stone, a return to the condensing of matter, yet going beyond liquid to a freezing [Calt] and solidifying of it).

Note how the Crims can be paired into dialectical opposites, with Priff and Weleb, then Nevil and Drofurb. The first two are everything (i.e., near Cao) and nothing (or near nothing). The latter two are the heat of desire vs. the cool of calmness. These two pairs of opposites move from the one to the other, then back again, like the crests and troughs of the universal ocean that is Cao itself, dialectical shifts from one extreme to the other.

The ensuing narratives also demonstrate a cyclical, dialectical shift from one extreme to its opposite, then back again, with every intermediate point expressed, too, in a shifting back and forth between opposites of many, varying manifestations. A journey out of slavery and into freedom, a mass exodus of a people out of an oppressive nation in which the masters pursue the slaves, reminds one of the Moses story.

A discussion of how to use the spells ethically versus unethically comes next. One must exercise discipline and responsibility in using the magic, for good, knowledge, and enlightenment; warnings are given against using the spells for selfish ends.

Again, in The Preaching and Proverbs, it is advised to use restraint and to be responsible in applying the magic. There is an urgent sense that warnings must be given repeatedly in The Tanah against using the magic for evil, since the writers correctly anticipate their warnings to go unheeded most of the time.

I find it fortuitous that the name of this collection of manuscripts sounds, however unintentionally and unwittingly, like a double pun, first on the Tanakh, or Hebrew Bible, with its laws and injunctions as to its moral use, and second on the Buddhist concept, given in the Pali tongue, as taņhā (“thirst,” “desire”). There’s no reason to see an etymology of tanah coming from such divergent languages, of course; but imagining such wordplay in the two words seems apt, in spite of such an improbable intention, given The Tanah‘s dialectical shifts back and forth between ethical and unethical uses.

The Lyrics are a series of verses that are magical incantations for the purpose of achieving a vast array of fulfillments of personal desires and wishes. Many of them involve causing harm to people in various ways, such as capturing souls and imprisoning them in jars, or when releasing them, they become ravenous beasts. Others involve various ways of taking control of people’s bodies, or taking a soul out of one body and putting it into another. Since such spells can be, and typically are, used in abusive ways, it is easy to see why so much is said elsewhere in The Tanah about refraining from the temptation to use these spells.

The Amores are a series of spells meant to aid the user who is in love, or who lusts after another…or many others. These spells aid in such things as maintaining youthful beauty, shaping one’s body into a more pleasing form, ensuring pleasant body odours in all the crevices of the body, preventing pregnancy or the transmission of venereal diseases, and using mind control to manipulate a love object into loving one back.

Again, warnings are repeatedly made in The Tanah to be at least extremely careful in the use of these spells, if not to refrain from ever using them, since in the use of any of them, not only is there the risk of harming the object of the spell, there’s the risk of harming the user of the spells, too, in the form of bad karma.

One way the spells work is through achieving one goal by way of its opposite. The spells thus exploit the dialectical unity of opposites. So, for example, if a woman wishes to have absolute control over a man she loves, she can do so by, ironically, being excessively submissive to him. This tactic has been used many times throughout history according to The Tanah, usually by women, and the beauty of this use of the spells is that they won’t work karmically against the user, since he or she has already exploited that opposite that would otherwise come eventually to plague the user.

The key to understanding not just the magic spells, but the entire philosophy, mythology, and cosmology of The Tanah as a whole, is to grasp that the whole universe must maintain a sense of balance. If things shift one way, they must shift the other way sooner or later. Those who fail to understand this sense of balance are typically those who misuse the spells for selfish ends. The shifting out of, and then back into, balance by means of opposing directions is the basis of understanding the Troughs and Crests of history, dealt with in the section of The Tanah called “The Future.”

Troughs, when the waves of Cao are at their lowest, represent the bad times of history. Crests, Cao’s waves when at their highest, are history’s good times. The next two books, having these titles, deal with these prophecies of good and bad.

Since the good prophecies are grouped together, as are the bad prophecies, rather than arranging them as alternating with each other, it is difficult to know which prophecy–good or bad–represents the end of the world. And since, as has been noted above, these prophecies exist in the form of allegorical tales rather than straightforward narrative prose, it is even more difficult to tell if the tale representing the apocalypse is a happy or unhappy one.

There is also a group of apocryphal texts, ones of uncertain authority, but which have been considered wise and instructive for the responsible practitioner of magic. These are also allegorical tales.

Now, as a closing note, a discussion of the verse styles should be given, if only in passing, since only a thorough study of the ancient language, beyond the scope of this translation and commentary, can do justice to the goldmine of literary, poetic beauty of the writing, as well as the multiple and nuanced meanings that are sadly lost in translation, as noted above.

Indeed, our English translation inevitably obscures, for example, the muscular metric rhythms, which can only ever so occasionally be approximated in the English, though we’ve tried our best. As for the imagery, we’ve managed, more often than not, to be able to bring out its structured use, with regular patterns of thesis/negation/sublation, usually given in a wavelike pattern of t-s-n-s-t…and so on in the same way.

As for whether or not the user of the magic spells needs to worry about their potentially adverse effects, well, we translators haven’t seen such effects…not yet, anyway.

Garrison Mauer, PhD, Professor of Religious Studies, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, December 2024

Leftist Fundamentals

Photo by AXP Photography on Pexels.com

I: Introduction

We leftists tend to be our own worst enemies, far more so in many ways than the ruling class are. Instead of banding together in solidarity and planning how to overthrow the ruling class, we far too often would much rather bicker and argue over relatively minor issues of doctrine or political analysis.

We tend to forget, it seems, that the ruling class are far more united in the implementation of their agenda than we are. Sure, liberals currently are all in a dither over the recent reelection of Trump, wringing their hands and acting as though the world is about to come to an end, just as they did in November of 2016. I’d say, however, that all of this rending of garments is more of a media melodrama, meant to distract us all from how it’s more the political system is just continuing down the same neoliberal trajectory it’s been going along for the past forty years than it is some kind of imminent Night of the Long Knives.

We know the media is manipulating us, yet we don’t know. Each new outrage that gets thrust into our faces, be it the latest Israeli atrocity, updates on the Ukraine war, or Project 2025, is presented to us in a way meant to rile our anger, though not to unite us–rather, to get us to fight with each other over the ‘correct’ way to interpret what’s happening. The ruling classes laugh at us as we fight each other instead of fighting them, because the attempt to get ego gratification over ‘winning’ an argument with another leftist is far easier than setting aside our petty differences and fighting the real enemy.

None of this is to say, however, that there are no legitimate differences of opinion among leftists that can be safely disregarded. Unity on these fundamental points, the subject of this article, must be respected if we’re to move ahead and organize to overthrow the capitalist class. As for the petty issues so often bickered about, those can be dealt with once the revolution has been successfully achieved, and a socialist society is being built.

Photo by Ehsan Haque on Pexels.com

II: The Fundamentals

The following are the basic points we leftists should all agree on. There may be variation on how to interpret what these points exactly mean, or how they should be put into practice, but here they are, and they are not negotiable:

The complete replacement of capitalism with a state-planned, socialist economy. No social-democratic compromises with the market, please. We’ve tried that before, with the welfare capitalism of the post-war period, 1945-1973; when attempts like this are made, so that capitalism is ‘more comfortable’ for the working class, it’s only a matter of time before the ruling class gets sick and tired of paying higher taxes and negotiating with unions. Then they start seducing the public with the allure of ‘small government’ and the ‘free market,’ which will lead us right back down the Reaganite/Thatcherite path to the neoliberal nightmare we’re in now.

The only scenario in which a socialist state can tolerate a market economy is when a developing country needs to pull itself out of poverty by building up its productive forces, as countries like China and Vietnam have done. Once these productive forces have been fully built up, though, the left-wing factions of their communist parties should regain their preeminent influence, and guide the nation beyond the primary stage of socialism.

Now, I know any anarchists reading this will wince at my advocating a socialist state. As a former anarchist myself, I can understand how they feel. My suggestion to them is to use dialectical reasoning to resolve the contradiction between having and not having a state. A sublating of this contradiction would be to have the kind of state that withers away. I also recommend reading this.

Stalin was committed to the idea of advancing socialism to the point of a centralized state eventually dying out…when it would be possible to do so (not when there was the threat of a Nazi invasion, and not when the Americans had the atomic bomb). The obstacle to such an end goal was not his ‘tyrannical lust for power,’ contrary to imperialist propaganda (Stalin asked to resign from his position as General Secretary of the Soviet Union no less than four times, but was refused, contrary to the myth that he was a dictator with absolute power; for further reading of a defence of state socialism, anarchists can go here); that obstacle was imperialism’s relentless attempts at sabotaging socialism. This leads me to my next point.

Photo by Travel Photographer on Pexels.com

Commitment to opposing imperialism in all of its forms. The wish to free ourselves from capitalist exploitation must not be limited to the Anglo/American/NATO-allied countries of the First World. The entire globe must be liberated. No one is free until all of us are free.

The modern stage of capitalism, coming to reach a zenith from around the mid-to-late-19th century in such forms as the Scramble for Africa, has been imperialism. This consists of, as Lenin observed, the concentration of production and monopolies, the new role of the banks, finance capital, the export of capital to other countries, the division of the world among the capitalist powers, and competition between the great powers over which will dominate and be the greatest exploiter of the world.

A crucial element of imperialism is colonialism. One starts with the idea that one supposedly has the right to move into the land where someone else–the indigenous community–has lived for many, many generations, if not centuries, then supposedly has the right to take over and kick the indigenous population out. If they don’t like that, one can simply kill them. This is the basis of the imperial problem: that one can steal the land from those who lived there first.

This is the settler-colonialist foundation of the US, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Israel, and many other countries. From this dubious foundation, the settler-colonialist imagines he has the right to go into other sovereign states and steal their natural resources to enrich himself from them. So from settler-colonialism, one proceeds to imperialism.

Just as the boss imagines he has the right to exploit his workers and steal the fruits of their labour to enrich himself, so does the imperialist, a natural outgrowth from the settler-colonialist, imagine he has the right to exploit the indigenous peoples and steal their natural resources. He can achieve this exploitation and theft militarily or through neocolonialism–an indirect control of the dependent country by such methods as financial obligation through international borrowing (think of the IMF and the World Bank).

Other forms of imperialist control include interfering with the political process of the dependent countries by fomenting coups d’état to remove democratically-elected heads of state to replace them with leaders who will be puppets of the empire. There are many examples of this slimy tactic: Iran, 1953; Guatemala, 1954; Chile, 1973; and Ukraine, 2014 are just a few examples.

Yet another form of imperial control is the manufacturing of consent for war to further the interests of empire; this manufacturing of consent is achieved through the deceitful media that works for empire, which leads to the next point.

Photo by Leon Huang on Pexels.com

One must recognize imperialist propaganda for what it is, never trust it, and always oppose it.

The managers of empire are relentless in their efforts to teach us who they want us to love, who they want us to hate, who to despise, and what we’re supposed to dismiss as ideas thrown into the dustbin of history. Hence, TINA and the “end of history.”

Imperial propagandists are fond of telling us of those heads of state regarded as ‘evil dictators’ who must be removed from power for the sake of preserving ‘freedom and democracy.’ Examples of such undesirables from the recent and more remote past include Stalin, Mao, Milosevic, Saddam, Gaddafi, Assad, Yanukovych, the Kims, Putin, Xi Jinping, etc.

This is not to say that all of the names above are completely beyond reproach. It is just that we should not feel antipathy towards them merely because the Anglo/American/NATO-allied empire says they are all bad men. For whatever wrongdoing these men are…or are not!…guilty of, the Western empire is guilty of much more wrongdoing.

A detailed discussion of the sins of capitalism is beyond the scope of this article, but if you want to delve deeper into that, Dear Reader, you can look at this and this, the latter being something I wrote back in my then-naïve anarchist phase, but scroll down to the fourth section, marked “Capitalist Crimes.”

The point to be made here is that the Western imperialists always need to have an enemy, a political scapegoat on whom they can project all of their vices. Starting around seventy-five years ago (as of the publication of this article, of course), that enemy was communism, which the imperialists were desperate to discredit out of a fear of leftist revolution.

The last great taboo to be broken in leftist thinking is the defence of Stalin, who–thanks to decades of having our heads pounded in with anti-communist propaganda–is portrayed as a kind of left-wing version of Hitler. The idea is as absurd as it is offensive, given that Stalin’s leadership of the Red Army–who did most of the work fighting off the Wehrmacht, with a sacrifice of about 27 million Soviets–was crucial in defeating the Nazis. One is normally called a hero for doing that.

Apart from the fact that the deaths under Stalin are wildly exaggerated and taken out of context (and imperialist propaganda is so pervasive that only Marxist-Leninist sources will offer a different perspective), one should consider how even in recent years, large percentages of Russians, who haven’t lived under a socialist government in decades, still have a high regard for Stalin and look back on the Soviet years with nostalgia. If people are worried about the admiration of dictators, they should worry about all the people out there who still admire Hitler.

But more importantly, what is the real reason Stalin is so vilified? The fact is, his leadership demonstrated that one really can stand up to the imperialists, successfully fight off a vicious fascist invasion, and build socialism in one’s country (i.e., provide free education, healthcare, housing, full employment, etc.). He took a backward society made up mostly of illiterate peasant farmers and transformed it into a modern, industrialized, nuclear-armed superpower by the time of his death. This all was achieved within the space of about twenty-five years. That is nothing short of impressive. The capitalist West felt nothing short of threatened.

The Western media couldn’t let such achievements be spread around freely, inspiring Western leftists to want to bring about socialism in their respective countries. So a propaganda Blitzkrieg had to be unleashed all over the capitalist West, terrifying people with a narrative that communism not only ‘doesn’t work,’ but also leads to brutal totalitarian dictatorships, even though the CIA secretly knew that the Gulag was nowhere near as bad as the media were claiming it was.

Of course, the western propagandists had a lot of help from ‘dissident leftists,’ like George Orwell, Milovan Djilas, Noam Chomsky, Leon Trotsky, Mikhail Gorbachev, and Nikita Khrushchev, the last of whom denounced Stalin and his ‘cult of personality’ in a secret speech in 1956. Such traitors as these have given us leftists the “unkindest cut of all.”

After the counterrevolution was complete by the early 1990s, and the imperialists as the only superpower could do anything they wanted to any other country with impunity, it was time to look for a new enemy to draw attention away from the discontents felt in the imperial core, and in the 2000s, that enemy became Islamic terrorism. Though there was considerable opposition to the Bush administration’s decision to invade Iraq in 2003 to steal from the country, the notion of regime change to remove ‘brutal dictators’ and further the cause of ‘freedom and democracy’ has been the accepted rationale–thanks to the corporate media–for all the banging of the war drums since.

Of course, having Democrats in the White House has made it a lot easier to manufacture consent among liberals, hence the Obama administration’s destabilizing (with France’s help) of Libya–with virtually no protest from those who’d protested Bush’s invasion of Iraq–to remove Gaddafi, all because–apart from Sarkozy’s financial entanglements–the Libyan leader wanted to establish an African currency, based on gold, that would free Africa from being chained to the IMF and World Bank, something the Western imperialists would never abide.

Then the imperialists went after Assad, their real reason being, again, to steal their oil, while using the media to lie to us about Assad ‘gassing his people’ and other such nonsense. They‘re still stealing Syrian oil (and wheat), by the way.

Yanukovych wanted to partner with Russia to help Ukraine deal with its financial problems without having to be dependent on the IMF, but such a decision was unacceptable to the West, hence his ouster, to be replaced with a government and military including Russophobic Neo-Nazis. This anti-Russian attitude leads us to the next enemy of the empire.

Russia is reviled not because ‘Putin helped Trump win’ in 2016, a baseless accusation that just fueled the fire and helped manufacture consent for the needlessly bellicose attitude that has led to this awful war in Ukraine, taking away billions of dollars that could be used to help the American poor and fix their country’s crumbling infrastructure. The recent Russophobia and Sinophobia are really because Russia and China, as objects of American hate, are getting stronger (i.e., the BRICS alliance) while the Western empire is deservedly dying.

Still, the Western media, mostly owned by the top oligarchs and, as capitalists, have interests fully entwined with those of imperialism, have convinced a huge swathe of the Western population into believing that Russia and China are our latest enemies, as well as Iran, North Korea, Venezuela, etc. For us to believe such nonsense is, of course, far more convenient than to believe the far more uncomfortable truth, that it’s our leaders, both conservative and liberal, who are the problem.

Photo by Nico Becker on Pexels.com

We must stop hating only one half of the ruling class. It’s the entire system–DNC and GOP, Tory and Labour, Tory and Liberal, etc.–that must be opposed. We must give up on such things as Trump Derangement Syndrome. It’s so ridiculous–and hypocritical–that liberals are up in arms whenever Trump does something admittedly awful, such as rounding up ‘illegals,’ putting them in cages via ICE, and kicking them out of the country, but when Obama or Biden did more or less the same thing, liberals largely ignore or rationalize the problem.

On the other side of the coin, Biden and Harris are rightly despised for their support of Israel and its ‘right to self-defence’ (translation: its apartheid, genocidal policies), but little thought is given to the fact that Trump will be every bit as supportive of those policies when he comes back into office in 2025.

Enough of the black-and-white thinking! In the larger scheme of politics, the ideological differences between conservative and liberal are petty. Both sides are capitalist and imperialist: that’s what matters, not the minutiae that they disagree about. That their squabbles are mere right-wing infighting is especially true in a neoliberal world in which income inequality is at an extreme, homelessness is an epidemic in many parts of the world, most mainstream politicians, conservative or liberal, support the US/NATO proxy war of helping Ukrainian Nazis to fight Russians, thereby provoking the danger of a possibly nuclear WWIII, and most of these politicians support Zionism.

We cannot expect real change when we get upset if a party representing one side of the capitalist class, the side we don’t personally like, wins, but we rest on our laurels when the party representing the side we do like wins. The entire system must be dismantled. The only way to achieve this dismantling is through revolution, not through voting, which is meaningless and only perpetuates the system.

As Mao said, “Revolution is not a dinner party.” Revolution isn’t ‘nice.’ It is violent, it is forceful, it is difficult, and it requires planning and organization. People like voting because it is easy; the ruling class likes voting because it takes the people’s minds off of revolution.

A true left-wing revolution, as opposed to mere liberal, social-democrat reforms, will guarantee such things as these:

–the means of production are controlled by the workers
private property is abolished
–commodities are produced to provide for everyone
elimination of class differences, leading to
–…no more centralized state monopoly on power, and…
–…no more money (i.e., replaced with a gift economy)
–an end to imperialism and all the wars it causes
–an end to the huge gap between the rich and the poor
–an end to global hunger in the Third World
–free universal health care 
–free education for all, up to university, ending illiteracy
–housing for all
–equal rights for women, people of colour, LGBT people, disabled people
–employment for all, with decent remuneration and hours
–a social safety net in case of job loss

Conservatives abominate such changes. Liberals speak of gradual, gentle nudging in the left-wing direction without ever really delivering. When some progress has been made in the leftist direction, the right-wingers complain, liberals tend–in varying degrees–to cave in, and we move back in the rightist direction, as we have for the past thirty to forty years. Small wonder Stalin once said, “Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism.”

Does that quote sound too extreme to you, Dear Reader? Consider how the Social Democratic Party of Germany opposed the failed communist German Revolution of 1918-1919, favoring instead the Weimar Republic, upon whose foundation it took only a decade and a half thereafter to lapse into Nazism. Consider how the Democratic Party, about five years after the dissolution of the USSR, gutted welfare, created the Telecommunications Act of 1996 (merging the American media into six corporations), and interfered with the 1996 Russian election to keep pro-US Yeltsin in power. Finally, there’s of course the Biden administration’s pouring of money into Ukraine.

Photo by Alexander Popovkin on Pexels.com

III: Conclusion

That list you saw a couple of paragraphs ago–those are the leftist fundamentals, right there. I just had to expand on some of them, and make a few more important points to show how indispensable these ideas are to eliminate capitalism and imperialism once and for all.

The point is that once a revolution has been achieved, that isn’t the end of the struggle. The forces of reaction will do everything in their power to restore capitalism, and we have to have a strong defence against that. This is why a socialist state is needed: not only to implement the transition (the dictatorship of the proletariat, or a workers’ state–true democracy) from capitalism to full communism, but also to protect the gains of the revolution; otherwise, our efforts will all be in vain.

Whenever a socialist state was either weak or non-existent, the revolution was short-lived. The Paris Commune and the Spanish Revolution of 1936 are noteworthy examples of such nobly lofty, but ultimately failed, revolutions.

In today’s perilous times, we can’t afford to be soft leftists (translation: liberals); we have to be HARD leftists, always wary of backsliding into liberalism. That means that in today’s imperialist stage of late capitalism, we can’t stop at being Marxists: we have to be Marxist-Leninists.

To be this way, we must advocate a state-planned socialist economy; we must oppose all forms of imperialism, but especially in its current Anglo-American-NATO form as the contemporary, primary contradiction (though if, in the future, any of the emerging powers from BRICS grow to be substantially imperialist, they must then be opposed, too); we mustn’t trust the mainstream, corporate media and its pro-empire propaganda; and we must oppose the entire system of capitalism/imperialism, not just get upset if, for example, the GOP wins, but be content if the Democrats win (or vice versa).

There are no quick and easy answers. Our enemies are far too well-equipped militarily, and far too adept at using the media and modern tech to play mind-games on us and surveil us, to keep us compliant. We must similarly undergo training–that is, our young and able-bodied comrades–and we must learn to organize and plant seeds of revolution in the minds of as many fence-sitters out there as we can. This latter is what I try to do here on this blog.

Let’s do it, comrades.