Analysis of ‘Lizard’

I: Introduction

Lizard is a 1970 album by King Crimson, their third, after In the Court of the Crimson King (1969) and In the Wake of Poseidon (1970). It represents leader/guitarist Robert Fripp‘s attempt at establishing a new lineup for the band, replacing Ian McDonald (sax, flute, Mellotron, etc.), Michael Giles (drums), and Greg Lake (bass, vocals) with Mel Collins (saxes, flute), Andy McCulloch (drums), and Gordon Haskell (bass, vocals), while Fripp would double on guitar and Mellotron.

The lineup wouldn’t last, though. In fact, the recording of Lizard had hardly been finished when the band fell apart. Haskell, who’d sung a guest vocal on “Cadence and Cascade” on ITWOP, quit because he, more of a soul/Motown kind of musician, couldn’t connect with the music he was required by Fripp to sing and play. McCulloch quit shortly after that, meaning that Lizard, just like its predecessor, ITWOP, would have no touring band to promote it.

Haskell would eventually be replaced by singer Boz Burrell, whom Fripp taught to play bass. McCulloch would be replaced by drummer Ian Wallace, a housemate of McCulloch’s. This lineup of Fripp, Collins, Burrell, Wallace, and lyricist/lightshow-man Peter Sinfield would produce the band’s fourth studio album, Islands. They would also be…finally!…a touring band, and though Sinfield would quit, leaving Fripp the only remaining original member of King Crimson, they’d release Earthbound, the band’s first (and poorly-recorded) live album.

To get back to Lizard, Fripp brought in a number of session musicians to add lots more colour to the album, as well as a more pronounced jazz influence. These included pianist Keith Tippett, whose by turns jazzy and dissonant playing was previously heard on ITWOP (“Cadence and Cascade,” “Cat Food,” and “The Devil’s Triangle”). On Lizard, this kind of playing is heard on both acoustic and electric pianos.

New session musicians include Marc Charig (cornet) and Robin Miller (oboe and cor anglais). These two would also be guest musicians on Islands (with Tippett) and Red. Nick Evans (trombone) is another guest player on Lizard. Jon Anderson of Yes did guest vocals on the song, “Prince Rupert Awakes.”

A major issue for Fripp and Sinfield when it came to making Lizard would have been to come up with material that sounded fresh. After all, a major criticism of ITWOP was that it sounded too much like a reworking of ITCOTCK, and not enough as an entity in its own right.

It’s been said that Sinfield used the image of lizards to symbolize the old guard, the established order. They also represent obstacles and conflict, as well as a cycle of rises and falls. In connection with this last idea, one may note that the ouroboros is not necessarily just a serpent coiled in a circle biting its tail, but also possibly a dragon doing the same thing, as a symbol of eternity, a reptile passing through endless cycles. By extension, one could imagine an auto-cannibalistic lizard.

For King Crimson, that ‘old guard,’ or ‘established order’ would have been the original lineup and the music they’d played. This old way was a lizard’s skin they still hadn’t quite shed as of ITWOP, hence the reworking of “21st Century Schizoid Man,” “I Talk to the Wind,” and “Epitaph” as, respectively, “Pictures of a City,” “Cadence and Cascade,” and “In the Wake of Poseidon.” This new album, Lizard, implies that the old skin has finally been shed.

At the same time, though, the shedding of a lizard’s old skin results in a new skin that will become an old skin to be shed again. So in this way, we see how lizards also represent cycles. In other words, there would be a return to the old situations, that is, the conflicts that resulted in another falling apart of the band, as we see in the departures of Haskell and McCulloch. Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

Attempts at transformation, symbolized in the imagery of alchemy in Sinfield’s lyrics, are part of that wish of Fripp and Sinfield to turn the problems of King Crimson back into the triumph of the original lineup, like a transforming of base metals into gold. The ability to achieve this goal of alchemy has, of course, eluded man ever since it was first attested to in a number of texts from the first few centuries AD. Similarly, Fripp’s and Sinfield’s attempt to bring back the gold of their band resulted in obstacles, conflicts, and ultimate failure with the departure of Haskell and McCulloch.

As for the worth of the music on Lizard, well, that depends on the judgement of the listeners. For his part, Fripp has never liked the album; whoever does like Lizard is, by his estimation, “very strange,” though he found himself liking it more upon hearing Steven Wilson’s surround sound mix of the album for the 40th anniversary reissue. He said, “For the first time I have heard the Music in the music.” Fripp also recommended getting an early edition of Brewer’s Dictionary of Phrase and Fable to interpret the lyrics.

The album’s outside cover, by Gini Barris, spells out King on the back and Crimson on the front, all in medieval illuminated lettering. Each letter has its own picture, referencing the song lyrics. King references those of the “Lizard” suite on Side Two, and Crimson references the four songs on Side One.

The images referencing “Lizard” are all medieval in content, while those referencing the four songs on Side One are a combination of medieval and modern scenes. The King letters thus depict such scenes as Prince Rupert, a peacock, and the Battle of Glass Tears. As for Crimson, the C shows the “Cirkus,” the R “Lady of the Dancing Water,” the I, the Beatles in “Happy Family,” the M seems to depict this line in “Cirkus”: “Gave me each a horse, sunrise, and graveyard,” the S shows scenes from “Indoor Games,” such as swimming “in purple perspex water wings,” the O according to Sinfield’s “Song Soup on Sea” has a picture representing “Dawn,” and the N shows Jimi Hendrix, Ginger Baker, and Peter Gabriel playing the flute.

Here is a link to the album’s lyrics, all written by Sinfield, while all the music is credited to Fripp. Here‘s a link to all the tracks on the album.

II: Cirkus (including ‘Entry of the Chameleons’)

The song begins with Keith Tippett playing soft arpeggios in E minor on an electric piano. Haskell will sing a tune of mostly seesawing major or minor seconds, the first four lines of each verse going largely back and forth between E and D until the last words of each fourth line, being an F-sharp. Then, in the fifth and sixth lines, his singing mostly seesaws back and forth between G and F-sharp, until the last words of each sixth line, which are A and B. Finally, lines seven and eight of each verse are largely a back-and-forth of C and B, until the last word of the eighth line, which slides up from the B to a D-sharp, the leading tone of E minor.

Sinfield has said that “Cirkus” is about the beginning of his life, of all life, and of the universe. We certainly get a sense of that in the first verse, given metaphorically in its depiction of the night coming to dawn. The first line beautifully paints a picture of the black sky studded with stars.

Night here is Nyx, a primordial Greek goddess from the beginning of time, hence the first verse gives us the birth of the universe, with her as its mother, as well as Sinfield’s and ours. The dust she fused would be like the dust (adamah) that Adam was made from. Nyx “squeezed [Sinfield] to her breast” like a mother feeding her baby, and carbon is one of the building blocks of life. That she “strung [his] warp across time,” that is, used a loom, suggests a loose association with the Moirai, or Fates who spin the thread of life and destiny (even though, technically, Clotho used a spindle and distaff).

She gave him a horse, which represents the education he’ll need to ride on through life, though this equine will turn out to be to be a zebra, since his education will be a conventional one of simple, black-and-white answers. The sunrise and graveyard she gave him are simply his birth (the dawn) and his death, as the Moirai give all of us, birth and death as cyclical as dawn and dusk: reincarnation.

After this verse of the birth of Sinfield (and of all of us, and of the universe), his dawn–when he looks to the east, full of questions, and feels Nyx’s motherly love so fully that he is the only one to her, he is her other self (“only I was her”)–the music gets a little tense. Fripp plays a dark line on the Mellotron, low brass tapes, of mostly A-sharp and G, back and forth in another seesaw pattern, with two high Es, the second of which begins a descending E minor arpeggio.

Now, the rest of the band come in, Fripp’s acoustic guitar in particular, for the second verse. Sinfield has washed away the mud of his innocence and rough-around-the-edges ignorance and naïveté, and after the “zebra ride” of his bland, black-and-white education, he has come to the “cirkus.”

So, what does the “cirkus” represent? On some level, it’s about society in general, including politics and the media; but Sinfield’s lyrics are so jam-packed with metaphors and symbolism, all piled on top of each other, that many layers of meaning can be found in them. I’d like to delve into a meaning that I don’t think has been dealt with much, if at all…and I think that meaning can be gleaned from the title’s odd spelling.

Why a k rather than a second c? Recall how the outside album cover shows Crimson on the front and King on the back, and recall that the C shows the…cirkus. This song is, on one level, about society, politics, and entertainment (i.e., the media) in general, yet it’s also about a particular subset of society and entertainment (Fripp’s and Sinfield’s band!) and the ugly politics inside it…the cirkus of the crimson king.

So, after finishing his dull education, Sinfield has met with McDonald, then Fripp and Giles, and finally, Lake…he’s gone to the cirkus. When he “spoke to the paybox glove which wrote on [his] tongue,” he found himself being paid to write poetry, the lyrics on ITCOTCK. His going down “to the arena” was his experience operating the lightshow for the band’s performances. The “megaphonium fanfare” was the audience’s enthusiastic reaction (e.g., the Hyde Park gig), and ringmaster Fripp “bid [Sinfield] join the parade.”

Haskell’s shout at the end of the second verse suggests something many Crimson members over the years have felt about the band: “It’s an absolutely terrifying place.” Haskell and McCulloch felt that way, hence, they quit almost immediately after the recording of Lizard was finished. Despite Fripp’s sundry denials about being a dictator, and his insistence that he was only the glue that held King Crimson (“a way of doing things”) together, let’s face it: with all due respect to him, he was a dictator, as was Frank Zappa. Judy Dyble, who sang on another version of “I Talk to the Wind” during the transition between Giles, Giles, and Fripp and King Crimson, didn’t get along with Fripp, saying that working with him was “quite frightening.”

With Haskell’s shout comes a fitting return to the tense, seesawing Mellotron-brass line of mostly A-sharp and G, a melodic representation of the cyclical theme of Lizard. Fripp adds some of his trademark fast cross-picking on the acoustic guitar, ending it with E minor arpeggios.

“‘Worship!’ cried the clown. ‘I am a TV.'” is, on one level, a general critique of viewers’ mesmerized and uncritical taking in of all of the clownish nonsense in the media. More specifically, it could refer to King Crimson’s appearance on Top of the Pops, faking a performance of “Cat Food.” After all, the TV was “making bandsmen go clockwork,” in the mechanistic fakery of King Crimson’s ‘performance.’

The penile “slinky seal cirkus policeman” and “bareback ladies have fish” sound as if a member of King Crimson was enjoying naked groupies, possibly those with STDs.

The “strongmen” and “plate-spinning statesmen” who are “acrobatically juggling” represent, in my interpretation, the members of the band demonstrating their superb musicianship, amazing audiences the way they did at such gigs as the aforementioned Hyde Park show. They are “strongmen” and “statesmen” because of their abilities and power, like political power in how they have created the laws, as it were, for a new genre of music–what would be called ‘progressive rock.’

The strongmen are by the feet of the clown who, recall, represents the entertainment media, and he’d have the lion tamers “quiet the tumblers,” that is, tame and control the members of King Crimson so they won’t be too wild in their musical experimentation. After all, we can’t have the system changed, including that of the commercialization of music, that turning mirror of illusion that we’ll come back to in “Happy Family” as regards the experimentation of the Sgt. Pepper album, which was nonetheless as commercially successful as any other Beatles album.

After this verse, we hear Collins play a sax solo over a Mellotron theme (strings tapes) whose melodic contour is the same as that of the leading theme of “Big Top,” at the end of Side Two of Lizard, implying a cyclical return to “Cirkus.” The theme here is a descending line of G, F-sharp, E, D, resolving to a B-minor chord; it will later be harmonized in thirds. Then, as the sax solo continues, we hear on the electric piano C major chords with, on the tops of them, added octaves, sevenths, sixths, and fifths, the chords being playing in a strumming style. After the C major, we get B minor, then the ‘strummed’ C major chords, then G dominant ninth, back to the C major chords, and finally a dominant chord in B leading back to the E minor key of the final verse.

This verse, as I see it, is about the tensions in the original lineup of the band that would lead to the departures, first of McDonald and Giles (the former of whom would regret leaving not long after), then later on Lake, who was eager to work with Keith Emerson. The tension is vividly expressed in how the metaphors express how the difficulties affected the band’s playing: “elephants forgot…strongmen lost their hair” (like Samson), and in the sharpening of the lions’ teeth, the band members fought.

“Paybox collapsed” implies the loss of money that could have been made had the band remained intact and thus rose to higher successes. The “pandemonium seesaw” of all of this fighting in the band, expressed as I’ve described above in the tone painting of the up-and-down melodies in Haskell’s singing and in the Mellotron (low brass tapes), is like a collection of all the demons in Hell of Milton‘s Paradise Lost, ejected from heaven, just as Crimson were ejected from the heaven of commercial success.

Sinfield “ran for the door,” and Fripp, the “ringmaster shouted” for him to stay, since “all the fun of the cirkus” hadn’t been exhausted yet.

The song ends with, after the seesawing Mellotron brass theme, an instrumental section called “Entry of the Chameleons.” Mark Charig’s cornet has made an appearance already, and with the beginning of this section we hear more saxophone soloing by Collins. As the sax soloing is going on, Haskell’s bass is playing ascending fifths or triad notes in succession; but when we hear the cornet again towards the end, Haskell is playing ascending tritones on the bass. At the end, the drumming stops, but cymbals are sustained as we hear cornet licks and electric piano in the background.

III: Indoor Games

The song begins with McCulloch hitting the closed hi-hat to give us a beat, and just before Collins’s saxes (including a baritone and a…tenor?) provide the main riff of the song, we hear a quick A major ascending arpeggio on a VCS3.

While “Cirkus” and most of the rest of the songs on Lizard are, in my interpretation, about the conflicts and difficulties King Crimson was having trying to stay alive as a new band after the original lineup fell apart, “Indoor Games” seems to be about the decadent parties the wealthy and successful have–that is, the indulgence of the capitalist class, including the management of any business…including, in turn, EG Management, who managed King Crimson and who will be obliquely referred to later in the song. In other words, the upper echelons of society have fun, while those down below, including King Crimson, get all the headaches.

The decadent partying includes the use of drugs, something Fripp stayed away from. The “indoor fireworks” are too absurd to be taken literally. I suspect that their bright lights are actually those seen during an LSD trip. The “kitchen staff” could be a metaphor for those who made the acid.

“Dusting plastic garlic plants” could be a metaphor for smoking marijuana, with “snigger[ing]” in the draught” as the laughing from getting stoned, as well as enjoying a draught or two of the joint or from some beer, in the draught by an open kitchen window. You, the master of the house and having the money to enjoy such a party, “ride through the parlour wearing nothing but your armour”; that is, you’re naked and riding a woman in your living room, and your “armour” is a dissociative drug like ketamine.

After the refrain, “playing indoor games,” which is two bars in 7/8 time (subdivided 3+4), we immediately come to the second verse. You, the rich master of the house, are surrounded with “sycophantic friends,” who must pretend they like all of your performances, however absurd they may be, since you’re their boss. You have “rancid recipes,” which sound like more drugs, and you’re wearing a toga, making this ‘indoor game’ a toga party.

In between the second “indoor games” refrain and the third verse is a return to the sax riff, with the VCS3 in the background. You spin a teetotum, that is, you gamble, and your daring risks with money excite “your seventh wife,” whose connection with your rich in-laws (what I’d say “her sixty little skins” represent) “reinsures your life.”

Sulking in one’s sauna from having lost a jigsaw corner sounds like the First World problems of the spoiled rich. “Train[ing] baboons to sing” sounds like a record company like EG trying to promote a new band they’ve just signed…that they’re singing baboons implies they have little talent, and if EG is the company, perhaps this is self-deprecating humour on Sinfield’s part.

That the rich would “swim in purple perspex water wings” implies that they are spoiled children in need of the water wings to keep their heads above the water. Jumping on choppers on Saturdays is something that David Enthoven and John Gaydon, the E and G of King Crimson’s EG Management (the “Chelsea brigade”), might have done. This verse ties the band’s record company in with the decadent partying of the rich capitalists, something the struggling band was far less able to enjoy, if at all, at the time.

It surely was far more than trendy to go on hard benders, as these decadents would have done. “It’s all indoor games,” even if it’s riding around outside on motorcycles, because “indoor” is really about being on the inside, among the privileged wealthy.

After this verse is an instrumental section with guitar and sax licks, as well as with the VCS3 in the background. Then we come to the final verse.

A game of bagatelle without balls is a pretty absurd and pointless one, so one’s conspiring “children” (i.e., one’s guests at the party, who are getting bored) try to find wilder and more exciting forms of entertainment. They’d “fertilize your fire” (light up and smoke more joints), or do other, riskier things to amuse themselves.

“Go[ing] madder” could be a result of excessive drug and alcohol abuse, the kind that Brian Jones was indulging in around the time he drowned in his swimming pool in 1969. These kinds of deaths by misadventure, “broken bones, broken ladder,” would be common at wild parties with a lot of booze and drugs. The Rolling Stones’ free concert at Hyde Park, incidentally (where King Crimson stole the show), was meant to be a tribute to Jones, who’d been replaced by Mick Taylor because of the former’s alcohol and drug problems.

The song ends with Haskell saying “hey-ho,” then laughing. His laughing was genuine, as he found Sinfield’s lyrics to be absurd and unintelligible. The band decided, at this point in the song, to let the tape continue rolling to include his laughter. Given my interpretation of the song, having the laughter seems fitting–it comes across as the laughing of a drunk and stoned man at a party.

IV: Happy Family

The song begins with a dark-sounding descension, in E minor, of E, D, D-flat, C, B, B-flat, A, G, and E in the bass and guitar, with the VCS3 on the top, all in three-bar groupings of 6/8 time.

The “happy family,” in all irony, is of course the Beatles, who had pretty much acrimoniously broken up as of the writing of this song, and therefore the breakup was still a hot topic at the time. Jonah is Lennon, Judas (or Jude) is McCartney, Silas is Harrison, and Rufus is Ringo Starr.

Though the song is about the Beatles, I’d say that the Beatles of the song are, in turn, a metaphor for King Crimson, too, who’d just experienced a kind of breakup of their own that same year (and would soon experience yet another [near-]breakup just after finishing recording Lizard), and who’d also had a moment of great, if fleeting, success and influence on music. Since Sinfield wasn’t a musician in the band (apart from playing around with the VCS3, at least), we could even see King Crimson as being as much a quartet as the Beatles were.

So the “happy family” moniker could apply to Crimson as much as it does to the Fab Four. The “one hand clap,” something from an old Zen koan, expresses on the one hand a making of sounds that cannot be made with an insufficiency of hands (i.e., other band members), the paradox a logical absurdity, and on the other hand an end to the applause now that the band no longer exists. None of the four came back because the broken-up band (be it the Beatles or the original Crimson lineup) wouldn’t get back together.

“Brother Judas[‘] ash” is from McCartney’s marijuana use, and his “swallowed aphrodisiac” is other drugs of his, from the pleasure they give him. Starr, Harrison, and Lennon would “blow [their] own canoes,” that is, go their own way and start solo careers, since the tensions in the band had reached such a high (“punctured all the ballyhoo”) that they no longer wanted to work together. The same could have been said of Giles, Lake, and McDonald: there was the collaborative ‘canoe’ of McDonald and Giles, and there was the canoe of ELP’s debut album, all from 1970, like Lizard.

After the first verse of “Happy Family,” we hear Collins playing the flute, and Tippett has already been doing a lot of jazzy and dissonant playing on the electric piano, including–during the singing of the first few lines of the second verse–some parallel fourths.

The Beatles “whipped the world and beat the clock” with their phenomenal success, and “with their share of stock,” they obviously got very rich, too. They were “shaken by [the] knock, knock, knock” of opportunity when it came, a success that surely messed with their minds as much as it glorified them. The 1969 success of the original King Crimson, though on a much smaller scale, could be expressed in these lines, too.

One senses, in the line “cheesecake, mousetrap, Grytpype-Thynne,” that the promoters of the Beatles saw in the band a get-rich-quick scheme, since that’s what the villainous character voiced by Peter Sellers on the old 1950s British radio comedy, The Goon Show, used to have up his sleeve. Once the Beatles broke up, though, they couldn’t be replaced, the way Rin-Tin-Tin was with several different German shepherds from the 1930s to the 1950s, after the original dog died in 1932. Could Fripp really replace the original King Crimson lineup? At the time, it seemed doubtful.

After this verse, we return to the opening theme, the descending one on the guitar and bass; instead of hearing the VCS3, we have some dissonant electric piano playing by Tippett.

The next verse essentially describes what the Beatles did after their breakup. Ringo had the big nose, and was portrayed as something of a clown, but no longer would he be now that the Beatles were no more. Since I suspect that the Beatles are in turn a representation of King Crimson, “Rufus” could also be original drummer Michael Giles, who in leaving the band, has put away his ‘cirkus’ clothes.

Harrison grew a beard, and the “flask of weird” is on the one hand drugs, but on the other, “Silas” could also represent another lead guitarist, Fripp, whose “flask of weird” could be the more eccentric, complex, and dissonant musical direction he was leading the band in.

John Lennon “grew a wife,” Yoko Ono. McCartney’s “pruning knife” could represent his craftsmanship as a musician, pruning away the less desirable aspects of his music in order to perfect it. I wonder if ELP’s song, “Knife-Edge,” wasn’t written and recorded too late for the knife to be Lake’s.

After this verse, Collins solos on the flute, while we hear Tippett’s jazzy piano chords (as well as Fripp’s on the guitar), and Nick Evans’s trombone is heard in the background, with a bit of the VCS3, which helps reintroduce that opening, descending guitar/bass theme.

In the last verse, the applause is pale, like that one-hand clap, because there are no more Beatles (or a performing King Crimson at gigs, for that matter) to clap for; “each to his revolving doors,” that is, each band member has gone his own way. Harrison was always “searching” in his music, spirituality, and travels; Fripp was also a “Silas” of sorts, searching for different ways to make music.

Lennon was “caustic,” since he was often violent and verbally abusive, by his own admission, in spite of his peacemaking persona. McCartney was “so sweet” in all those popular songs he wrote for the band, though officially credited to both him and Lennon.

The mirror of illusions we first heard of in “Cirkus” will spin here, too, in relation to the Sgt. Pepper’s Lonely Hearts Club Band album; after all, “what goes round must surely spin.” If rock bands like the Beatles and King Crimson, with their long-haired men, lose from having broken up, never to ‘come back’ in either a reformation or a new, stable lineup, then “the barbers win,” because they’ll get more money for more haircuts.

Note how, at the end of the song, the chaotic background music disappears, with only Haskell singing and a marimba and maracas in the background, soon to go themselves. The music is over, as is that of the Beatles. Is King Crimson’s music over, too, or can Fripp bring the Lizard band to life? The answer seemed uncertain at the time, and ultimately, the answer would be a no.

V: Lady of the Dancing Water

The song begins with Collins’s flute soloing over Tippett’s electric piano playing ascending chords of G minor seventh, A minor, B-flat major seventh, and resolving to F major for the verses, in which Fripp accompanies, on acoustic guitar, Haskell’s singing.

Unlike the lyrics of all the other non-instrumental tracks on this album, which as I’ve explained above are densely stacked with metaphors and are therefore cryptic to the point of being almost impenetrable, those of this song are quite straightforward. This is a love song, though not as radio-friendly as “Heartbeat” was intended to be.

The chord progression for the verses is, essentially, F major and A minor seventh chords played twice, then B-flat major and C major for the dominant…though certain chord substitutions may apply. For the bridge, the progression is B-flat major seventh, C major, and F major seventh–again, chord substitutions may apply.

For the refrains (Evans’s trombone enters in the first of these), during which Haskell sings of Sinfield’s “lady of the dancing water,” the progression is F major, F dominant seventh, B-flat major, B-flat minor added ninth, then back to F major…and again, depending on how one interprets the chords here, there may be substitutions.

To add to the romantic atmosphere, the lyric is full of the imagery of nature (grass, water, autumn leaves, “earth and flowers”). Sinfield also adds the four elements he referred to earlier in “In the Wake of Poseidon,” but in this song with the “blown autumn leaves” providing air, as well as “the fire where you laid me.”

VI: Lizard

Recall that lizards here represent cycles of change: birth, life, death, and rebirth, as expressed in the shedding of a lizard’s old skin. This third album was Fripp’s and Sinfield’s attempt to resurrect the band after McDonald, Giles, and Lake left. The attempt, fraught with conflicts and difficulties all the way through, ended ultimately in failure when Haskell and McCulloch quit so soon after the recording was finished.

Prince Rupert Awakes

Haskell may have already quit before the vocals for this first part of the suite were recorded, since we hear Jon Anderson sing them instead. Some claim that Fripp recruited Anderson because the vocal melody was out of Haskell’s baritone range, and that therefore Haskell was still in the band; but Anderson never sings in his mixed or head voice here, except for a high vocal harmony during the chorus, which Haskell surely could have done in falsetto. The great majority of the singing is in chest voice, most, if not virtually all, of the notes being ones Haskell hit in other songs on the album.

Remember that Haskell never wanted to play music like this. He was an R and B man, and he did the recordings on this album only because his wife had asked him to do it for the money. If he’d already quit before the recording of the vocals for “Prince Rupert Awakes,” then that would have made Lizard come full circle, with Anderson as the Haskell of this album where Haskell was the Lake of ITWOP (i.e., “Cadence and Cascade”), finishing up the incomplete vocals of the album.

Now, Prince Rupert was an actual man of history, an English-German army officer appointed commander of the Royalist cavalry during the English Civil War. One battle of the First English Civil War was that of Naseby, which is represented in the “Battle of Glass Tears,” one that Prince Rupert and the Royalists lost.

Prince Rupert was known to be a rather blunt, hasty-tempered man who made a lot of enemies. For these reasons, as well as the ‘defeat’ in putting together a new touring King Crimson lineup, I would say that Prince Rupert is really Prince Robert, that is, the historical army commander is meant to represent Fripp. During the creation and recording of Lizard, Fripp battled with, and even bullied, Haskell and McCulloch, often driving the latter to the verge of tears. Small wonder the band fell apart so soon after recording the album.

So if “Lizard” is really an allegory of the misfortunes of King Crimson, then “farewell, the temple master’s bells,” etc., is a saying goodbye to the original lineup, whose great success in 1969 was “Eden guaranteed.” While “Prince Rupert’s tears of glass” originally referred to toughened, tear-shaped glass beads made by dripping molten glass into cold water, something the prince had brought to England in 1660, here I’d say that Sinfield is poetically talking about Fripp’s irritations while recording Lizard.

Fripp’s “tears of glass” cause more of his own suffering, as well as that of his bandmates, and so the glass tears cut into their orange-yellow eyelids, making them bleed even on days off (i.e., the Sabbath). These glass cuts also “scar the sacred tablet wax/on which the lizards feed,” that is, they harm the “sacred” art that King Crimson is working on, Lizard, which is meant as a shedding of the old skin–the original lineup–to have a new skin–the current lineup.

The verses are in A minor, with Tippett’s acoustic piano playing a melancholy beauty in the background, a melancholy intensified by the dissonances Fripp is playing on the electric keyboards. The progression seesaws between the tonic and F major three times, then goes to E major for the dominant, to resolve back to A minor. This progression is repeated for the next four lines of the verse, but this time to be resolved to A major, leading to the chorus.

With Anderson singing this now happy-sounding music, King Crimson manages to sound like Yes. The chorus seems to be about throwing away the past, that is, the original 1969 lineup, and with it the democratic decision-making of that band, to replace it with Fripp’s unquestioned leadership, hence the “hollow vote.” You “wear your blizzard season coat,” for the band has become a colder, less sunny experience. We’re burning bridges here, for we’re not going back to the original lineup (“four went by and none came back,” recall).

We “stake a lizard by the throat” because in spite of all of these attempts by this lineup to resurrect King Crimson, this band is fated to die just as the original did. Just as “Happy Family” was an ironic reference to the miseries of the Beatles (and by extension, also to King Crimson, as I’ve argued), so is the happy, A-major melody of the chorus an ironic comment on the fortunes of the Lizard lineup.

In the next verse, back to the A-minor progression, Sinfield seems to be equating himself with Polonius, King Claudius‘ chief councellor in Hamlet, and according to the prince of that play, he’s “a foolish, prating knave” who sticks his nose in other people’s business and ends up slain by the prince. This would make Fripp, or ‘Prince Robert,’ into Prince Hamlet. In Fripp’s increasingly hegemonic rule over the band, where Sinfield’s involvement must have seemed officious, his obscure lyrics thus garrulous and prating, he must have felt as though Fripp’s Hamlet was telling him either to quit King Crimson or to “kneel” to the authority of ‘Prince Robert.’

After all, Fripp was trying to bring about the “harvest dawn” of a new day for Crimson, and Sinfield’s officiousness, his “tarnished devil’s spoons/will rust beneath [Fripp’s] corn.” Bears roam across Fripp’s “rain tree shaded lawn,” that is, his new lineup roams about playing Fripp’s sad music. The “lizard bones” are the agent of transformation (“the clay”), like the alchemical change from base metals to noble ones, and the result of that change is a swan…yet it will feel like a swan song when the band falls apart again.

Note that there was the dawn of Sinfield’s birth (and that of the cosmos) in “Cirkus,” and now there’s the “harvest dawn” of Fripp’s musical project, of his new dominion over the band, him as the ‘king’ of Crimson. There will also be the “Dawn Song” of the “Last Skirmish” of “The Battle of Glass Tears,” which I would allegorize as the conflicts of the Lizard lineup leading to its end when recording was finished, something accurately predicted all the way through the recording.

Assuming that Fripp understood Sinfield’s cryptic critiques of him in the lyrics, I see no wonder in how Fripp hated this album: it brings back so many painful memories for him–those “glass tears.”

There’s a repeat of the ‘happy chorus’ and a “na-na-na-na…” vocalizing of the melody after that.

In the third verse, Anderson sings of the court of piepowders, which had jurisdiction over personal actions or events happening in a market, including disputes between merchants and acts of theft or violence. I’d say the “Piepowder’s moss-weed court” represents Fripp’s authority over the band, where the “lizards [were] sold,” that is, where the shedding of the old skin happened. The “leaden flock” of the new lineup of Haskell, Collins, and McCulloch had to be alchemically transformed into the “rainbows’ ends and gold” of a band as superb as the original Crimson, a new lizard’s skin as shiny as the old skin had been when it was new, the dawn of a new day, and a new cycle of birth, life, and death for the band.

With this new version of King Crimson, an alchemical transformation symbolized by the peacock that now brings tales “of walls and trumpets thousand-fold,” Fripp can unroll his “reels of dreams.” The “walls and trumpets” suggest the Biblical Fall of Jericho as given in Joshua 6:1-27, in which the Israelites marched around the city walls of Jericho once a day for six days, seven times on the seventh day, the priests blowing their horns daily, and the people shouting on the last day, causing the walls finally to fall.

I imagine Sinfield’s Biblical allusion here to signify Fripp’s hopes of making a ‘breakthrough’ by taking Crimson in a new musical direction, to contrast with what was criticized as a repetition, in ITWOP, of ITCOTCK. Such an idea anticipates the next track in the “Lizard” suite, an instrumental with a number of wind instruments (Charig’s cornet, Evans’s trombone, Miller’s oboe, and Collins’s saxes)–the ‘horns’ that were meant to break down the walls of Fripp’s Jericho-like frustrations at making new music.

Bolero-The Peacock’s Tale

The instrumental opens, fittingly, with a horn, the cornet. Tippett’s acoustic piano is in the background, as is McCulloch’s snare drum, playing a bolero rhythm, but in 4/4, rather than the 3/4 time you’d hear in Ravel‘s piece. Themes from “Prince Rupert Awakes” are repeated here.

The main theme of the instrumental is played on the oboe, a rather saccharine tune against major seventh chords of the subdominant and tonic, then the subdominant goes to the mediant (a minor chord), then back to the subdominant, and back to the mediant, but a major chord this time, on which the oboe holds a high root note that, sustaining, becomes a major seventh against the background progression’s change back to the subdominant, to repeat the progression.

There’s some collective improvisation in the middle of the piece, featuring all those wind instruments blowing away and showcasing again the more pronounced jazz influence on Lizard. I recall a criticism of the album in the second edition of The Rolling Stone Record Guide, which said that the brass and reed solos tend to meander–I have to agree. Now, in spite of how gently melodic the “Bolero” is, at one point in the middle of the improvising, Tippett’s otherwise pretty piano playing suddenly boils over in triplets of tone clusters in the upper register.

The main oboe theme returns, and the piece comes to an end. I understand that this music is among the minority on the album that Fripp has actually liked. He once said that Miller’s oboe melody “sustained [him] in difficult times.”

The Battle of Glass Tears

This track opens with Miller having switched from the oboe to cor anglais, playing an ominous theme on it in G minor. The instrument is largely heard solo at first, with occasional piano chords in the background–a tonic chord, a diminished chord, and one in E-flat major. Then we hear Haskell singing the first verse.

i: Dawn Song

In keeping with the album’s theme of cyclical change, we have another poetic depiction of dawn, as with the beginning of “Cirkus.” Every dawn begins the cycle of a new day, and the darkness of the dawn is at one with the darkness of the previous night. Dawn leads to day, then to night again. In all change, there is sameness: becoming is the Aufhebung of the dialectic of being and nothing (Hegel, Science of Logic, pages 82-83), the being of daylight, the nothing of night’s darkness, and the becoming of the rising light of dawn.

Similarly, the dawn of a new King Crimson lineup will end in the dusk of its falling apart at the end of the recording sessions of Lizard. The shining new lizard’s skin will become another old skin to be shed again, and the sense that this new lineup won’t last has been felt throughout the recording sessions, with the growing tensions between Fripp and Sinfield on one side, and Haskell and McCulloch on the other.

These tensions in the band are what Prince Rupert’s Battle of Glass Tears can be said to represent. The preparations for war in the two verses of “Dawn Song” can be said to symbolize these growing tensions in the band.

“Spokeless wheels” seems to be an allusion to a poem by Robert Graves called “Instructions to the Orphic Adept.” The adept “shall reply: ‘My feet have borne me here/Out of the weary wheel, the circling years,/To that still, spokeless wheel:–Persephone./Give me to drink!”

The Orphic adept hopes for immortality, for his soul to escape the limits of physical life and the cycle of reincarnation, “the weary wheel, the circling years.” The adept would drink from the pool of Memory, rather than drink from the spring of Forgetfulness, which the common people drink from, then are reincarnated, forgetting their previous lives (Graves, pages 155-157).

Similarly, Fripp and Sinfield had been hoping for a lineup that would last…OK, maybe not immortal, but you get the idea. The “still, spokeless wheel” of “Persephone” would replace “the weary wheel” of having to do any more reincarnations of King Crimson. Here, however, is the problem: Persephone, who spent each spring and summer on earth with her mother, Demeter, and each fall and winter in Hades with her husband, the king of the same name, was, in effect, experiencing the cycles of life and death that are reincarnation in essence. Becoming is the sublation of being and nothing. Fripp’s and Sinfield’s hopes are dashed on the rocks.

As Haskell is singing in his low baritone, you can hear McCulloch tapping on a ride cymbal, and soon Miller plays a high melody on the oboe to parallel Haskell’s voice. Tippett is also in the background, playing chords on the electric piano.

ii) Last Skirmish

The whole band comes in, with that ominous theme originally played on the cor anglais now played by Fripp on the Mellotron (strings tapes). Fittingly, Haskell’s playing dark tones on the bass, and McCulloch is bashing about on the drums. Collins will soon come in on saxes (tenor and baritone) and flute.

This “last skirmish” is indeed that: a cacophony of battling instruments–mostly King Crimson members, but also Evans’s trombone and Tippett’s piano. It’s musically symbolic of all the fighting that was going on during the recording process.

iii) Prince Rupert’s Lament

This track should be called “Prince Robert’s Lament,” since, though it’s meant to represent Prince Rupert’s defeat in the Battle of Naseby, it seems to be prophetic of the debacle that would result from this new lineup’s incessant squabbling.

In G minor, as is largely the rest of “The Battle of Glass Tears,” it fittingly is a plaintive electric guitar solo, Fripp using his trademark sustained notes to weep out his pain, backed by repeating low G notes on Haskell’s bass and McCulloch hitting a tom-tom.

Big Top

Just as “Dawn Song” cyclically brought the album back to “Cirkus” in terms of its lyrics, so does “Big Top” cyclically bring us back there through its music and metaphorical concept.

In C major, but starting with a G augmented chord as the dominant to bring us in, “Big Top” brings back that descending melodic contour on the Mellotron (strings tapes) that I mentioned above, heard in the middle of “Cirkus.” Now, whereas then it sounded melancholy, now it sounds quaintly and whimsically merry, an old-fashioned kind of tune you might hear at the circus or at a carnival, or something like that–corny music from a century ago.

The progression mostly goes back and forth between the tonic C major and dominant G major, though at one point, the tonic C goes down a tritone to G-flat minor.

The Mellotron melody is in descending thirds, in 6/8 time, rather like a waltz, with the background instruments often hitting dissonant notes, as a parody of such sentimental music. Haskell is seesawing back and forth between root notes and fifths, Miller’s oboe is practically quacking like a duck, you can hear that marimba from “Happy Family,” and Tippett’s piano is playing chords that often clash.

The music eerily ends, fading out with a speeding up of the tape and thus a raising of the pitch of everything, as if to signify a hastening of the bitter end of this ill-starred lineup.

VII: Conclusion

Later lineups would last longer. The Islands lineup lasted long enough to play gigs and record Earthbound (though without Sinfield), as I mentioned above. Next would come two of the best incarnations of King Crimson, the Larks’ Tongues to Red period (with or without percussionist Jamie Muir and/or violinist/keyboardist David Cross), and the 1980s lineup–all the exact same quartet of Fripp, Bill Bruford (drums), Adrian Belew (guitar/vocals/lyrics), and Tony Levin (Stick/bass/backing vocals).

After these peak moments came the 1990s “double trio” (the ’80s band, plus Trey Gunn on Stick and Warr guitar, and Pat Mastelotto on drums), some quartet variations on these same musicians, but without Bruford, then finally the 2010s septet/octet, with Jakko Jakszyk replacing Belew, three drummers (Mastelotto, Gavin Harrison, and Bill Rieflin and/or Jeremy Stacey), Levin, and Collins came back. They disbanded in 2021, supposedly never to reform.

Fripp said in 2021 that King Crimson had “moved from sound to silence,” just as back in late 1974 he’d said that the band had “ceased to exist.” As long as he’s still alive (acid reflex or heart attacks notwithstanding), though, how do we know that the cycles of dusk back to dawn won’t pull through again, and we see yet another reign of the Crimson King?

The Tanah–Migrations, Chapter One

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

Not a week had gone by, since the funeral and grieving over Rawmios, that an invading army came into Lumios and conquered the city. A third of the citizens of the city, including men, women, and children, were savagely slaughtered.

The survivors were taken captive and forced to leave their city while the invaders were now to settle and reside in it. The Lumiosians were taken by foot on a long, arduous journey to the land of their invaders, Tenebros. Here, the Lumiosians would be sold into slavery.

Years of drudgery and back-breaking work went by, the women often being subjected to sexual slavery, and the disobedient men beaten, often to death. They tried to comfort themselves with Rawmios’ teachings, as well as those of his predecessors.

They thought of the Unity of Action, and how their current suffering was just a large trough they were going through. Surely, sometime fairly soon, they would rise out of that trough to a new crest, and they would be liberated from the cruel and oppressive Tenebrosians.

But that crest never came.

Their continued disappointment and frustration with the failure of the old teachings to materialize in a change of fortune for them caused many Lumiosians not only to give up on those teachings but also to give up on life itself. Many committed suicide, and the remaining, dwindling Lumiosians were desperate to think of an alternative to the teachings to restore a sense of hope to them.

Some Lumiosians remembered the Crims, the four energies behind the air, Weleb, the fire, Nevil, the earth, Drofurb, and the water, Priff. These four were the material foundations of everything, and maybe they could be juxtaposed, merged, or balanced in certain ways to influence material outcomes and thus change the fortunes of the Lumiosians.

In other words, one could practice magic.

Many experiments were attempted to bring about the desired changes…at first, usually with catastrophic results, killing off many more Lumiosians than Tenebrosians. Still, the few successes were encouragements enough to continue the trial and error.

After all, the Lumiosian slaves had nothing to lose.

They continued tampering with merging various proportions of he four Crims to find just the right mix, combined with a refining of their verse incantations and rituals to find just the right way to have the Crims hear their prayers and deliver them from bondage.

Their methods gradually improved, with fewer and fewer injuries to themselves, and more and more injuries to their slave-masters. It became clear to the Lumiosians that they had to create, rather than await, their crests of better luck.

Here are some early attempts of the Lumiosians at spells, rituals, and incantations.

On a windy day, a fire would be lit, next to which would be placed a large bowl filled with water, and beside that, another large bowl filled with soil. These four elements represented Weleb, Nevil, Priff, and Drofurb, respectively, of course.

A chant would be repeated, over and over again, while standing among these four elements. One chant was repeated thus, in a special, mystical language: Blow out the fire of our sorrow!

What happened as a result of this ritual was that a hurricane, sent by Weleb, came upon the land of Tenebros; but the hurricane hit mainly where the slaves were tilling the farmers’ fields or building great edifices in the cities. It appeared too quickly to be warned against, and while some of the Tenebrosians were carried away to their deaths, far more of those who were carried away to their deaths by the hurricane were Lumiosian slaves.

Another chant would be said again and again, with the four elements representing the Crims present as before in the ritual. This time, the mystical words were thus: Burn our oppressors to death!

What resulted this time was a huge fire sent by Nevil, scorching the farmers’ fields, which again came up too suddenly for anyone to react to it. Alas, again, while some slave-masters were killed in the fire, most of those burned to death were slaves.

A third ritual was attempted, with a new incantation, again, with the four elements present. One chanted, Bury the wicked deep in the earth!

These words prompted Drofurb to cause a great earthquake to tear a huge hole in the middle of the capital city, leveling it. Many Tenebrosians lived there, and therefore they fell into the gaping hole and died. Yet again, far too many more Lumiosians were there, too, and so they fell into that hole and died as well, making the loss of so many Tenebrosians hardly worth the effort.

Yet another ritual was attempted in the same fashion, with the same elements, but with a new chant: Flood the evil in a watery grave!

Priff made it rain hard for five months without stopping, making a deluge to cover the land of Tenebros with water rising above the tallest buildings of the cities. Some of the slaves, and many more of their masters, were clever and resourceful enough to find boats or chests to get into so the flood would carry them up to the surface of the water and not drown them, while everyone else perished.

The Lumiosians managed never to be suspected by the Tenebrosians of causing any of these natural disasters; but the slaves realized that they had to be more precise in aiming the destructive aspects of their magic at their slave-masters, and only their slave-masters. So, they worked on refining the set-up of their rituals and the careful choice of words for their incantations.

They also thought of mixing the elements more thoroughly, rather than just placing them side by side, to see if they could achieve better results. First, they tried combining the water with the soil into one huge bowl of mud. Then they chanted, May the Tenebrosians sink in holes of quicksand, their slaves safe on firm ground!

This combined power of Priff and Drofurb gave far more welcome results. Lumiosian slaves stood in astonishment as they saw their masters, right beside them, sinking down in pits of mud thin enough for only them to drown in. Those slaves then ran off, out of their masters’ houses and fields, to freedom.

The surviving Tenebrosians sent out their army to catch and bring back the runaway slaves. Those Lumiosians still held as slaves were encouraged by their success, but they knew they’d have to do more to make the success a lasting one. More rituals would have to be performed to ensure complete escapes out of the country.

A ritual involving the lighting of torches and waving them in strong gusts of wind was now attempted. The chant devised was thus: May the winds of fortune gently blow us Lumiosians to freedom and safety! May their pursuers be consumed in flames!

This combined power of Nevil and Weleb carried all the Lumiosians, those already escaped and those still among their masters, even those who had done the ritual and incantation, high in the air, out of the cities and out of Tenebros to safety in a neighboring country, as if peacefully gliding in a breeze…men, women, and children. The bodies of their pursuers all burst into flame. Screaming, they fell off their horses and chariots, and died. Charred corpses littered the roads.

The Lumiosians could see, from across the border, their Tenebrosian pursuers all burning to death. The slaves, free at last, cheered and screamed deafening cries of triumph and jubilation.

“Who can match the mighty Crims, among the gods?” was a common shout, as were these: “Praise the four mighty Crims! Weleb, Priff, Nevil, and Drofurb, our powerful saviours!”

From then on, the celebrating Lumiosians would embrace magic fully, and they would regard the old teachings as a quaint memory at best, and as utterly useless at worst.

This would be so…for good or ill.

Commentary

Now we come to a crucial point in the narrative of these ancient manuscripts. The old ethical teachings are no longer to be revered, instead to be dismissed with contempt. From now on, the careful manipulation of the elements–magic–in order to influence outcomes will be the preferred way of solving problems. There will be no more following principles or perceived laws of nature; instead, one will try to bend nature to one’s will. In time, this new solution to one’s problems will lead to new problems of their own, as well as new sources of strength.

Breakup

Now, when
two great big egos,
puffy, bloated heads,
come together as one
to wreck and ruin an
already ill nation,
kissing,
it would seem,
it is such a revolting
thing to have to see,
since two wreckers
are worse than
only one.

But when
the two great big
egos, bloated heads,
have a public falling-out
over bad policy and
bad-mouthing,

the sight
of them splitting
apart gives us all so
much Schadenfreude
from the sordid
soap opera.

Analysis of ‘Jaws’

Jaws is a novel by Peter Benchley, published in 1974 and adapted the next year by Steven Spielberg into a movie that starred Roy Scheider, Richard Dreyfuss, and Robert Shaw, and costarring Lorraine Gary and Murray Hamilton.

While it is more usual to say that a book is better than its movie adaptation, it is almost universally felt that the reverse is the case with Jaws. The novel’s characters are generally felt to be unlikeable and unsympathetic, and so the changes made to them for the film are justified. Also, while the film streamlines and simplifies the plot to focus on the shark threat, the novel does a detour in the middle to make it into a character study, focusing on their conflicts.

Now, while I would agree that the film is far more entertaining than the novel–indeed, the film established the notion of the summer blockbuster–there are important thematic elements in the novel, only lightly touched on in the film, that deserve a more thorough exploration, so I’ll be focusing on the novel a lot here…without neglecting the film, of course.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here’s a link to an audiobook of the novel, whose quirky AI narrator makes lots of amusing mispronunciations.

While the great white shark of the film is just a menace to be defeated, the shark of the novel, somewhat like the white whale of Moby-Dick, is symbolically a force of nature ready to fight back against a most predatory human race. Just as the crew of the Pequod hunt and kill whales as their way of making money (e.g., to get the oil), so do the people of the fictional town of Amity use the beaches and swimming as a way of making money, which can be seen as a human muscling in on the fish’s natural territory.

So the people in the novel are as much predators in their own way as the shark is. Indeed, predation in general is a major theme of the novel, something stripped away to a minimum in the film. When making the film, Spielberg famously said he’d been rooting for the shark as he was reading Benchley’s novel, since the characters were so unlikeable. I would argue, though, that the unlikeability of the characters was the whole point of the novel.

A careful reading of the book demonstrates a critique of capitalism that Spielberg and his fellow moviemakers were trying to shy away from…and in making not only the first summer blockbuster, but also a well-loved, classic film that has since raked in hundreds of millions of dollars worldwide (the result of an aggressive marketing campaign that had included such merchandise as a soundtrack album, T-shirts, beach towels, blankets, toy sharks, etc.), they succeeded most admirably in making the film all for capitalism, rather than against it.

The film, while scary, gave viewers a sense of hope, whereas the novel is much darker in tone, giving us a sense of how much nastier we can be than sharks. Small wonder people like the movie so much more than the book.

I will go into the capitalist critique later on, in particular as regards the…business relationships…of Amity Mayor Larry Vaughn (Hamilton), something removed from the film. For now, though, consider the reality of such things as the polluting of our oceans, which harms so much of marine life because proper disposal of garbage is more costly and eats into profits. Also, there’s the hunting of sharks for their fins to be eaten as a delicacy. Indeed, Benchley later regretted how the Jaws phenomenon led to hostility to a marine animal that doesn’t attack humans all that much, thus making him preoccupied with marine conservation and protecting sharks. As I said above, man is every bit the predator that sharks are, if not much more so.

An understanding of that reality can help us to see how, on a symbolic level, people going out to swim in the waters of Amity Beach are intruding on the territory of marine animals. So while in the movie, as well as in the novel, young Christine Watkins may be innocently skinny dipping, then to die a violent death, that is just our human point of view. From the shark’s point of view, too, she’s just its prey…killing her is of course nothing personal. But the shark, often called “the fish” in the novel, represents the vengeful wrath of nature against her human predators. On a couple of occasions in the novel, a resident of Amity claims that the shark is God’s agent of retribution for the town’s sins.

When police chief Martin Brody (Scheider) learns of the killing of Watkins, and that it was probably a shark attack, he wants to close down the beach to prevent any more attacks. The problem is that the summer tourist season has come, and the Amity economy depends almost entirely on tourism. Because of this problem, Vaughn and the town’s selectmen want news of the shark attack to be kept secret. And so the editor of the local newspaper, Harry Meadows (played by Carl Gottlieb, who also did rewrites of Benchley’s original script for the film, and whose role as Meadows was little more than a cameo, as opposed to Meadows’s much more substantial part in the novel), gives no reports of the attack.

Issues of class difference having an impact on the novel first become apparent in the dissatisfaction of Ellen Brody (Gary) with her marriage to Martin. Her family background is further up in terms of social class than his, so her having become the wife of a police chief feels as though she’s ‘married down.’ As a result, she feels alienated from the Amity community, who seem ‘beneath’ her, and when she meets Matt Hooper (Dreyfuss), an ichthyologist from a class echelon similar to hers–and whose older brother she once dated, years before knowing Martin–she develops a sexual interest in him. Needless to say, none of this is in the movie.

What must be understood here is that the unpleasantness of these characters (her lust, Hooper’s snottiness to Martin, his jealous suspicions of Hooper with his wife and resulting antagonism to him, etc.) is all part of the novel’s critique of class conflict and alienation, all products of capitalism, which in turn is an important part of the overall theme of predation in the novel. Recall, in this connection, Einstein‘s words: “the real purpose of socialism is precisely to overcome and advance beyond the predatory phase of human development.”

Because no one yet knows of the danger of the shark, some people go out to the beach for a swim. Brody is there, too, watching over the area just in case. A little boy named Alex Kintner goes into the water and is eaten by the shark; in the film, his blood is splashing with the water, the shock of it vividly captured in the famous dolly zoom of Brody’s reaction to the killing.

Because of technical difficulties with ‘Bruce,’ the mechanical shark used in the film, its appearance had to be limited. Spielberg was able to turn this problem into a virtue, however, by instead suggesting the shark’s presence: filming from its POV, using shadow, and having John Williams‘s famous music, with the E-F-E-F-E-F-E-F in the cellos, double basses, etc. The result was something incalculably scarier, with the sense of approaching danger.

When Alex’s mother (played by Lee Fiero) learns that Brody had known of the shark danger, yet let the beaches stay open, we see her approach him and slap him. In the film, her reaction is gentle compared to the rage she shows him in the novel, and it’s another example of how the film makes the characters more likable and sympathetic.

Still, despite Brody’s attempts to have the beach closed, especially since he’s racked with guilt over Alex’s death (Brody has sons of his own: two in the film, and three in the novel), Mayor Vaughn insists on keeping the beaches open for the sake of the summer season and the health of the town’s economy.

Now, in the film, Vaughn seems to be a well-intentioned, but short-sighted and foolish mayor, dismissing the shark threat and trivializing it in comparison to the, to him, far greater urgency of keeping the town’s economy healthy. In the novel, though, things get far more sinister and darker when we learn of his business dealings with the mafia.

In many posts, I’ve described the presentation of the mafia in film as symbolic of capitalists, since I consider the exploitation of labour to be criminal. The mafia’s criminal actions are illegal, with mainstream capitalists, their criminal actions are legal. In the Jaws novel, though, the mafia are literally capitalists, who have bought up local property at cheap prices and are hoping, during the summer tourist season, to sell it at much higher prices to get a nice profit.

So the mafia is pressuring Vaughn, who in turn is pressuring Brody, to keep the beaches open, with no regard whatsoever for the safety of the swimmers. The mafia at one point even kill the Brody family cat, which Brody angrily tries to blame on Vaughn. Now, Vaughn, incidentally, also needs money from the tourism to pay off some debts. So in all of these issues, we can see not only a sense of predation far greater than just that of the shark, but also how Benchley’s novel is a critique of capitalism.

In man’s muscling into the marine animals’ territory to make a profit, we can see how one of the residents of Amity considers the shark to be an agent of God’s retribution against the wicked.

Quint (Shaw) is introduced in the film far earlier than he is in the novel, which is just before he, Brody, and Hooper go out hunting for the shark. At a town meeting, where a $3,000 bounty is placed on the shark, the eccentric Quint, after scratching his fingernails on a chalkboard where a shark has been drawn (suggesting his Ahab-like hatred of the great white marine animal), he offers his own shark-hunting services for $10,000.

Other shark hunters go after the shark, but end up catching a different one, a tiger shark. At about 6:47 in this set of deleted scenes, we see not only their shark hunting, but also their rowdy competition with each other, hitting the butts of their rifles against other boats, throwing bait at rivals in other boats, foolishly taking their dogs in their boats, and recklessly firing their rifles into the water. Though the film managed to remove much of the novel’s human predation, this deleted scene demonstrates at least an attempt to compensate for those removals.

Because the shark seems to have been caught and killed, Vaughn confidently assures everyone it’s OK to come to Amity Beach and have a good time in the water. He reminds us that amity means “friendship,” though for those who know the town of the novel, the unlikeable characters imply that the town would be more aptly named ‘Enmity.’

Indeed, the sense of unfriendliness and alienation is so keenly felt in a reading of the novel that at times it’s to be noted even in the narration itself. Homophobic slurs pop up occasionally, and racist stereotypes are presented in the insistence that rapists in the town must be black. I suspect, in all fairness to Benchley, that these elements aren’t meant to be a reflection of his character, but are meant to be present in whoever is narrating the story, presumably a resident of Amity.

To get back to the film version, we note that people are on the beach again, though at first they’re nervous about going into the water. Vaughn has to urge an elderly couple to go in, to prod all the others to go in also, by imitative conformity. Brody has people patrolling the water, watching it like hawks in case the shark that had been caught was the wrong one.

Around this time, we see a TV news reporter saying a cheesy line about how Amity Beach has a cloud over it in the shape of a killer shark. This, by the way, is a cameo by none other than Peter Benchley himself (a former reporter for the Washington Post)…and one wonders if the clichéd line he speaks is meant to be a dig at the writer’s prose.

After a prank pulled by a couple of boys in the water, a false alarm that allows for some temporary relief in the tension, the shark really makes an appearance, killing a man, whose dismembered leg is seen floating down in the water, his blood mixing with it. Later, Vaughn is finally showing some remorse over his trivializing of the danger and his overconfidence that there was no more shark to worry about.

Around this time in the novel, Ellen has seen Hooper again, and with a tense dinner party in the Brody house, her predatory seduction of him begins. Martin, sensing the chemistry between them, is getting drunk and making things awkward for everyone.

After the party, she arranges to meet Hooper in a restaurant for lunch, and the flirtation between them continues. At one point, she makes an odd comment about having rape fantasies. While it is true that some women have these (though they’d be more accurately described as fantasies of being ravished or of having ‘good, rough sex,’ the word ‘rape’ being used here for its connotations rather than its denotative meaning, since ‘rape’ by definition is something one does NOT want to be subjected to), one cannot but be suspicious of the inner motives of a male novelist putting such fantasies in the mind of one of his female characters.

Still, as unseemly as such fantasies may be in Ellen’s mind, they do, in a way, fit in with the general theme of predation. If we see sexual predation and seduction as forms of sexual sadism, then ‘rape’ fantasies could be seen as examples of sexual masochism. Ellen, in this sense, would prey on Hooper and be preyed on by him. In this connection, note what Freud once said: “A person who feels pleasure in producing pain in someone else in a sexual relationship is also capable of enjoying as pleasure any pain which he may himself derive from sexual relations. A sadist is always at the same time a masochist.” To paraphrase Freud, a predator is always at the same time prey. The shark will certainly be the prey of Brody, Hooper, and Quint.

Anyway, Ellen and Hooper will go to a hotel after their lunch date and prey on each other, as it were, in bed. Martin, in the meantime, will try to reach both of them by phone that afternoon, and being unable to do so, will feel his jealousy swelling in him.

Other examples of what could be called predation in Amity include some local scammers trying to take advantage of tourists, who want a glimpse of the notorious shark they’ve heard about in the media; the scammers will trick the tourists into buying unneeded tickets for admission to the beach! Brody finds out about this, and realizes he has to apprehend the scammers.

Finally, after a boy narrowly escapes being eaten by the shark, Brody closes the beach and convinces the town’s selectmen to hire Quint. Now, as we know, insanely jealous Brody and snotty rich kid Hooper are not likable (as opposed to their portrayal in the film, of course), but neither is the Quint of the novel, who disembowels a blue shark and uses an illegally caught unborn baby dolphin as bait, angering ichthyologist Hooper. Once again, we see man as much more of a predator than sharks are.

Now, while in the film there is some friction among the three men on Quint’s boat, the Orca (aptly named after the killer whale that is the natural enemy of the great white shark), such friction is expressed in a generally light-hearted manner. Recall Dreyfuss’s Hooper making faces at Quint after being told he can’t admit when he’s wrong.

In the novel, however, the friction among them gets much nastier, and this contributes to their unlikeability. As I mentioned above, neither Brody nor Quint likes snotty rich kid Hooper, and in this we see the alienation caused by class differences, caused in turn by capitalism. On top of that, Brody’s rising jealous suspicions of Hooper having played around with Ellen (also, as we’ve seen, a product of class differences) fill him with so much rage that at one point he physically attacks Hooper, strangling him for a moment.

While in the movie, the men go out in the Orca one time and confront the shark at the end, in the novel, they go out on four separate trips, each time returning to shore at the end of the day. They never see the shark on the first day, but they do on the second, and Brody is amazed at the size of it. In the film, his amazement can be related to the scene when he’s ladling chum into the water, the shark suddenly appears, shocking him, and he backs up and says the famous line to Quint, “You’re gonna need a bigger boat.” (Incidentally, Scheider improvised the line.)

The third day is not only when Brody and Hooper have their fight, but also when Hooper brings the shark cage and, unlike in the film, he dies underwater in it when the shark attacks him. Now, he was originally supposed to die in the film that way, too, but footage filmed of a great white shark attacking the cage (with no one in it) looked so compelling to Spielberg that he wanted to use it, and this meant rewriting the scene so Hooper instead would escape and swim to safety on the ocean floor, then resurface with Brody, and together they swim to shore at the end. Besides, the problems with ‘Bruce’ were a constant source of changes to the story.

The fourth and final day, of course, is the final confrontation with the shark, both it and Quint dying, though the latter dies in a more Ahab-esque way, and the former in a far less…explosive…way. But I’ll come back to that in more detail later.

While in the film, there is some friction among the three men, there’s also a lot of camaraderie, which adds to their likability. This is especially so in the night-time scene on the Orca, when they have a few drinks and engage in male bonding in the form of Quint and Hooper comparing scars on their legs.

And it is at this point that we come to one of the most important film contributions to the story: Quint’s recollections of what happened to the crew of the USS Indianapolis. This incident really happened in 1945; the ship delivered the components of an atomic bomb to Tinian in a mission so secret that when the ship was sunk by Japanese torpedoes while on its way to Leyte, the Philippines, the navy was late to learn of the ship’s non-arrival in Leyte.

The surviving crew at the time were left adrift over an ordeal of several days, leaving them without food or water, to suffer from exposure to the elements that resulted in such problems as hypothermia. Then there were the shark attacks, which of course are the focus of Quint’s telling of the story, as well as the source of his Ahab-like hate of sharks.

Just as Captain Ahab, in his rage, tells his crew of when the white whale bit off his leg, so does Quint speak, though in a calm, sombre voice, of his trauma and fear from that ordeal in the water. The scene adds depth to his character, to help us sympathize with him, and also to add an Ahab relation to him in a way that Benchley’s attempts at such a relation come off as contrived and superficial in comparison.

There’s another thing that the Indianapolis story adds to Jaws: the element of capitalism’s muscling in on the sea, causing nature to get revenge on it in the form of shark attacks–God’s retribution on the sinful, as that Amity resident sees it.

The sending of the atomic bomb components to Tinian, “the Hiroshima bomb,” as Quint calls it, was of course part of the plan not only to defeat Japan in WWII, but also, as I explained here, to give the Soviets a great big scare. The nuking of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was meant to demonstrate the military superiority of the American empire to the world. As we Marxists know, imperialism is the highest stage of capitalism, WWII was an inter-imperialist war between Anglo-American imperialism on one side and fascist imperialism on the other.

The nukes didn’t just kill between one and three hundred thousand Japanese; they were also an outrage against nature. The shark attacks, thus, are a symbolic revenge.

In the novel, after Hooper dies, Brody believes the shark can’t be killed and tells Quint he doesn’t think the town can pay him anymore. Quint, however, decides he’ll go after the shark with or without the money, so determined is he in his Ahab-like drive to kill it.

In the final confrontation, the shark attacks the Orca, causing it to sink. In the novel, after harpooning the shark several times, Quint gets his foot entangled in the rope of one of the harpoons he’s hit the shark with, and as the shark goes back into the water, Quint is pulled in with it and he drowns, in true Ahab fashion. All he’d have to say, to make it perfect, is, “from hell’s heart, I stab at thee…”

This link with Moby-Dick is feeble and anticlimactic compared to Quint’s spectacular death in the movie, since we know of his trauma from the Indianapolis incident being reawakened as he kicks in terror and slides down to the shark’s eager mouth to get that fatal bite in the belly.

While the shark’s confrontation with Brody in the novel is, again, anticlimactic, at least it’s more realistic than the spectacular blowup at the end of the movie. Benchley hated the changed killing of the shark so much that he got kicked off the set when they were to film it. Brody’s shoving of a pressurized tank into the shark’s mouth, then firing a bullet into the tank, would not have caused it and the shark to explode; still, Spielberg felt a more dramatic ending was more important than realism, and from the point of view of the movie’s commercial success, he was right.

As for the novel, though, the wounded shark moves closer and closer to Brody, who is afloat on a seat cushion now that the Orca has sunk, and he’s resigned to his fate. But the shark, right up close to him now, just…dies. It succumbs to its harpoon wounds, and sinks down to the ocean floor with Quint, his leg still stuck in the harpoon rope.

Then Brody, like sole-surviving Ishmael, starts swimming to shore–the end!

This is the way the novel ends, not with a bang but a whimper. Again, it’s not an exciting ending, it’s certainly an abrupt ending for the novel, but that was Benchley’s point. This is reality: people aren’t generally very nice (sorry, Dear Reader!), and problems aren’t normally solved in a dramatic, Hollywood fashion.

Jaws the movie is a great moment in cinematic history, to be sure, and is thoroughly entertaining, but it is so because it’s a capitalistic crowdpleaser. Jaws the novel, on the other hand, is an exploration of the darker, predatory nature of man as well as, if not much more so than, of sharks, of which the one in the novel is just a symbolic projection of ourselves.

Predictably, the phenomenon of the film led to the sale of Jaws-related merchandise as I mentioned above, as well as sequels that got worse and worse until being totally ridiculous. Then there were attempts to capitalize on marine animal terror with different movies, like Orca. So the first Jaws film may be justifiably far more beloved than the novel, but it also proved Benchley’s point about the predatory nature of capitalism.

The Tanah–Beginnings, Chapter Eleven (Fragment)

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

Rawmios had a new teaching for his followers. This is what he said: “Your focus determines your reality. If you focus on the good, you will be happy. If you focus on the bad, you will suffer. Life is a mix of good and bad: though we desire the good, we cannot escape an experience of the bad. We must not imagine the bad to be any bigger than it really is. In the Unity of Action, good and bad alternate like the crests and troughs of the ocean: sometimes they alternate quicker, other times, slower, but they do alternate. When the good comes, prepare for the bad; when the bad comes, patiently wait for the good to return. We don’t like the bad, but we mustn’t despise it. The bad flows into the good, and the good flows into the bad.

“We must not focus on the things we know we cannot have: we would suffer such pain as to go mad. Vainly hoping to gain the love or respect of those who will never give it to us will drive us mad. This is the First Error: mad thinking. Mad thinking denies cosmic unity by thinking we can have love and respect, all from one area, and no hate or scorn also from that area. Reality, however, is fluid: love and hate flow in and out of each other, as do respect and scorn; also, these opposites move from place to place, often going back to the original place, but never staying in any place.

“In the Unity of Action, all things are in permanent flux. Therefore, instead of fixating on one place, vainly hoping to get what we want, always from that place, we must be willing to follow what is good as it moves from place to place. This does not mean we may divorce at the first sign of a marital problem, or repudiate friendships or family whenever any difficulty arises: often enough in these situations, the bad will flow back into the good quite soon; but if it rarely flows back to good, and then only briefly good, we must leave to find our love elsewhere.

“Another aspect of the Unity of Action is the Echo Effect: whatever we send out will come back to us, as the echo of a sound we make rings out back to us. We must not think the evil we do won’t come back to us, just because no one knows what we did…it will. Suffice it to say: if you want something to come to you, you must give that something to others.

“To maintain unity in the universe, an excess in one direction results in an excess in the opposite direction. If our attraction to someone beautiful has us come too close to the desired person, that person will push us far away. […]”

Commentary

As can be surmised by the reader, what we have here is only a fragment of a larger chapter that has been lost. Perhaps the rest will show up in future excavations, and then we can translate it and put this entire chapter together, along with any chapters after this one, to complete the account of Rawmios’ life. For now, though, this is all we have, and what will come after is the next book of the Tanah–“Migration,” which will give narrations after Rawmios’ death.

As for this fragment, we explore further the dialectical unity of opposites, and how one cannot have one opposite without the other. This unity of opposites is a recurring theme throughout the Tanah, as has been expressed either directly in the narratives and their philosophy, or indirectly in the untranslatable nuances of the original language (their rhythms, the connotations in the imagery, the musical qualities of the diction–alliteration, rhyme, assonance, etc.).

Another idea Rawmios touches on here, the “Echo Effect,” is what the Hindus and Buddhists would call karma, or where in the Bible it says that we reap what we sow, or the idea in physics that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction. With this idea is the injunction to do unto others as we would have them do unto us. Perhaps in the lost remainder of this chapter, and any other lost chapters after this one, he developed this idea more than the brief account of it we unfortunately only have here. Maybe one day we’ll find it.

Since this is just a fragment, we can only assume that there was supposed to be another concrete poem to finish it off. The poem, if it ever existed, has been lost, too. One can only speculate on how the poem expressed, in the visual arrangement of its verses, the “Echo Effect” and the wavelike unity of opposites.

Lake of Fire

To see
a child
inside
a school
engulfed in
a lake of fire, left in the flames, to burn there and die

should
push you
to rush
in and save
her from the rising sea of flames. Such a hero would be
the image of basic human decency. Better I burn than you.

But we
live in a
world
in which the inferno and imps are up here, raising the flames
with them as they emerge, allowing no aid, doing nothing to stop it.
They’d have us all on fire rather than deluged with compassion.

I don’t
believe
in a hell below, but if I am wrong, the wrong who are making our
hell up here should be dropped in that lake of fire down there, to
be tormented day and night for ever and ever, as they are doing
to all of those in Gaza. The Holy Land is most unholy these days.

Analysis of ‘American Beauty’

American Beauty is a 1999 satirical black comedy film directed by Sam Mendes in his feature film directorial debut. Written by Alan Ball, the film stars Kevin Spacey, Mena Suvari, and Annette Bening, with Thora Birch, Wes Bentley, Chris Cooper, and Allison Janney.

The film received widespread critical and popular acclaim, grossing over $350 million worldwide and winning five Oscars, including Best Picture, Best Director, Best Actor for Spacey, Best Original Screenplay, and Best Cinematography. It was also nominated for and won many other awards and honours, mainly for directing, writing, and acting.

Retrospective appraisals of American Beauty, however, have not been as positive. Its themes have seemed trivial since 9/11 and the Great Recession of 2007-2009. Allegations of sexual misconduct against Spacey have not helped the film’s reputation, either, especially given their disturbing parallel to the lecherous, teen-obsessed character he plays in the movie.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here is a link to its script.

I find it interesting to do an analysis of a film praised before the 21st century, and one whose praise has dwindled since the beginning of the 21st century, because I find the change in values between these times so well encapsulated in this change of attitude toward the film.

What were considered deep themes in the movie–rebellion against the psychological imprisonment imposed by social conformity in the American middle class, finding beauty where it’s least expected, living a more meaningful life, etc.–now seem fairly trivial and superficial. What seems to have brought about our change in attitude toward these themes, our depreciation of their worth, is our change in attitude toward the liberal mindset.

It takes someone like the people in this suburban middle-class neighbourhood to see depth in these themes, whereas someone raised in poverty, or in the Third World (oppressed by Western imperialism), would regard them as little more than First World problems. We the audience are meant to sympathize with Lester Burnham (Spacey), the beginning of whose lecherous, predatory attraction to underage Angela Hayes (Suvari) is the inciting incident in the story that propels his character arc from psychological imprisonment to liberation and finally to redemption, when he finally stops his predation on her, just before mounting her, on learning she’s not the sex goddess he thought she was, but just a virgin.

It took such world-shattering events as 9/11 (with its resulting perpetual war, curtailing of civil liberties, mass surveillance, etc.) and the global financial crisis of the late 2000s to make us realize how hollow and superficial the bourgeois liberal values of this film are. The idea that one can take such a flip, light-hearted attitude towards Lester’s creepy designs on a girl, when he seems to go to heaven after being shot…the sight of which gets an awed reaction from Ricky Fitts (Bentley).

The movie begins by acknowledging Lester’s creepiness through his daughter, Jane (Birch), complaining to Ricky about it, and even seeming to consent to have her boyfriend kill her dad. What immediately follows is a shot of a tree-lined street, bird’s-eye-view, in the American suburbs. A voice-over of Lester saying this is his neighbourhood, and that he knows he’ll be dead within a year, suggests it’s his spirit looking down from heaven and remembering that last year of his life. Lester–a pun on lecher?–is in heaven–forgiven so easily? And who is his killer? Is it Ricky, or someone else?

Next, the film establishes Lester’s dull, pathetic life as of the beginning of that last year, when he-as-angel imagines he’s “dead already.” He’s in a psychological prison, symbolized first by the shower door he’s seen behind, where he masturbates–the best time of his miserable day–and second by the image of columns of data on his computer screen at work resembling jail bars, with his face reflected on it among the columns, making it look as if he were incarcerated in his office at his miserable job as a media executive.

It’s significant that, when we’re introduced to his wife, Carolyn (Bening), she is seen cutting one of many red roses (American Beauties) she’s been growing on the fences around their house. Red rose petals are a recurring motif in the film, associated with Angela’s sexuality and therefore Lester’s sexual resurrection. His neurotic, control-freak wife has been sapping him of his energy for years, or so he imagines. Her clipping of the roses is therefore symbolically apt.

After we see her with the roses and chatting with one of the Burnhams’ two next-door neighbours (Jim and Jim are a gay couple played by Scott Bakula and Sam Robards), there’s a scene with Jane in her bedroom at her computer. She’s wearing a sweater with a motif of red roses, and being a typically insecure teenager, she’s looking into getting breast enhancement.

That the rose motif ties Angela in with not only Lester’s wife but also his daughter–with all of the sexual overtones either discussed above or implied and understood–should tell us all we need to know about Lester’s filthy mind. His being trapped in the capitalist world should be enough for us to sympathize with him, but his idea of how to escape that trap–lusting after a girl his daughter’s age (implying unconscious feelings he may have about Jane, in that red-rose sweater and wanting to have larger breasts!), smoking Ricky’s weed, and replacing his media executive job with a much lower-paying one and with far fewer responsibilities–causes our sympathy to wither away.

His obsession with an underage girl, combined with his defiant attitude at work towards his “efficiency expert” boss, Brad Dupree (played by Barry Del Sherman), who’d have Lester justify why he shouldn’t be fired, makes me describe American Beauty as a cross between Lolita and Office Space. In this combination we see the psychological conflict of the liberal mindset (link above): the superego makes moral demands for progressive social change and freedom from capitalist exploitation (Office Space), while the id wants satisfaction of base, morally objectionable desires (Lolita).

When Brad tells Lester about the “need to cut corners” in the business to “free up cash,” since profits are more important than workers’ needs, of course, Lester reminds Brad of when the company’s editorial director, Craig, used company money–$50,000–to pay for the sexual services of a prostitute. This upper-level man gets to enjoy that and have his reputation protected from scandal, while lower-level workers like Lester have to fight to save their jobs.

When Brad says, “It’s just business,” we might be reminded of a famous line in another movie about capitalist and political corruption–The Godfather. Of course, Lester considers his need to write out a report justifying his job to be “kinda fascist,” as he says to Carolyn when they’re driving home; and then, almost immediately after, they notice they have new next-door neighbours moving in, on the opposite side of the Burnham house to the Jims. This new family are the Fittses, whose father, Col. Frank Fitts (Cooper), as we’ll eventually learn, is “kinda fascist,” too.

We learn that the family who’d lived there before and moved out were mad at Carolyn for having cut down a sycamore that both their and the Burnhams’ property shared. Her cutting down of the sycamore reminds us of her cutting the rosa American beauties. Just as those flowers are superficially beautiful, but are susceptible to the fungi diseases mildew, rust, and black spot (symbolic of the superficial enjoyment of luxuries and material pleasures associated with capitalism, which mask the evils of imperialism and poverty–recall in this connection the song “American Woman,” by the Guess Who, and sung by Lester in his car later on in the film as he’s smoking a joint), so is the chopped-down sycamore symbolic of the pain of being in love.

Romeo visited a sycamore grove when he was sad, lovelorn, and wishing to be alone in his rumination. Desdemona, fearful of her increasingly jealous husband, Othello, sang “a song of willow,” which began, “The poor soul sat sighing by a sycamore tree…” (Act IV, Scene iii) ‘The Willow Song’ is about someone in love who dies of a broken heart when the love object proves untrue. Sycamore can also be a pun on “sick amore,” or “sick in love”…or in the case of Lester’s taboo infatuation, a “sick love.”

So in this cut-down sycamore, we see more of the Lolita-oriented symbolism, a variation on those clipped red flowers, a killing of Lester’s sexual energy by his psychologically castrating wife. Small wonder he masturbates so much, and as Angela will later observe, he and Carolyn haven’t had sex in a long time. Incidentally, Angela’s last name is Hayes, rather like Dolores Haze in Lolita.

Note also how, on the one hand, Lester is obsessed with Angela, Jane’s friend, but on the other, he has barely spoken to his daughter in months, as she herself complains to him at dinner. His infatuation with her friend could be interpreted as an unconscious displacement of incestuous feelings for Jane (recall the rose motif on her sweater).

Consider how, if you watch the film carefully, Jane wears less and less makeup as the story progresses, while Angela remains fully made up throughout. The implication is that Jane’s desirability is being transferred, displaced, from her to Angela. And when Lester sees Angela for the first time, during the cheerleader dance routine to the music in the high school gym (‘On Broadway’), both she and Jane are in the same uniform, dressed identically, and heavily made up. All of this just makes Lester’s desires all the creepier.

So instead of directing his energies towards doing something about the exploitative capitalist system (as Milton symbolically does by burning down the Initech building, his place of work where he’s mistreated so badly as to work for no paycheck, in Office Space), Lester lets those energies of his be distracted by and redirected towards the immature grafitication of his libido. Such is the typical liberal mindset. Tom Hanks’s Charlie Wilson is similarly hedonistic in a movie that glorifies using the mujahideen to weaken the Soviet Union, ultimately leading to the Taliban.

Because of this liberal acquiescence towards not just the gratification of desire, but also to self-absorption and to the bland and the conformist (instead of rising up in solidarity with one’s fellow workers to overturn the system), we shouldn’t be surprised to see the Burnhams’ new next-door neighbours as having a head of the house with fascist tendencies. Recall that even the Jims, the gay couple on the other side of the Burnhams’ house, are also fully enmeshed in bland bourgeois conformism, the kind that would tolerate, if grudgingly, such fascist tendencies.

Note what Stalin once said back in the 1920s: “Fascism is the bourgeoisie’s fighting organisation that relies on the active support of Social-Democracy. Social-Democracy is objectively the moderate wing of fascism. There is no ground for assuming that the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of Social-Democracy. There is just as little ground for thinking that Social-Democracy can achieve decisive successes in battles, or in governing the country, without the active support of the fighting organisation of the bourgeoisie. These organisations do not negate, but supplement each other. They are not antipodes, they are twins. Fascism is an informal political bloc of these two chief organisations; a bloc, which arose in the circumstances of the post-war crisis of imperialism, and which is intended for combating the proletarian revolution. The bourgeoisie cannot retain power without such a bloc. It would therefore be a mistake to think that ‘pacifism’ signifies the liquidation of fascism. In the present situation, ‘pacifism’ is the strengthening of fascism with its moderate, Social-Democratic wing pushed into the forefront.”

American liberalism, especially ever since the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the age of the Clintons, is to the right of social democracy, making it even closer to fascism. We thus shouldn’t be surprised at the contemporary liberal embrace of Ukrainian fascists, as well as liberals’ enabling of the Zionist ethnic cleansing of the Palestinians.

To get back to Lester’s watching of the cheerleader dance in the school gym, we must keep in mind that, from his point of view, Angela is too far away from him to be seen in any detail and therefore to become the object of so sudden and intense an infatuation with her. In that uniform and all made up, she hardly looks any different from his daughter, apart from Angela’s blonde hair and Jane’s brown hair. It’s thus easy to see how he can go from unconsciously lusting after Jane to consciously lusting after Angela.

Since it’s his own daughter he so incestuously and shamefully wants, that is, his own flesh and blood, this lust is symbolically narcissistic, as is his habitual masturbation. This ‘having sex with oneself’ is in turn symbolic of his narcissistic self-absorption and solipsism, which brings us back to my point about the liberal mindset: one is too egoistic to care about the problems of the rest of the world in a meaningful way, thus enabling fascism to creep into our world.

So underneath the surface of physical beauty and the desire to have it, and other sources of superficial happiness, is a moral decay. Hence, the name of the movie, referring to a flower of surface beauty, but with root rot.

Examples of this superficial beauty or happiness hiding a deeper ugliness or unhappiness include Carolyn’s embrace of toxic positivity: first, she–being a real estate agent–chants the affirmation, “I will sell this house today,” then after all the work she’s put into cleaning the house and trying to sell it, failing to do so with client after client, she bawls like a baby at her failure.

Another example is Angela’s physical beauty masking her ugly, narcissistic personality. She constantly bad-mouths Ricky as a “mental-boy” and others whom she imagines to be envying her for her ‘success’ as a model, shouting “Cunt!” at one of them. She isn’t even the sexually experienced hottie she presents herself to be.

There are also instances of ugliness or misery that…could be seen…as masking beauty or happiness, or at least they are presented in the film as such or as possibly so. Col. Fitts’ homophobia is an ugliness that masks what is finally revealed at the end of the film: his suppressed homosexual feelings that he hides through reaction formation. If he’d stop hating himself for those feelings and be honest about hem, he might see a beauty in himself and find true happiness.

Ricky has a reputation for being mentally ill, since his father, the colonel, has had him put in psychiatric hospitals, and also because Ricky has an odd habit of filming things he thinks are beautiful, but which most people would never deem as such–a dead bird, a plastic bag drifting in the wind (Ball’s apparent inspiration to write American Beauty), and a homeless woman frozen to death. Actually, to get to know him, he’s one of the most laid-back guys ever.

So there’s a recurring theme of people or things not being what they seem. In fact, as time went on, people came to realize that this movie isn’t what it seemed: not so deep, not even really finding beauty in the unexpected.

As I’ve been trying to argue here, the acts of rebellion–against bosses, against a domineering wife, against appropriate expressions of sexuality (either those genuinely appropriate or merely deemed so)–aren’t the edifying ones they’re presented as. Finally, the sentimentalized ending, portraying a redeemed, angelic Lester looking over his neighbourhood from heaven, right after his getting a bullet in his head and all the other awful things I’ll discuss below, seems terribly inappropriate.

And yet these inappropriate and trivial themes make sense in a film that, intentionally or not, allegorizes liberal self-absorption as paving the way for fascist violence. Since we’ve seen these things happen in real life in the decades since the release of American Beauty, perhaps these trivialities aren’t so inappropriate after all.

When Lester first sees Angela in that cheerleader dance–what, as I said above, was too far away to be seen in any significant detail, and thus was just any teen girl as a variation on Jane–he’s seeing, as a displacement of Jane and therefore of his own flesh and blood, a metaphorical mirror of himself, a Lacanian ideal-I. His drive later on to exercise, lift weights, and smoke Ricky’s pot (to be cool), to be desirable to Angela, is part of his drive to live up to the ideal-I, for desire is the desire of the Other, for recognition by the Other, to be desired by the Other.

Just as Angela is a mirror reflection of Lester’s narcissistic ideals, so is Ricky, Lester’s “hero” for quitting his catering job so insouciantly so he and Lester can smoke pot outside the building where a party is being held for Carolyn and other real estate agents like “King” Buddy Kane (played by Peter Gallagher and who incidentally is her mirror reflection of her narcissistic ideals, her ideal-I). It therefore shouldn’t be surprising that Lester, in imitation of his teen hero, should quit his job so insouciantly, too.

The point is that with Angela and Ricky as Lester’s two teen ideals, the metaphorical mirrors in whom he sees himself whenever he’s with either of them, he is, at heart, an overgrown teenager whose interactions with those two have reawakened his repressed immaturity. That’s what he means at the beginning of the movie when he says he’s “lost something,” but “it’s never too late to get it back.”

This immaturity of his shows itself not just in his predation on Angela, but also in his masturbating and fantasizing about her, his pot-smoking, his quitting of his media job to replace it with the low-paying, low-responsibility fry cook job, and in his impulsive buying of the 1970 Pontiac Firebird. And just as he’s planning on cheating on his wife with his feminine ideal-I, so is his wife going to cheat on him with her masculine ideal-I, the “King” of real estate.

To shift away from Lacanian to Jungian psychology, in Lester’s designs on Angela, he is symbolically connecting with his anima; in Carolyn’s desire to be with Buddy “the King,” she is connecting with her animus. Now, while normally such a connection, symbolic or not, with a repressed side of one’s psyche is a positive development in one’s mental health, Mr. and Mrs. Burnham’s narcissistic, self-absorbed motives vitiate the hopes of such improvements.

Lester sees himself in Angela and Ricky, and likes what he sees. Col. Fitts also sees himself (as we learn by the end of the film) in the two Jims at his front door when they introduce themselves to him and welcome him to the neighbourhood…but he does not like what he sees. He’s disgusted to realize that by ‘partners,’ the Jims do not mean ‘business partners,’ but partners in the bedroom. Lester’s lust and teen hero worship reflect his narcissism and immaturity; the colonel’s homophobia reflects his self-hate and shame.

The Jims’ welcome gift to the Fittses includes flowers, what are a motivic link to the rosa American beauty and the chopped-down sycamore tree. They’re an expression of love to be rejected.

Angela is Lester’s Jungian anima, Buddy is Carolyn’s Jungian animus. The Jims, and by extension what the colonel sees, however incorrectly, in Lester and in his son are his Jungian Shadow, the ego-dystonic part of himself (his suppressed homosexuality) that he’ll never accept…even up to when he kiss’d Lester ere he kill’d him.

Now, Ricky is Lester’s Shadow, but a Shadow the man eagerly integrates. One thing to remember in all of this is how Ricky goes from doing unwanted filming of Jane, initially upsetting her, to being her boyfriend. Ricky’s being Lester’s Shadow is thus all the more insightful…and disturbing…given what I said above about Lester’s desiring Angela as a displacement of his repressed incestuous feelings for his daughter.

In stark contrast to Lester’s nagging, domineering wife is the colonel’s timid, almost catatonic wife, Barbara (Janney). A housewife whose spotless house seems unbearably filthy and messy to her neurotic eyes, she seems to have mental problems rooted in, apart from the miseries of housekeeping and a borderline fascist husband, a near-nonexistent sex life. One imagines his copulating with her to conceive Ricky to have been nothing other than painful.

Ricky goes home one night to see his mom and dad in the living room watching TV. We should not be surprised to see her watching This is the Army, a movie only her husband would be interested in watching. Seeing military men on the screen, the colonel is looking in a metaphorical mirror, seeing his ideal-I as a macho he-man rather than the ‘Jim’ that he secretly is.

It’s significant that we see a shot of Ronald Reagan back in his acting days. As we know, it was Reagan who, with Thatcher in the 1980s, helped bring today’s neoliberalism into full force, with all that nonsense about ‘small government’ (translation: bust unions and cut taxes for the rich, but build up a large deficit, in no small part due to military spending) and the “free market.”

This shift to the right in the decades since then–with increased income inequality, the killing of welfare, the allowing of mergers and acquisitions in the American media so that now six corporations control 90% of it and therefore determine most of Americans’ access to information, and the economic instability since the Great Recession (to say nothing of the endless wars since 9/11)–has helped create the conditions that have resulted in the fascist leanings of the Trump administration, the use of Neo-Nazis in Ukraine to provoke a needless, avoidable war with Russia, and the Gaza genocide. Col. Fitts’s enjoyment of an army film with Reagan in it is, thus, most apt.

To get at the colonel’s own fascist leanings, something that can be found in a lot of people in the armies of many countries, we need only see the scene in the film when Ricky has taken Jane into his house and shown her his dad’s plate, on the back of which is a Nazi swastika in the centre. The colonel would easily see the putting of pink triangles on gay men as a good thing.

To return to Lester and Ricky smoking pot outside the building where the real estate party is happening, it’s interesting how Lester picks, of all subjects to be talking about with Ricky, the scene in Re-Animator when Dr. Carl Hill (played by David Gale), a decapitated, reanimated corpse, performs forced cunnilingus on Megan Halsey (played by Barbara Crampton)…or as Lester so crudely puts it, “the head goes down on that babe”. When we consider the age difference between the lecherous old doctor and pretty young Megan, it’s easy to see how Lester would identify with the doctor. Being “dead already,” Lester is something of a reanimated corpse himself.

When Lester later wants to buy more pot from Ricky, he’ll use “Re-Animator” as a code word for the pot so the colonel, in earshot, won’t know what the movie is meant to represent. Still, “Re-Animator” is an apt way to describe a substance Lester is using to bring himself back to life with, to bring back his lost youth and coolness.

During this scene, when the colonel has been washing his car by the road in front of his house, and he has seen Lester jogging with the Jims, he suspects that Lester is of similar sexual inclinations with them, and he is therefore a little uncomfortable with Lester going up to Ricky’s room to get “Re-Animator.” The colonel is seeing his own secret sexuality in everyone except himself.

Before that scene, the night when Lester and Carolyn have come home from the real estate party (and he’s still enjoying his buzz), Jane and Angela are there, the latter enjoying the narcissistic supply she’s getting from his sexual interest in her and wanting to encourage it. This is one of those moments when women have legitimate suspicions about the motives of a male writer (Ball) characterizing a pretty teenage girl returning the sexual curiosity of a man old enough to be her father, one she hardly knows, one with few charms of his own for her to be interested in.

Such a mutual sexual interest is utterly implausible. It’s a mere male sex fantasy, and a creepy one, at that.

As inappropriate as such a movie premise is, though, I find it fitting that Lester’s lustful motivation to work out over the rest of the year and to smoke pot is entangled with the colonel’s growing suspicions that his son is having a homosexual relationship with Lester, however incorrect they may be, leading ultimately to the colonel killing Lester. I see an allegory here of liberal self-absorption and pleasure-seeking leading to fascist violence, which wouldn’t have happened if that liberal energy had instead been used to fight for social justice.

We should consider, in this connection, the implications of Lester driving around in his car while smoking a joint and singing along with “American Woman.” From the lines he’s quoting in the scene, one would think he’d be reconsidering his creepy attraction to one underage American female in particular, but of course, he isn’t.

Other lines from the song that are not heard in this scene, but ones far more pertinent to the meaning of the song lyric, involve not needing the “war machines” or “ghetto scenes” of the US. The writer of the lyric and singer of the Guess Who, Burton Cummings, has denied that the song is political; but knowing the words quoted above, I’d say he’s just sheepishly trying to avoid offending his potential American audience and thus lower sales of the music.

In any case, it’s significant that Lester neither quotes the unmistakably political passage nor takes to heart the other parts of the song, those about the dangerously seductive allure of the US and what it stands for–politically, economically, and culturally. Such obliviousness, while singing along stoned, is key to understanding not just what’s wrong with the America that the film is satirizing, but also what’s wrong with the film itself.

In this scene, Lester personifies the liberal who indulges in pleasure (for his id) while paying lip service to an acknowledgement of the issues of injustice in the world (for his superego), by singing along to the song while stoned.

Later on, after Carolyn has dealt with her own sexual frustration by sleeping with Buddy in a hotel, he tells her about another way she can release her stress: by going to a firing range downtown and shooting a gun. Nothing, apart from sex, will make her feel more powerful, he promises her.

Later on, she’ll go there and fire a gun, finding it to be just as fulfilling as Buddy promised it would be. The gun is a phallic symbol, the firing of it obviously symbolic of orgasm. She feels so powerful shooting it, as opposed to the powerlessness of being in an unhappy, loveless marriage to an immature, irresponsible husband who is now forcing her to be the main breadwinner of the family. In her toxic positivity, she’d have no one rain on her parade, but he does so all the time.

This phallic symbolism is in turn symbolic of giving her a kind of power traditionally given only to men–hence, her fulfillment in firing the gun. If this interpretation seems offensively phallocentric to you, Dear Reader, then consider this aspect of the movie to be yet another of its many faults, as with the misogyny of Carolyn’s ‘bitchiness’ and the sympathetic portrayal of a lecherous ephebophiliac.

Yet another fault of American Beauty is the scene when Ricky, walking home with Jane, tells her about his having filmed a homeless woman who froze to death. Jane rightly notes how incomprehensible it’d be to film such an awful thing, but Ricky thinks “it was amazing.”

Ricky claims that the “amazing” thing about seeing the homeless woman’s dead, suffering face, its “beauty” is that “God is looking right at you. And if you’re careful, you can look right back.” Perhaps Ricky really is a psycho after all. Or maybe this is just the privileged bourgeois liberal mindset that doesn’t have to worry about freezing to death from having no home. Such people can afford to see “beauty” in the suffering of the poor.

Later, after taking her home and showing her his dad’s Nazi plate–again, with an attitude of mere curiosity, not moral repugnance–he shows her “the most beautiful thing [he’s] ever filmed”…that stupid image of the white plastic bag floating about in the wind, this insignificant image that Ball thought was so profound.

Ricky imagines that this meaningless bag, drifting in the air, is a sign that there’s “this entire life behind things…an incredibly benevolent force…” telling us there’s “no reason to be afraid. Ever.” Well, when you live in an upper-middle-class suburban neighbourhood, far away and safe from the horrors of Third World poverty, Zionist oppression, and other forms of the kind of imperialist violence that would soon lead to 9/11, you might believe in such a sentimentalized kind of divinity…even if your dad beats you from time to time.

It’s easy to see “so much beauty in the world…[that you] can’t take it…” if you don’t ever have to worry about freezing to death when homeless. Recall that even when his dad disowns him and kicks him out of the house for supposedly being gay, Ricky has no fears of homelessness; he’s even confident enough to take Jane with him, because he can simply sell dope to make ends meet.

This sentimentalized “God” that Ricky talks about is a variation on Carolyn’s toxic positivity, which is also represented in her cornball choices for music to listen to at dinner, much to the annoyance of Lester and Jane. Carolyn will play this phony upbeat music while complaining and bullying the two of them…hence, toxic positivity, as when Ricky sees “beauty” in a homeless corpse or a man with a bullet in his head.

In her bedroom, and after a family fight, Jane looks out her window and sees Ricky filming her again. Instead of feeling uncomfortable about it, she removes her shirt and bra for him. Since he is, as I mentioned above, Lester’s Shadow, and she is as underage as Angela, we can see how indirectly creepy her indulgence of Lester’s incestuous lust is–seen through Ricky’s camera.

And what happens immediately after? Ricky’s father barges into his bedroom and hits him, furious that Ricky sneaked into the room with the Nazi plate. Once again, we have a scene that allegorically juxtaposes overindulgence in physical pleasure with a fascist kind of repression. Though the filmmakers probably never intended this, we see in this scene how indulgent liberalism, contrary to popular belief, is often quite close–next door, even–to fascism.

After Lester, at his fast-food job by the drive-thru window, has caught Carolyn with Buddy in her Mercedes together and has put two and two together about them, she has to deal with her now-disintegrating marriage. Driving home on that rainy night, at the climax of the film, she is listening to a motivational tape telling her she’s “only a victim if [she chooses] to be a victim.” She also has her pistol for the firing range, a Glock 19, in one hand. Toxic positivity, in a nutshell.

Meanwhile, the colonel has become convinced that Ricky is having a sexual relationship with Lester, having seen the two together in the latter’s garage, the two of them positioned in a way that seems, from the colonel’s incomplete perspective, that Ricky is performing fellatio on Lester (actually, Ricky is bent over rolling a joint by Lester’s legs, while Lester is leaning back in a bowl chair).

This is the night that Lester is to be killed. Who will do it? Ricky, as suggested at the film’s beginning? Carolyn, with her Glock? Or the homophobic colonel? The answer is far from surprising; it’s disappointingly predictable…another plot weakness.

Jane and Angela are in the Burnhams’ house, arguing over whether or not Angela should let Lester have her. Jane not only objects to Angela screwing her dad (an indirect, displaced screwing of Jane, as I’ve described above), but also her talking about Jane’s presumably by-now-sexual relationship with Ricky (Lester’s Shadow, once again implying an indirect sexual relationship between father and daughter). It’s as though Jane can intuit her father’s unconscious desires for her, and also senses that his otherwise surface emotional distance from her is an unconscious reaction formation against those desires.

What’s striking here is how there are several sexual relationships going on, or appearing to be going on, or about to be going on, with varying levels of approval or disapproval. Ricky’s seeming gay relationship with Lester is looked on with horror by the colonel; Carolyn’s adultery with Buddy is accepted by Lester, since his relationship with her is “just for show”; Jane’s relationship with Ricky is regarded bawdily by Angela, who also rejects him as unfit for her, him being such a “psycho” and a “freak”; and Lester’s would-be sexual liaison-to-be with Angela is treated semi-sympathetically in the film, when this is the one that should be condemned the most, by far.

We’re about to see two families fragment into pieces over sexual relationships, real or imagined, actual or potential. Both mothers are going to end up alone: Barbara will lose Ricky from having been disowned by the colonel, who surely will be charged with Lester’s murder soon after this night ends, and therefore she’ll lose him, too; Carolyn will lose her husband and Jane, who’s going to run away with Ricky, since I doubt she’ll grieve much over her pig of a father, and Ricky probably won’t stick around long enough to learn that his dad is Lester’s killer. Carolyn can console herself with Buddy…to an extent.

And Lester, the selfish root cause of so much of this mayhem, gets to look down as an angel from heaven on the neighbourhood, full of “gratitude for every single moment of [his] stupid little life.” Toxic positivity, once again.

When Lester makes his move on Angela–who feels hurt and vulnerable after Ricky has called her “ordinary”–he’s taking advantage of her vulnerability…well, to take advantage of her. He’s being the consummate creep, a total sexual predator on a minor, and what does it take to get him to snap out of it and behave like a decent human being?

Just as he’s getting her out of her clothes, she tells him this is her first time to have sex.

She is no longer the sex goddess he’s imagined her to be. She’s just a child…like his daughter.

He now realizes, on at least some level, that he has repressed his incestuous feelings for Jane, and his repression has returned in the unrecognizable, displaced form of Angela. His guilt and shame have finally surfaced, and he cannot go through with having sex with her.

Does this sudden repentance redeem him, though? Of course not! He should have expelled from his mind the thought of having Angela from the very beginning, no less so than that of having his daughter. We all have dark desires in our private thoughts, even the best of us do; but the better among us will never act on those desires, not even entertain the idea of acting on them. That’s the difference between the Lesters and the decent people of the world.

What’s worse is that we now know that Spacey in real life acted on his dark desires, for example, getting drunk at a party back in 1986, and aggressively coming on to Anthony Rapp, then 14 when Spacey was 27. Since then, he’d been recognized as one of the most celebrated actors of recent times, just as Lester is portrayed sympathetically in the film, rather than condemned. Only since the #MeToo movement has Spacey been forced to take responsibility for his many gropings and sexual advances, just as American Beauty has been reassessed, its critical reputation having sunk. It’s sad when an actor of Spacey’s obvious, enormous talent is discovered to be someone to be looked down on rather than up to.

What should be considered a real low point in the film is how only at the end does Lester realize what he was doing was wrong, and instead of feeling and demonstrating a due amount of shame and remorse, he acts as though he’s on the cusp of nirvana, or to use a Catholic metaphor, he’s received sanctifying grace! Instead of feeing a great need to atone and earn forgiveness, he’s grateful for his “stupid little life.” That bullet in his brain is hardly a punishment, since as Ricky observes in amazement and near-religious awe, Lester’s facial expression shows bliss and peace of mind.

Just before the colonel, who feels shame for sexual feelings he needn’t blush at, pulls the trigger to kill Lester, the man who should be feeling shame for his inappropriate lust is looking lovingly at an old photo of himself, Carolyn, and Jane as a little girl. He feels great, as he’s told Angela, when he should be weeping at that photo and whispering “Sorry” to Jane, since his lust for Angela was redirected from his unconscious incestuous feelings for Jane.

Two families have been torn apart by lust and violence, and the movie has a liberal ‘feel good’ ending. This is what I mean by toxic positivity: just trivialize human suffering and imagine that some kind, gentle, and genial God is watching over everybody and judging nobody, not even judging those who surely deserve it.

Liberal self-absorption and overindulgence in pleasure, rather than rising up against our exploitative economic system, is what ultimately leads to fascism–just see what’s happened between the 2000s and 2025. The Burnhams and Fittses living next door to each other is apt. That American Beauty was celebrated before 9/11, then negatively reassessed after 9/11 and the Great Recession, is also apt, since the traumas caused by those two cataclysmic events have woken us out of our liberal torpor.

In a way, though, American Beauty is a most fitting satire of our contemporary lives, since the film embodies so many vices that ought to be satirized. We just have to refrain from sympathizing with Lester, for if we do sympathize with him, then the satire’s on us.

‘Confessions from the Think Tank’ is Published!

I have three written works published in Confessions from the Think Tank, a Kids’ Space Camp Charity Anthology (originally A MUFON Charity Anthology)–two short stories, “The Portal,” and “Neville,” and an essay originally published here on my blog, When Tech is Dreck. The book is a Dark Moon Rising publication, and it is published on Amazon in e-book and paperback, Barnes and Noble e-book, and here in e-book format.

Here’s what “The Portal” is about: a woman high on LSD stumbles into a portal that takes her to an alien world with human collaborators who are helping the aliens colonize the Earth and steal its resources. She’s come back through the portal to Earth to warn her friends about what she’s seen. But is it real? Has she really seen these sights, or is it just part of her drug trip? Is there really something out there to worry about, or is she just going insane, as her friends think she is? Read it to find out!

“Neville” is another alien conspiracy involving stealing from the Earth, though it’s food this time, and the story is a bit of a parody on the Noah’s ark myth. And again, the characters do a lot of drugs. My essay, “When Tech is Dreck,” is about the potential dangers of modern technology. If you read it and doubt the veracity of any of my arguments, my blog post (link above) has lots of links to back up my arguments.

Other great writers in this conspiracy-oriented anthology include Alison Armstrong, John Bruni, J. Rocky Colavito, Dawn Colcalsure, Brady Ellis, Thomas Folske, Megan Guilliams, Kasey Hill, J.L. Lane, J.C. Maçek III, Pip Pinkerton, Edward Radmanich, John Reti, Neil Sanzari, David L Tamarin, Rob Tannahill, Edgar Wells, and Walter Wiseman.

Go out and get yourself a copy of this amazing book. You’ll love it! 🙂

The Tanah–Beginnings, Chapter Ten

[The following is the eleventh of many posts–here is the first, here is the second, here is the third, here is the fourth, here is the fifth, here is the sixth, here is the seventh, here is the eighth, here is the ninth, and here is the tenth–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.]

Indeed, Rawmios fully proved that even though his family had spoken so ill of him, and had made all expectation of him seem small, he took that smallness and made big accomplishments with it. This doing much with little would be an important theme for him, and for his teachings.

He was gaining fame as a teacher, but he knew he needed to improve how he presented his ideas, for his listeners either couldn’t understand the more abstract notions, or they found his method of presentation dull. Rawmios needed to use all of his resources and talents to reach out to his followers.

He decided that presenting his ideas in song, art, or dramatic forms would better convey, in symbols, his more abstract and abstruse ideas. He had some success with this: singing and playing lute-like instruments; drawing pictures; and performing one-man plays to narrate, in parable form, his ethics. He was still, however, very limited with this, so he found more resources.

He was fortunate enough to be living at a time when many amazing new inventions were available and affordable, so he bought some of them. He didn’t, however, know how to use them very well. There was a device in everyone’s home, connected through a network with this device in every other home around the known world. On this device, one could record images and sounds and publish them on the network so everyone would know what one recorded. Rawmios would use this device to record songs, art, and dramas.

He could also record several separate performances, and through editing put them together so as to seem like one big performance. Thus he could record himself singing, playing lute-like instruments, hand drums, and pipes–all for one song–and with all the recordings put together, it would seem like the performance of a large band instead of many performances by one man.

Similarly, he could put several drawings one after another in the form of a slideshow, so they could tell a story. Finally, through the use of costuming, make-up, and editing of recordings of several dramatic performances, he could do dramas with multiple characters, all played by him.

One may ask why he didn’t simply get other actors or musicians to perform with him. The reason is that few people living in Lumios, or anywhere in Nawaitos, were committed to a life in the arts. The local people were practical, devoted to work that made large sums of money to support their families. Much of the work, in fact, was in making the very inventions Rawmios used to make colleagues in performance unnecessary.

Because Rawmios’ work was in teaching, philosophy, and the arts, he made less money, which made the production of quality recordings difficult. His relative inexperience with recording predictably made producing quality work an elusive thing, too. When he published his recordings, people praised his creativity and originality, but criticized the poor quality. This was something he would have to improve on, in time.

These criticisms reminded Rawmios of the fourth time he left the city of his family in Canudos, and of the man who told him he needed to focus on his art in order to improve. This he would have to do, to improve the quality of those recordings.

Some critics, though pointing out the poor recording quality, made something of a virtue out of it, in that here we had a man who could do much with so few means. Other people recorded music, art, and drama with far more resources but with far less originality. Many people made lavish productions with derivative ideas.

Rawmios used this perspective as the basis of a lesson to teach in relation to the Three Unities and the Ouroboros. He said, “Our focus determines the quality of our work. If we focus on the clever manipulation of devices, but not on artistic originality, we know how our work will be in the end. If we focus on our art, but not on the proper use of the devices, we know how our work will be in the end. We must not focus too much on the one and not enough on the other. Devices used in excess become the biting serpent’s head; art used negligently becomes the serpent’s bitten tail–the one bites, and destroys the other. The same is true of art as the serpent’s head and devices as the serpent’s tail.”

Rawmios continued working on recording songs, art slideshows, and dramas. While he worked harder to improve their technical quality (and some aspects did improve), still there were significant flaws. Ultimately, he decided not to dilute his work by diversifying so much; instead, he would focus on recording the songs and improving their sound quality. In time, he would learn how to improve the quality of recorded images, and then resume doing slideshows and dramas.

He saw this, too, as a lesson to be taught to his followers, and he related this idea of focus to the Three Unities, and to the Ouroboros. He said, “Our focus determines the quality of our work. The capacity of our focus is limited. If we stretch that focus out over many things, each thing has little focus, and therefore little mastery. If we focus on few things, each thing has much focus, and therefore much potential for mastery. Trying to master a diversity of things is like the biting serpent’s head; the many things one tries to master simultaneously are like the serpent’s bitten tail–the one bites, and destroys, the other. Pride causes this excess; humility will curb the excess. Mastery of a few things avoids the biting and the bitten. Mastery of many things can only be done slowly and patiently, after mastering the few things first.”

Commentary

There is much to be praised in the one who can achieve much after being maligned as incapable. In this we see the oppressed, bitten tail of the Ouroboros shifting over to the masterful biting head. Still more is there to be praised in the one who achieves much with few resources. In the right circumstances, those limitations can drive one to use diligence and ingenuity to compensate for them, thus making hard work with limitations oppressive at first, yet at last emerging triumphant–here we see again the shift from bitten tail to biting head, from wretch to master.

The one with many resources, however, may get too complacent with his work, especially if he has been praised to excess. This comfort may cause him to work with less thought given to quality, and his work will suffer–the biting head hurts its own tail. Similarly, if we try to master many things, this is too much mastery, and our work suffers–the biting head wounds its own tail.

Now, one more thing needs to be addressed about this chapter: the baffling appearance of advanced technology in the ancient world. Our scholarly team has no way to account for its mysterious and bizarre presence here. While there are some who believe that ancient civilizations had advanced technology that has since been lost, there is no archaeological evidence of any kind, anywhere, to substantiate such fanciful claims.

Yet, here we are, with an apparent ability to “record” sounds and visuals, not by jotting the ideas down on paper: zavedzka, in the ancient texts, means capturing visual and/or auditory moments or events and keeping them to be experienced again and again. What devices Rawmios had to enable him to do this, we team of scholars have no idea.

Similarly, the arranging of these “recorded” visual events in the form of a “slideshow” (kolnika, an array of images appearing in close succession), images that, like the “recorded” sounds, can be “edited” (volsnay), or altered to improve their visual or auditory quality. Finally, there is a “network” (tibilsk) that connects all of these things to be experienced by people in homes all over the known world…an ancient internet? Again, it’s just too bizarre to be believed.

Still, these ancient texts insist on the existence of such technology. What was the true nature of these invented devices? How could they have been created back then? Why are there no traces of them now? Again, that joking comment of one of our scholarly team, with regard to the linguistic anomalies in the text, comes back to haunt us with regard to this technology…aliens?

Here’s another of the text’s concrete poems.

A
house
of
gold

that
topples…….
easily……………….

is……………………..built
by…………………………………men…………………………………of mediocrity

BUT

Those
who
can
build
a
lasting
edifice
from
straw
are
truly
men
of
genius.