Analysis of ‘It,’ Part V

Here are Parts I, II, III, and IV, in case you haven’t read them yet.

XXI: Eddie’s Bad Break

In the library, Eddie feels a sharp pain in his arm, a memory from back when he was a kid, and Henry and his gang attacked Eddie and broke his arm (page 987). This is not to say that he immediately remembers the cause of the break, of course–the pain is the result of repressed trauma rising back up to the surface of consciousness. Remembering Henry is something he just doesn’t want to do.

The pain has been triggered by all the childhood memories that the other adult Losers are bringing up in their conversations in the library. Trauma can resurface in the form of physical pain. What’s striking here about Eddie, though, is how, as a guy who’s normally neurotic in the extreme about germs and ill health, he thinks so little about the broken arm that he’s forgotten how he got it from Henry.

A little later, Bill remembers Eddie’s mother, and how she seemed a combination of crazy, miserable, furious, and frightened (page 990). Shortly after that, Eddie’s aspirator rolls across the table by itself. Then Ben points out the balloons, which read that “ASTHMA MEDICINE GIVES YOU CANCER!” (page 991). Eddie then remembers Mr. Keene, the owner of the Center Street Drug Store; he told Mike about the Bradley Gang shootout (section XVII, from Part IV). Mr. Keene was also the one to tell Eddie, when he was a kid, that the asthma medicine he’d been giving Eddie was just a placebo (page 1000).

Sitting in the back of the drug store and having ice cream with Mr. Keene, little Eddie learns that the placebo he’s getting is “head-medicine” for an asthma that is only in his mind, because his mother has been manipulating him into believing he really has it. This placebo cures his asthma in his head, too.

Now, the placebo is another example of the duality of good and bad in It. The placebo is good in how it “makes the patient feel better,” as Mr. Keene tells Eddie (page 1001). You can “see the harm,” though, the bad in a placebo, in how it is a lie. Specifically, it perpetuates Eddie’s mother’s lie that he needs it. As an emotionally abusive mother, she’s using Eddie’s “asthma” to control him, as a form of Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy.

Naturally, Eddie can’t accept the idea that his mother is deceiving him (page 1003). He’d rather believe that Mr. Keene is lying to him than that she is. What Eddie is doing here is using a defence mechanism called ‘turning around upon the subject’s own self.’ He’d rather be ‘sick’ than realize that the caregiver he, as a little kid, depends on to survive is trying to hurt him.

So again, in this defence mechanism, we see that duality of good and bad. Believing his mom’s lie about having asthma is ‘good’ because it relieves him of the anxiety of having to deal with an emotionally abusive mother, yet it’s also bad for obvious reasons.

After the drug store scene, Eddie gets bullied by Henry Bowers and his gang, this time including Victor Criss, “Moose” Sadler, and Patrick Hockstetter (page 1008). Henry wants revenge for the rockfight, naturally, and like a cowardly bully, with the help of his gang, he goes after the weakest kid, who is all alone.

Of course, Henry projects his cowardice and weakness onto Eddie by mocking his understandably tremulous words, “Leave me alone,” and waving his hands in mock terror (page 1010).

A nearby store owner named Mr. Gedreau intervenes (page 1011), trying to stop the gang from bullying Eddie, but Henry demonstrates further that he’s more than a mere bully–he’s an out-and-out psychopath. He gives the man “a good hard push,” knocking him down on the steps going up to the screen-door entrance of his store (page 1012). He sees “the light in Henry’s eyes” (which significantly reminds me of Its “deadlights“), and he threatens to call the cops; but Henry gives him a threat of his own, making to lunge at the man and making him flinch back.

Eddie sees his chance to escape and runs away, “Asthma or no asthma.” Of course, the gang chases after him. They get him, and Henry in his fury has the boy by the arm, it twists, and there’s a cracking sound, with a pain that’s “gray and huge” (page 1014). This breaking of little Eddie’s arm parallels the tearing-off of Georgie’s arm, thus reinforcing the closeness in identity between Henry and Pennywise.

The Bowers gang runs away after noting the approach of Mr. Nell (pages 1015-1017), the cop who earlier told the kids in the Barrens to get rid of their dam. Eddie is then taken to hospital. After receiving care from the doctor and nurses, Eddie sees his mother.

Significantly, he finds her eyes to be “almost predatory” (page 1021). There sees to be little difference between the Bowers gang and his mother as bullies. Her eyes also seem like those of the lecherous leper from the basement at 29 Neibolt Street, thus linking these bullies with Pennywise.

That his mother and the leper would be similar in the sexually predatory sense is in how Mrs. Kaspbrak exploits her son’s Oedipal feelings for her (later transferred onto his similarly overweight, overprotective wife, Myra, recall) so she can control him. Though such a relationship doesn’t involve actual physical incest, it is emotional incest, in that his mother uses him to fulfill emotional needs normally satisfied in a romantic relationship.

Since she’s overweight, she has obvious health problems that she won’t do the difficult work to overcome. It’s far easier for her to project health concerns onto her boy (via Munchausen Syndrome by Proxy) than to deal with her own health problems. Hence, her excessive worries about his physical well-being.

Ironically, she’s far more worried about the ‘bad’ influence of Eddie’s friends, the Losers, than about the bullies who broke his arm. So when the Losers come to the hospital to see him, she sends them all away, upsetting Eddie terribly (pages 1028-1029).

All of what Eddie’s been going through for the past twenty-four hours has been nothing less than overwhelming. Mr. Keene has planted a seed of doubt in the little boy’s mind as to what his mom’s true intentions are with the asthma medicine, mere water with an added medicine-like taste. Henry broke his arm, just after that revelation, and so before he’s even had time to process the emotional shock of it. And now, his controlling mother–reinforcing that original emotional shock–won’t let him see the small group of people he still trusts, those who can give him the real emotional soothing he so desperately needs.

This excess of shocks to his system, both in body and in mind, is the essence of trauma.

Though she acknowledges that it was Henry who broke Eddie’s arm, she stoops to victim-blaming to explain why the bully did it (he was provoked by the Losers, rather than he provoked them first, getting a rock-thrown reaction he deserved to suffer). Her attitude infuriates Eddie, making him tell her off good and proper, in spite of the weakness she’s imposed on him.

In his brief rant, he hits a nerve in her: she’s jealous of his friends out of a fear that they’ll take him away from her and leave her all alone (page 1031). Such jealousy is at the core of what the Oedipus complex represents: one narcissistically hogs another to oneself, never sharing one’s object, keeping him or her in a dyadic relationship, and other people threaten to compromise that one-on-one relationship. This is what she’s afraid of, and this is why she rejects the Losers.

She tries using tears to make him regret what he’s said (page 1031), but she’s shocked to find they are’t working the way they normally do. Eddie is standing firm in his bond with his friends.

She keeps trying to guilt-trip him with her tears, accusing him of hurting her, and calling the Losers “bad friends” (page 1033, King’s emphasis); but he won’t have her make him choose between her and them.

After more insisting from her that he give up his friends, he tells her what Mr. Keene told him. Though she maintains that Keene is lying about the medicine being just water, Eddie has accepted that it’s the truth. He has also accepted the truth that the asthma is all in his head (page 1035).

But now that it seems that Eddie’s mom is about to fall apart from the possibility of losing his love, he says that maybe Mr. Keene was joking about the medicine-as-water, and the asthma as being only in Eddie’s head (page 1036). Eddie also, with considerable shrewdness, tells her he’ll still hang out with his friends…while also still using his aspirator.

She realizes that this decision of his is a form of blackmail: he’ll go along with the asthma b.s. and let her baby him the way she does…if he can still have his friends. She has no other choice but to let him have his way. She’s been manipulating him, and now she’s being manipulated by him. It’s called karma.

Though she has to accept her son’s conditions, she never wants to see Mr. Keene again, for having put her in this situation (page 1037).

The irony of all of this is that, through the escalation of all of these problems for Eddie, he’s found a way to stop his mother from being so domineering…by continuing to use the aspirator, in spite of knowing he’s never needed it. He’ll pretend to continue being controlled by her, though both of them know he’s on to her.

The resolving of this conflict is thus another example of the good/bad duality in the novel. It’s bad that Eddie got hurt, but it’s good that he has been able to use Mr. Keene’s shocking revelation to get his mom off his back and to keep his friends. He’s been brave, standing up to his mom like that, but he’s still “scared, so scared” (page 1038, King’s emphasis).

That evening, the Losers return to the hospital to see him. Now, he can get that emotional soothing he’s so desperately needed for so long…for unlike what his mother has insisted, these are good friends.

The Losers tell Eddie about their plan to melt down a silver dollar and make it into projectiles–two silver bullet-like balls–to shoot at It in Its werewolf form, if they see the werewolf at 29 Neibolt Street. They’ll use Bill’s Bullseye slingshot to fire the balls at It, and “Beverly Oakley” has proven herself to have the marksmanship skills to hit It (page 1040).

XXII: Another One of the Missing: The Death of Patrick Hockstetter

With the ending of Eddie’s story, he reminds Beverly of when she saw It kill Patrick Hockstetter. And now she has a story of her own to tell (page 1045).

When we consider the kinds of filthy habits, filthy to the point of being disturbing, that Patrick had (killing flies, collecting them in his pencil box, and displaying them to his classmates; his abuse of animals and keeping them in an abandoned fridge in the Barrens; his murder of his baby brother; and him giving Henry Bowers a hand job after they, Belch, and Victor were lighting their farts), we can see why Beverly would first remember her abusive father and “that smell, the one they made between them” (page 1049, King’s emphasis).

This smell she and her father made between them is yet another hint that she has trauma from sexual abuse inflicted by him, abuse repressed so far inside of her unconscious that she has no explicit memories of penetration, but rather those return to consciousness in unrecognizable forms (the smell, the blood in the yonic sink-hole, etc.). She also remembers how, back then, around when Patrick died, that she was beginning to fill out, to become a woman, to have the kind of shapely figure men like, something to inflame Al‘s lust and make him all the scarier to her. Patrick’s own perversity is triggering her traumatic memories of her dad.

Speaking of smells, she also remembers the smell of the Barrens, the smell of the smoke-hole, when she went by the clubhouse to practice shooting with Bill’s Bullseye Slingshot. It’s there that, again, speaking of smells, she–an innocent, pre-teen girl in the late 1950s–saw Henry, Victor, Belch, and Patrick with their pants down, lighting farts (pages 1049-1050).

Now, the sight was a combination of hilarious, perverse, disturbing, and terrifying for her; for if those boys had caught her seeing what they were doing, “God knows what would have happened then.” (page 1049, King’s emphasis). Again, we have the good/bad duality: good (funny and entertaining), and bad (scary and disturbing). She was lucky to have the underbrush and a car to hide behind. She had to keep herself from laughing, so they wouldn’t hear her, and if she’d tried to run away, they might have seen her.

After a while of lighting farts and burning asses, Victor and Belch had to leave, so Henry and Patrick would be alone together…or so they thought (page 1059). A little later, they stopped lighting farts, and Henry was receiving a hand job from Patrick, who was also touching himself (page 1062). As shocked as Bev was to see all of this,…”Still, she couldn’t look away.”

She thought about the male anatomy her otherwise innocent eyes were seeing, and she thought about Bill’s, imagining herself touching them. Again, we have the mix of good and bad: her horror and disgust at seeing the balls of her bullies, and the thought of handling those of a boy she really likes.

Her dad would be worrying a lot about her just then.

Patrick then offers to give Henry a blow job (page 1063).

There’s no way Henry’s going to go that far with homosexual activity, so in his predictable homophobia, he hits Patrick. The ironic thing about many homophobes is how they might be willing to open their minds to gay sexual acts, if not for disapproving mainstream society. Contemplating the implications of such open-mindedness is too much of a threat to the masculinity of someone like Henry, so he won’t go any further than hand-jobs.

Now, the homosexual acts here add to the creepiness of the scene not through homosexuality per se, but through a combination of our established dislike of Henry and his bullies, the very nature of Patrick’s mental disturbances, their all being underage, and especially the whole scene being witnessed by little Beverly. King may have sensed that this scene might be misinterpreted as disapproving of homosexuality in general, and so perhaps he added the scene of Adrian Mellon’s murder–right in Chapter Two, and as what may feel like an awkward interruption of the flow of the Losers’ story–to establish, from the outset, a sympathetic attitude toward gays, to offset this disturbing scene between Henry and Patrick.

Patrick insists, correctly, that Henry enjoyed the hand job, only further infuriating and threatening the latter. Significantly, and soon before Patrick’s death, Henry threatens to kill him if he tells anyone about the hand job. Patrick doesn’t seem deterred from squealing, so Henry also threatens to tell people about the fridge in which Patrick keeps his tortured animals (page 1069).

We understand that, shortly after Henry has left, Patrick stays in the junkyard, goes to his fridge, and is killed by It in the form of leeches flying out at him. Leeches were Patrick’s greatest fear, because when he was eight, after swimming in a lake and getting leeches on himself, he was screaming as his dad had to pull them off of his stomach and legs (page 1078). Pennywise always uses children’s fears as a weapon against them, since as I’ve said all along, It personifies trauma; but as with all the other killings in Derry, I believe Pennywise’s involvement in them is symbolic.

I believe Henry made good on his threat to kill Patrick, and the leeches flying onto the equally sociopathic victim were symbolic of his trauma. Henry had every motive in the world to kill Patrick. He had no guarantee that Patrick would keep his mouth shut about their homosexual activity, and Henry wouldn’t have been able to bear being thought a ‘queer’ throughout the town, so Patrick had to be silenced as soon as possible.

I suspect that the flying leech attack was really a hallucination. Leeches sucking his blood were really stab wounds from a knife. In his mind, Patrick said, “It isn’t real, it’s just a bad dream…” (page 1079, King’s emphasis). Patrick thought he saw a guy emerge from the junkyard cars, someone who dragged him towards the Barrens, symbol of the unconscious (page 1080). Beverly, watching the whole thing, wasn’t sure at first of what she was seeing. She only saw Patrick thrashing, dancing, and screaming (page 1081). I think it was Henry attacking him with a knife, maybe having hidden in or behind the fridge.

Another thing about leeches is that, of course, they suck, just as Patrick offered to suck Henry off. As sociopathic as Patrick was, he’d have had no trouble understanding how socially taboo fellatio between men was back in the late 1950s, as innocent little Beverly would have also understood it to be; and it’s with this socially conservative attitude that we find much of the content behind finding the masturbation scene so disturbing, not homosexuality in and of itself, as I said above.

So Patrick dying by seeing leeches sucking the blood and life out of his body, rather than Henry’s phallic knife ‘raping’ him, so to speak, is symbolic of him internalizing the especially virulent homophobia of his time…hence, I regard the death by flying leeches as a hallucination instead of taking it literally.

I’d say Beverly didn’t see Henry there at all, just Patrick thrashing about, screaming, and “blundering off down the path” (page 1081) because–just as with her trauma from her father’s sexual abuse–the shock of seeing his murder as it really happened was so intense that her mind, unable to process it, denied and repressed its very existence. Just a little while ago, as she’d watched the boys light their farts, then expose their genitals to her (however unwittingly), and the remaining two boys masturbating, she was terrified of Henry catching her watching them, then chase after her and and rape her (pages 1063-1064).

So it would have been too much for her to see Henry’s phallic knife stabbing into Patrick, ‘raping’ him. Instead, she just saw Patrick thrashing about and screaming.

Beverly ran, Bill’s slingshot in her hand, down the path where Patrick had gone. She saw drops of blood (pages 1083-1084). There were two grooves in the ground (his shoes), along with all the blood, leading from the junked cars to the Barrens, symbol of the unconscious.

She shared the understanding with Patrick that there were “things…in the refrigerator” (page 1084, King’s emphasis) that killed him, the leeches, and therefore It, but I suspect that It, being a metaphorical killer (according to my interpretation), had given her and Patrick a shared hallucination, because the two are sharing a trauma.

Eventually, she found Patrick’s wallet and sneakers (page 1085), the grooves in the ground no longer continuing. The second of the sneakers had blood on the laces. Surely the blood was reminding her of the blood in the sinkhole, a yonic symbol, recall, of her having been injured by her father’s phallic penetrations, something so horrific to her that she’d have repressed the memory of it so thoroughly that she imagined seeing the bullies’ genitals was her first time ever having seen them (page 1054).

It’s fitting in this connection that Beverly would recall her father’s words about her: “Sometimes I worry a LOT.” (page 1086, King’s emphasis). She also worries a lot, having seen such sexual perversity, indecency, and bloody violence. It’s just like what she’s seen at home with her dad. And it’s so awful that she has to repress and blot the worst parts out of her mind.

Several hours later, the other Losers (except Eddie) are with Beverly where she saw Patrick open the refrigerator. It starts raining (page 1087), suggestive of the apocalyptic, Deluge-like rainfall to be associated with the beginning of the story, with George’s death, and the climax, when the adult Losers finally kill It.

This association of the rain with the apocalypse is made stronger when, as it comes down harder, the refrigerator door swings open and the Losers see a message written in blood on the inside of the door. The clown warns them to stop, or he’ll kill them (page 1088). Hail is mixing with the rain, its hardness suggestive of rocks being pelted on the kids in an…apocalyptic…rockfight.

Bill isn’t scared. He’s angry, and he wants revenge for Georgie. He screams a threat to kill It, calling It a “son of a bitch” and a “bastard.”

With Bill’s guilt feelings over the death of George, based on his unconscious wish to be rid of his little brother, as I explained above, we see a sharp contrast with the unfeeling attitude of sociopathic Patrick toward the baby brother he actually killed (pages 1069-1071).

Bill senses that It is scared of them, and he wants his friends’ help to kill It (page 1088). The others promise they’ll help him, and that they won’t chicken out.

They all hug each other. This hugging represents their indispensable solidarity. The sleet fittingly switches back to rain, a weakening of the opposition, like Henry’s gang losing the rockfight.

XXIII: The Bullseye

In Mike’s library, the adult Losers continue telling their stories about their childhood experiences with It, and according to Richie, it’s Ben’s turn. He starts by unbuttoning his shirt and revealing the H that Henry carved in Ben’s belly (page 1091). Beverly immediately thinks of the werewolf in the house on Neibolt Street. It’s fitting that she would make such an association, since as I said above, Henry is the true teenage werewolf of this story.

It’s significant that Ben’s H, just like the cuts on all their hands from the childhood promise to return to Derry if It ever returned, has reappeared on his belly only recently, after years of having vanished (page 1092). These scars are symbolic of the repressed trauma that the Losers have forgotten for so long.

Since it’s the teenage werewolf (Henry, actually) that they have all remembered, now Ben is going to recount the story of melting the silver dollars to make projectiles to hit It with, fired by Bev, the best marksman of the group. Since the werewolf represents Henry, then the silver ‘bullets’ shot at It correspond to the rocks thrown at him, and this confrontation in the house on Neibolt Street is every bit, in its own way, as apocalyptic as the rockfight.

The adult Losers all remember their own personal, unbearable forms of pain. Bill remembers how badly he needed to kill It, to avenge Georgie and–as he’d hoped as a kid–to get his parents’ love, something little Bill had felt starved of. The adults contemplate how Stan killed himself because he couldn’t bear to face his traumas again (page 1093), and Eddie, in his mind, links this inability to face trauma with his own continuation to be ‘sick,’ to use the asthma medicine, even though he’d long known his asthma wasn’t real. The continuation wasn’t just blackmail on his mother, as explained above: it was also a kind of Stockholm Syndrome, a turning around against himself, to avoid confronting the ugly reality that his mother was abusing him.

After young Ben has expertly melted the silver dollars into projectile form, he and the other kids play Monopoly while the projectiles harden in the molds (page 1100). Stan wins the game, and being Jewish, feels free to joke about the money-making stereotype (page 1103). Ben, almost broke in the game, jokingly prays to Jesus to make him Jewish, getting laughs all around.

Bev has been worried about parental disapproval over her not coming home until later, but her father, also not coming home until late after work, won’t know, and her mom is reassured that she isn’t on a date or anything (page 1102).

What we see here, in the making of the silver projectiles and preparation for a confrontation with It-as-werewolf, is not a literal fight against the supernatural, but a symbolic confrontation with their fears and traumas. Bev has to deal with her abusive father. Stan has to deal with antisemites (including Henry) and their ideas about Jews ‘having all the money,’ and he does so by making fun of the stereotype.

The day the Losers all go to the house on Neibolt Street, armed with Bill’s Bullseye slingshot and the two silver projectiles that Ben made, is a hot day in late July (page 1106), just like the hot tension they’re all feeling. They look at the house. Stan thinks the windows look like eyes, presumably judgemental ones; he touches his bird book for good luck (page 1107). “They look like dirty blind eyes.” Eyes that don’t see, yet still seem to judge, something that defies logic to his mind, and is therefore offensive to him.

Beverly imagines the house to have a stink to it, but one you don’t smell with your nose. Again, as with Stan’s observation, the threats of the house don’t make logical sense: they give off a sense of trauma, reminding both of them of their respective traumas, yet there’s also the trauma of Lacan’s Real: not to be verbalized, not to be reasoned out, just uncanny.

Speaking of what, in relation to trauma, doesn’t make sense, Eddie goes for his aspirator, which as we know, he already knows he’s never needed. Adding to the senselessness, though, Richie then asks to use it; then Stan does, and so do all the others (pages 1107-1108). Sometimes we try to soothe ourselves in totally irrational ways, we’re so scared and desperate for comfort.

The kids wonder if any of the adults in Derry can see the supernatural phenomena. They’d love to have an adult who acknowledges It with them, to protect them, since this “isn’t a job for kids.” (page 1108). Sadly, though, few if any adults would acknowledge It, because their trauma is usually too repressed for such acknowledgement to exist.

The kids all go in the house, through the cellar window (pages 1110-1111), for cellars are also symbolic of the unconscious, and the mission to destroy It is, as I’ve said before, symbolic of Shadow Work, a making of the unconscious conscious, to confront and heal repressed trauma.

Richie, as usual, to deal with his own trauma, indulges in his tasteless humour and bad imitations of accents (page 1112). By page 1117, Ben has a better idea for how they can all cope with their fear and pain: they have to stay close together. He knows that It wants them to get lost, to get separated. Indeed, all people in power, sociopaths like It, try to maintain their power by keeping all those threatening their power separated and fighting with each other, when solidarity is key and indispensable to defeating said power structures.

The Losers get a number of scares as they go through the house, including one moment when Bill stutters repeatedly at Stan to use his bird book to ward It away (page 1120). At another point, they get a scare, Ben begging Bev to use the slingshot and shoot at what he thinks is a giant cricket buzzing behind a door (page 1122). It turns out that the noisemaker is just a mooseblower.

Finally, they see the Teenage Werewolf (page 1126). Bev has a silver projectile in the slingshot, ready to shoot, and Mike and Richie yell at her to shoot It (page 1127). She fires and misses. Recall that this werewolf represents Henry, and her firing the silver balls represents the rocks they all threw at him.

More connections between the Teenage Werewolf and Henry come when It attacks Ben, Its claws digging into his torso and spilling his blood all over his pants and sneakers (page 1129), the same way Henry’s knife dug an H into Ben’s belly. The Werewolf also throws Ben into a bathtub, which parallels his fall into the Barrens after Henry cut him.

Again, Richie screams at Beverly to shoot the Werewolf with her last silver projectile, but of course she has to save this shot for a perfect opportunity. She gets that opportunity and shoots, hitting It near Its right eye (page 1130). It screams in pain.

She’s out of silver projectiles, but she holds the slingshot as if she still has one. If It can use fear to gain power over the kids, then they can do the same thing to It. Indeed, the Werewolf’s eyes are full of uncertainty and pain (page 1131). It, too, has blood pouring out if It, like Ben.

It retreats into the drain, changing Its shape so It can fit inside. Its retreat is just like Henry’s when he lost the apocalyptic rockfight. Indeed, from inside the drainpipe, the Losers can hear It echo Henry’s words: “I’ll kill you all!” Such moments as these are significant, for they help prove my point that the real terror of Derry is Henry, the real Teenage Werewolf, and that Pennywise is merely metaphorical, a personification of everyone’s trauma…even Henry’s.

XXIV: Derry: The Fourth Interlude

On the night of April 6th, 1985, as Mike is writing about the history of Derry again, he’s getting drunk (page 1143). He’s thinking about drink and the devil; he even wants to write about it. He’s having rye whiskey. He’s in such a light-headed, high-spirited attitude, he actually refers to himself as “one drunk nigger in a public library after closing”.

This drunken spirit of levity, when he’s supposed to be seriously contemplating the history of Derry and how It has affected the town, is significant in how it reinforces the novel’s theme of adults looking the other way when evil strikes. This looking the other way is also important in the story Mike is about to relate, the massacre in 1905 in the Sleepy Silver Dollar, a beer joint (page 1149).

It’s so ironic that, after just hearing a story about the Losers confronting It in the form of the werewolf and defeating It with projectiles made from melted silver dollars, we now learn of a massacre totally ignored by the patrons of a beer joint called “the Silver Dollar.”

Indeed, Claude Heroux, an axe murderer who was responsible for the massacre, was never brought on trial for what he did there (page 1149). Heroux used his axe on five men who’d worked for William Mueller, who with Hamilton Tracker and Richard Bowie (page 1150) had murdered Heroux’s friends and fellow union organizers, so Heroux wanted revenge. One of the five attacked men escaped and survived, David “Stugley” Grenier.

The murder victims had been playing poker at a table in the back of the room. One of them was Eddie King, named after Stephen King’s middle name, Edwin. Heroux came in the Silver Dollar with a woodsman’s double-bitted axe in his hand (page 1151).

First, he chopped off, at the wrist, the hand of Floyd Calderwood after having poured himself a glass of rye whiskey (page 1152)…Mike’s drink, too, recall; Calderwood would later bleed to death. Then, Heroux stuck his axe in Tinker McCutcheon’s head (page 1153); the axe then went into his back. Eddie fell out of his chair, and Heroux’s axe went deep into his gut (page 1154). Then Heroux hacked off the head of Lathrop “El Katook” Rounds. Stugley had a gun and tried shooting at Heroux; instead, Stugley escaped to the outhouse.

As I said above, what’s striking about this massacre is how all other patrons looked the other way as the killing happened. “The drinking and conversation at the bar went on.” (page 1157) Heroux was led away, and a righteous fury built up over the killings, but this was only later. Heroux was then lynched, him being passive and hardly resisting at all. But why didn’t anyone at least try to stop him at the time, other than Stugley and his gun?

Thoroughgood, the man Mike has asked about the incident, says he saw someone that night near the Silver Dollar, who looked like a clown (page 1158). Thoroughgood saw him while having a beer in a place fittingly called the Bloody Bucket. Drink and the devil.

Mike ponders the idea that it is faith that It really eats (page 1159). It’s the faith of the children It kills that It eats. This is why the adults of Derry always look the other way when It attacks. A child is more capable of an act of faith than any adult, Mike reasons. By killing the faith of children, It can maintain Its power.

The rationalization the patrons of the Silver Dollar have for not even acknowledging the killings is that they wanted to stay out of the politics of the situation–after all, Heroux wanted to avenge the killings of friends who’d wanted to organize a union, which their capitalist bosses would never want. Still, it’s only with the solidarity of the people, the kind of solidarity we’ve seen among the Losers when they confront the werewolf in the house on Neibolt Street, that we can defeat evil of any kind, whether political or supernatural.

Kids like the Losers can have this kind of solidarity that too many adults lose, a solidarity based on faith that good will ultimately prevail. One imagines that Matthew 18:3 had such an idea in mind.

The people at the bar, like the adults of Derry in general, ignored the killings as they happened, but soon enough, their rage led to a lynching, without even any consideration for due process for Heroux, as was the case with the massacre of the Bradley Gang. The victimized Derry residents themselves become cold-blooded killers. The Derry adults go from one inappropriate extreme to another. Neither extreme does anything to solve the problem of It.

And what did both extremes, in the case of Heroux, have in common? Drink and the devil. Getting drunk is a manic defence against facing the depressing–and sobering–reality that one must deal with one’s trauma head on–one must face one’s Shadow, as the faithful Loser kids did in the house on Neibolt Street.

And who is yet another adult, getting drunk on rye whiskey when he’s supposed to be focusing on writing out the history of Derry and Its terrorizing of the town? Mike, an adult Loser.

As Mike is drunkenly contemplating this adult fading-away of faith, he’s also thinking about making those phone calls to all the other adult Losers (page 1160). Will they all even remember their childhood traumas, let alone believe Mike when he tells them that It is back?

These are people who no longer believe in Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy, or any of those old characters in children’s stories. Why would they still believe in Pennywise?

Pennywise, of course, still believes in the Losers, and It is ready for them (page 1160). It is ready to finish their business in Derry, and if they don’t remember, or believe, or if they even return, but can’t handle It, as the local adults can’t, Mike will be frightened.

XXV: In the Watches of the Night

Ben has finished telling his story about the silver dollar projectiles, and Mike decides the adult Losers should all leave the library, go to their respective accommodations, and get some sleep (page 1163). Their childhood memories are more or less restored.

They’re getting ready to leave, and Beverly screams, seeing blood on her hands, as do the others see on their own hands (page 1165). She wants to know if they’re all committed to defeating It, since the blood on their hands is a reminder of the cuts they had slashed on their hands as kids when they pledged to return as adults to Derry to defeat It. They all hold hands, the blood dripping from them, as they did when they were kids.

There are memories of the idea of the Ritual of Chüd and of the Turtle. The library’s typewriter stars churning out Bill’s “he thrusts his fists…” etc. Ironically, all of these things are elements leading to a defeat of their sources of trauma, elements of good, yet presented to them in a frighteningly supernatural way–bad. The duality of good and bad is appearing once again (pages 1166-1167).

Bill and Beverly leave the library together (page 1168). He’s thinking about Audra, not knowing how close she actually is to them, yet he’s also tempted to have Bev.

As she’s with him, she’s thinking about her father, and how he ‘worried about her a lot.’ (page 1169). She tells Bill of her love/hate relationship with Al, the Kleinian good and bad father all rolled into one…though as we know, that bad father was far more predominant, and only her Stockholm Syndrome/depressive position is making the good father at all visible…the good/bad duality in It appearing once again.

She has revived a memory of her confronting her pathologically jealous father, who suspected her, once again, of hanging around boys…this time, with the Losers, innocently playing tag, or something (page 1170). She went home, and Al was there, not at work.

He slapped her face hard (page 1171), then warned her if she lied, he’d beat her far worse (page 1172). She remembered a time when he’d bathed her. He knew she was in the Barrens with the Losers, but wouldn’t accept the idea that they were just innocently playing there.

He demanded she take her pants off (page 1173), so he could see if she was still “intact.” Now, him wanting to know if she was still a virgin seems to contradict my speculation that he has sexually abused her. One thing we must keep in mind, though, is that abusers are often in total denial of their abuse, and they’ll use projection and gaslighting to manipulate their victims into ‘forgetting’ that the abuse ever occurred. It’s far from impossible to believe Al has penetrated her, then manipulated her into thinking no penetration by him occurred…but by the Losers instead.

Anyone with a modicum of understanding of the concepts of psychoanalysis (nay: anyone with a modicum of common sense!) knows that a man who wants a girl to take her pants off so he can ‘inspect’ her vagina is doing so for one reason, and only for that reason. ‘Concern’ about her status as a virgin is the most transparent of rationalizations. For these reasons, I can conclude, even without any direct evidence, that Al must have sexually abused Beverly.

When “Beverly suddenly understood that she was alone in the apartment with It” (page 1173), she was alone with not only It as Pennywise, but It as a member of Al’s anatomy. She knew she had to defy him. She ran from him just as she’d run from Mrs. Kersh twenty-seven years later (page 1177), for just as Kersh represented Bev’s good and bad mother, so did Al represent her good and bad father…and she couldn’t afford to consider his good side now.

She ran from the man “who had washed her back and punched her in the gut and had done both because he worried about her, worried a lot” (page 1178), the “maleman of her life, delivering a mixed post, from that other sexual state…She saw It there.”

She ran outside, him chasing her, and she hid under a dumpster (page 1181). She had to put up with the “stink of exhaust and diesel fuel mixed with the smell of ripe meat” that gave her nausea (page 1182). One is reminded of that smell that she and her father made between them.

She had to rationalize her defiance of her father. She tried to remind herself that she loved him, that there was a good side to him (page 1184). Guilt over hating him for being this horrible man was making her remember the commandment to honour thy father and thy mother. She tried to reconcile herself to this monster by imagining that her pursuer wasn’t her real father…he was It.

This kind of thinking is the essence of traumatic bonding, Stockholm Syndrome, and a misplaced use of the depressive position. The truly terrifying thing that Beverly had to accept, but couldn’t accept, was that this was the real Al. Yes, he was that crazy. But for a helpless child like her, all she could do was turn it around against herself. It’s so much easier to displace the terror from Dad and put it on the clown, than to accept Dad as he really was.

She and Al weren’t the only ones losing it at that time–so was Henry, especially after having let Patrick touch him in the way he did (page 1185). Henry was seeing “a skeletal grinning face” in the moon. He was hearing ghost-voices from it, too. He was already the Teenage Werewolf for this story’s purposes. The voice, a merging of all the voices, was telling him to do things, and he’d know what to do next when the time came. Next, he heard a voice, not from the moon, but from the sewer, telling him to kill Beverly (page 1186). As we can see, it’s easy to link Pennywise with Henry.

All the adult Losers have left the library, so Mike is there alone, having cleaned up after their drinking (pages 1186-1187). After a while, though, he starts getting the feeling that he is not alone (pages 1190-1191). And soon enough, before Mike even needs to see his visitor in the light or hear his voice, he knows who his intruder is…Henry (page 1192).

Henry asks Mike if he ever hears voices from the moon (page 1193). Mike answers Henry by asking if he’s seen It, to which Henry replies by saying that It killed Victor and Belch.

In this moment, in spite of Henry’s repeatedly calling Mike “nigger,” and in spite of his obvious intention of murdering Mike, the two of them, in acknowledging the existence of It, of the personification of their traumas, are connecting, if only for the moment…here’s that good/bad duality again.

Of course, when Henry threatens to kill Mike and all the other Losers before It can get a chance to kill them Itself, he’s really just projecting his own murderous impulses onto this clown, this figment of everyone’s traumatized imagination. Mike himself implies that Henry and his gang were the true killers back in 1958, when he says, “Maybe you yo-yos did Its work” (page 1194).

Mike also reminds Henry that It, having killed his gang, may also go after Henry himself, perhaps in the form of Frankenstein’s monster, a werewolf, a vampire, the clown…or Henry. Hearing this really gets Henry upset.

Of course, Henry attacks Mike, and they fight (page 1194). Mike gets stabbed, and he’s bleeding to death; he tries calling for help on the phone, but though Henry has left the library, Pennywise’s voice, imitating Henry’s taunts and racial slurs, is making so much noise that Mike can’t hear anyone on the other end of the phone (pages 1199-1200).

After this scene, the novel quickly switches, mid-sentence, from Pennywise taunting adult Mike in the library to teen Henry taunting little Beverly just after she’s run away from Al and hid under the dumpster (page 1200). It’s significant that we’d switch so abruptly from Pennywise imitating adult Henry to teen Henry, since I’ve always interpreted the two, from the murderer’s perspective, to be virtually one and the same person.

We get another sense of Henry’s psychopathic disrespect for law or authority when an old lady comes by in a car to try to stop him from bullying Bev (pages 1200-1201). He runs at her car with a defiance similar to when he was bullying Eddie and broke his arm; Mr. Gedreau, recall, tried to stop Henry, and he got “a good hard push” (pages 1012). Henry was never your everyday bully.

And just as Eddie had experienced an overwhelming plethora of trauma on that day (his fake asthma, Henry breaking his arm, and his mother trying to keep him from his friends), so is Beverly being overwhelmed: like Eddie, she is being bullied and abused by a parent and Henry the psychopath.

After the old woman in the car has been scared off, Beverly kicks Henry in the balls and runs away (page 1202). This section ends as it begins, mid-sentence. Henry tells his gang that Bev has gone “down into the Barrens to be with her asshole…friends,” as adult Beverly finishes the sentence in the next section, which is her with Bill, walking together from Mike’s library at night, the two building feelings for each other.

It’s fitting how this transition shares similar themes. The sexual feelings that Bev is feeling for Bill are linked thematically with the sexual feelings her father was suggesting he had for her, as well as those feelings shared between Henry and Patrick…which she as a little girl witnessed.

Remember also in this connection the emotional incest between Eddie and his mom, which is to be connected with the physical incest implied between Bev and her father. There’s the abuse that Bev’s dad and Eddie’s mom inflicted on them, as well as the abuse Henry has inflicted on them. Even Bill’s lovemaking with Beverly is going to be a form of mistreatment. After all, he’s married.

This is not to say that Bill has completely forgotten about Audra, who recall is a lot closer to him geographically than any of them in Derry know. He totally has Audra on his mind as Bev is charming him. “Cheating. Cheating on my wife” (page 1204, King’s emphasis), Bill’s thinking. In fact, part of his guilt is causing him to see that Audra actually looks like Beverly (page 1203). Maybe this is why he chose Audra to be his wife–transference.

Guilt over Audra doesn’t mean he’s turned off being with Bev, though she’s wondering if he’s having second thoughts (page 1205). In fact, he’s so excited to be getting it on with Beverly that he’s worried he’ll ejaculate too soon, like a little kid. He’s imagining how he felt when the two of them were kids. As for her, she never has second thoughts about cheating on Tom Rogan because she hates the abusive, controlling bastard (page 1206), him also being a link between this section and the last one via Henry.

Bill and Bev make love, and when she climaxes, she suddenly remembers having made love to all of the Losers when they were kids (page 1208). So he has his sexual guilt feelings, and she’s had hers. He’s just betrayed Audra, and Beverly recalls for the first time in so many years having ‘betrayed’ her father by doing with the Losers the exact thing he’d ‘worried a lot’ that she’d do with a bunch of boys.

This realization of hers also ties this scene in with the one several scenes back, of her memory of having run away from her insanely jealous father.

Bev and Bill lie together in bed, in each other’s arms, and she falls asleep, running in a dream (page 1211). This dream of running segues, again mid-sentence, into the next section, which brings us back to her as a little girl, running from Henry and his gang and down into the Barrens to meet with the other Losers in the underground clubhouse (pages 1211-1212).

Though she’s been hoping to see Bill’s bike, Silver, and to meet with him, she finds Ben there instead. She knows Henry and his gang are close behind. She and Ben get in the underground clubhouse, him pulling the trapdoor shut (page 1213). Their closeness together here, though not a sexual one–as was the one with adult Bev and Bill–is nonetheless a parallel of that scene, since Ben has always had feelings for her as strong as Bill has had them.

Her need to feel safe with Ben from Henry also parallels adult Bev’s need to feel safe with adult Bill from It. And since I’ve been equating It with Henry throughout my analysis of this novel, the fact that adult Henry has attacked Mike in the library soon after Bill and Beverly left also strengthens these parallels.

And since the underground clubhouse in the Barrens represents the unconscious mind, adult Beverly’s dream of running segueing into child Beverly running to the clubhouse is also a seamless transition, because dreams are where the unconscious mind really lets itself out. An exploration of the unconscious mind can be therapeutic for trauma; so Bev in bed with Bill, drifting off to sleep, is symbolic of such soothing therapy. Her hiding in the clubhouse with Ben, so Henry can’t get her, is also symbolic of such healing. Getting a form of love from Ben and from Bill in this healing way is also an example of the parallels of both scenes.

Yet another link between, on the one hand, adult Bill and Bev making love, and on the other, Ben and Bev in the clubhouse ‘making love’ in an albeit non-literal sense, is her bringing up Ben’s poem (page 1217), which she calls a haiku, though it deviates a bit from the traditional syllables of five-seven-five in the three lines. At first, Ben is too embarrassed to admit that he’s the one who wrote it for her, fearing that she’d laugh at a fat boy writing romantically to her. Still, she’s touched by his poem, saying she “thought it was beautiful.”

The two of them leave the clubhouse and go up to Kansas Street, ready to run if they see Henry and his gang. She stumbles on a rock in the path and…we have another mid-sentence transition from this section to the next one, which gives us adult Henry on the seminary grounds on Kansas Street at 2:17 AM, just after his attack on Mike in the library (pages 1221-1222).

Apart from Kansas Street and the fall, what links these two sections can be described as dialectical. Instead of the prey falling (Bev), it’s the predator (Henry) who does; instead of day, it’s night. Both predator and prey have been affected by the trauma of It.

She and Ben come up from the Barrens and the clubhouse; adult Henry sees a sewer-grate, to one of the bars of which is tied a balloon (page 1222). As we know, all of these lower, underground places are symbolic of the unconscious, so all three characters are being affected by the Shadow.

Henry is gloating over how he’s hurt “the nigger” better than he got hurt by him. He starts remembering old music, like “Pipeline,” by the Chantays, and “Wipe Out,” the laugh at the beginning of which reminds Henry of Patrick Hockstetter’s, he whom Henry still thinks of as a “queerboy” (page 1223, King’s emphasis). He remembers Patrick having died, “Got greased himself,” and while he doesn’t remember having killed Patrick himself (as I have speculated–see above), his mind during this passage (pages 1222-1223) is so scatterbrained, incoherent, and unstable that one would expect him to omit that detail.

Indeed, he keeps hearing things (a “ka-spanggg sound,” page 1223) and seeing things (Victor’s head). The police go by in a car (page 1224), and he thinks they’ll catch him. He’s not sure if he’s killed Mike, for he notices that an ambulance is going to the library.

He remembers the day back in 1958, the one I just described, when he and his gang lost Bev in the Barrens, after she’d kicked him in the balls (page 1225)–this being yet another link between these two sections…and a link with the section about to come.

He knew the kids hung out in the Barrens, but he never saw a treehouse there (page 1226); nor had Belch or Victor. He remembers searching for Beverly down the Kenduskeag, having picked up a rock and thrown it far down the river…and this is the mid-sentence transition between this and the next section, which brings us back to 1958, with Henry and Victor looking for Beverly in the Barrens.

What links these two sections, beyond the earlier one being adult Henry remembering his time at the river with Victor, and the later one being the time of the memory itself, is the fact that in both sections, Henry’s psychopathic lust for revenge on all the Losers is at an equal level of virulent intensity. He’s hearing the voice from the moon (pages 1227-1228) as a teen, just as he’s hearing that voice as an adult.

Teen Henry is bleeding in the crotch of his pants from Bev’s kick in the balls (page 1226), and adult Henry is bleeding in his gut from his fight with Mike (page 1197). When teen Henry hears the voice from the moon, he feels love. It’s significant that he’s described as having a “clownish smile” (page 1228), for it suggests what I’ve been saying all along–that Henry and Pennywise are one. The latter is a metaphorical mirror of the former.

Part of Henry’s psychopathy is his malignant narcissism. The wounds I referred to in the previous paragraph are symbolic of his narcissistic rage and injury. A psychopath can usually handle physical pain very well; it’s the humiliation he got from that kick in the balls…from a girl (consider 1950s preconceptions about female strength in this connection) that is so painful and intolerable for him. The clown in the moon, being Henry’s metaphorical mirror, is his ideal-I, to which he aspires by ‘killing them all’ (page 1231).

As Henry, Victor, and Belch are waiting for Bev to make an appearance, Henry is thinking about how he found a switchblade that morning (page 1228). He got it in the mail…in a mailbox full of balloons with the faces of all the kids “who had deviled him all this summer, the kids who seemed to mock him at every turn” (page 1229).

These balloons remind us of the one adult Henry sees on the bar of the sewer-grate (page 1222). Just as he as an adult has murderous designs on the Losers, so does he as a teen have those designs on the kid Losers. Pennywise is present during all these murders, either physically or in some symbolic sense, but it’s someone else (those who shot the Bradley gang, Heroux with his axe, etc.) who do the actual killing themselves. I believe it’s actually Henry who’s killed all these kids, and Pennywise just symbolizes the collective trauma of everyone in Derry.

Henry takes the switchblade from out of a package in the mailbox and takes it into his house, where he sees his father, Butch Bowers, lying in their bedroom (page 1229). He holds the switchblade at his dad’s neck for almost five minutes, then he hears the voice from the moon. Henry likes what he hears, so he pushes the button on the knife, making the blade stick “six inches of steel…though Butch Bowers’s neck (page 1230). As we can see, if Henry is crazy and vicious enough to murder his own father, he’s also capable of killing those kids.

He certainly wants to kill all those kids–the voices in his head keep telling him to do so. He and his gang see Ben and Bev coming out the trapdoor from the underground clubhouse, then going up to Kansas Street (page 1232).

Henry knows that It lives somewhere under the city, so in his mind there must be some kind of equivalence between those Losers he hates so much and the clown in the sewers. Though we readers see the former as the protagonists and the latter as the antagonist, it makes sense, from Henry’s point of view, to equate the Losers with It, instead of himself with It.

As I’ve said above, Pennywise in many ways represents the Shadow, or those repressed parts of the personality that, because of trauma, are rejected or disowned. The Shadow isn’t, however, necessarily evil, so equating the Losers with It isn’t all that far-fetched. Henry hates those kids so much because they represent aspects of himself that he hates: weakness, awkwardness, inadequacy, and being a social outcast. Henry thinks that by killing the kids, he’ll destroy and purge himself of similar personality traits in himself that he’ll never accept.

Henry, Victor, and Belch will follow Ben and Bev, but from farther off, so they won’t be seen (page 1233). As the three are following, Henry takes out his switchblade again, and…we come to yet another mid-sentence transition from 1958 to the mid-80s, at 2:30 AM, when adult Henry pushes the button on the switchblade, making the blade pop out (page 1233).

Just as teen Henry is with Belch and Victor when they’re following Ben and Bev, so is adult Henry with his now-dead buddies…in a way. A car pulls up to take Henry to the Derry Town House, the hotel where Bill, Ben, Eddie, Beverly, and Richie are staying (page 1241), and as it turns out, the ghost of Belch is driving the car (page 1235); Henry’s memories of Victor’s death are also there for the ride (page 1239).

The car Henry is being taken in is a 1958 Plymouth Fury, a red and white car that his dad wanted to own. It’s interesting how his father’s name was Butch, while the ghost driving the car is Belch. Henry isn’t just taking a trip to where he plans to be guilty of murder; he’s also going on a guilt trip.

Just as Henry is guilty of having murdered his father when he was a teen, he as an adult is reflecting on his guilt over having abandoned Belch and Victor in the sewers, where the two died, while chasing the Losers. His acknowledging his responsibility over the deaths of his two friends is a rare moment for this normally unfeeling psychopath. The fact that his memory of having murdered his father is being linked with his friends’ deaths is intensifying his guilt all the more.

As ghost-Belch is driving Henry to the Derry Town House, the latter is trying to apologize to the former for failing to help him (pages 1237-1240) in the sewers. Belch largely doesn’t reply, though. I’d say it’s safe to assume that Henry, in his delusional state, is just imagining the car and ghost-Belch as the driver. Since the Derry Town House is the only surviving hotel in the Derry area (page 1240), he can deduce that this is probably where at least some, if not all, of the adult Losers coming back for a visit are staying, so he knows where to go to strike next and continue getting his revenge.

With his urge to right the wrongs he feels have been done to him, though, also comes the sense that he himself has done his share of wrong. Hence his ride to the hotel comes in a car that his victim of patricide wanted, driven by a friend he shafted in the sewers. Here’s the good/bad duality again: it’s ‘good’ from his point of view that he’s getting a lift to the hotel; but it’s also ‘bad’ that his trip is a guilt trip. It’s also bad that getting to hotel, to continue his murder spree, has been made easier, but it’s also good that, on at least some level, he’s beginning to understand what a bad person he is.

When he arrives at the Derry Town House, the first of the Losers that he decides to attack is Eddie, who is in Room 609, up at the top, then he’ll work his way down (page 1242). At the door, Henry rings the bell and pretends to be a bellboy with a message from Eddie’s wife (page 1243). It’s ironic that Eddie’s potential killer has a message from overprotective Myra.

Henry has his knife ready, by his cheek, as Eddie is fumbling with the chain to unlock and open the door (page 1244). Henry’s ready to plunge the knife into Eddie’s throat. The door is opened and Eddie…another mid-sentence transition occurs here, and we’re transported back to 1958, and little Stan and Richie are each eating a ‘Rocket‘ on a push-up stick.

Eddie’s running up to catch up with them, and he wants a lick on Richie’s Rocket. We can see a link between the sections in how, on the one hand, adult Eddie is expecting a message from Myra, his ‘sweet’ wife, while on the other, little Eddie is expecting a taste from Richie’s sweet food. In the end, adult Eddie is about to get a “push-up stick” of a surprising kind and little Eddie–with his broken arm–is going to join the other Losers in confronting Henry and his gang to protect their underground clubhouse.

Stan offers Eddie the rest of his Rocket, and when Richie says, “Jews don’t eat much,” this begins a discussion among the three about religion, about Judaism as contrasted with Catholicism, in particular (pages 1245-1248), and what’s odd about religions in general.

There’s a comparison between Jews being forbidden to eat the flesh of pigs (though Stan and his family eat it, anyway), and Catholics being forbidden to eat meat on Fridays (page 1246). This leads to a discussion about a bad Catholic boy who stole some of the communion bread and took it home. He threw it into the toilet bowl, and the water turned as red as blood (page 1247), the Blood of Christ, meaning what the boy had done was an act of blasphemy, and his immortal soul was now in danger of Hell.

This story is Eddie’s, and ever since hearing it, he’s never enjoyed communion. Blood in the toilet, of course, reminds us of the blood in the bathroom sinkhole in Beverly’s home. We also see in Eddie’s story that good/bad duality: Christ’s blood is good in itself, but a frighteningly unnatural thing to see in a toilet bowl.

Then Bill and Mike arrive on their bikes (page 1248). Bill is wondering if any of them has seen Ben or Beverly. They all go over to the Barrens (page 1249). They see Ben and Bev running toward them and shouting (page 1250).

Eddie is shocked at how filthy she looks, not knowing about her hiding under a dumpster so her father wouldn’t find her. There’s no way she’ll tell them about what her father was doing (recall in this connection the association between the blood in the toilet and in the sinkhole), but she has to warn them about Henry, his gang, and his new knife. In this, again, we see a connection between this section and the last one (i.e., Henry about to stab adult Eddie in his hotel room).

As they all are contemplating the danger of facing Henry again, they each think about a traumatic incident associated with It: Richie, the moving photo of George; Bev, her dad and the wildness in his eyes; Mike, the bird; Ben, the mummy; etc. (page 1251) Still, Bill insists they all go down and defend the clubhouse.

What’s interesting is that, as the kids are about to go down to the clubhouse, a thunderstorm is beginning on a day when, according to what Ben has seen in the newspaper, it was supposed to be “hot and hazy” (page 1253). This storm suggests association with the flooding rain at the beginning of the story, and the Deluge-like, destructive storm at the end. Once again, the Losers’ confrontation with Henry and his gang will be…apocalyptic.

As the kids are going down, Eddie starts getting the feeling that they’re being watched (page 1259). He looks around nervously. He…and another mid-sentence transition takes us from 1958 back to the mid-1980s, with adult Eddie opening his hotel door to see “a monster from a horror comic”–adult Henry. It’s hardly necessary to explain how this section is linked to the last one.

Eddie slams the door shut, hitting Henry’s forearm and making the knife fall to the floor (page 1255). Eddie kicks it away, so it goes under the TV. Henry uses his weight to shove the door open, making Eddie, of a much lighter build, fall back on the bed. Henry is calling him “fag” and “babyfag,” with revenge on his mind for a rockfight he still hasn’t forgotten about.

So a struggle ensues, and Eddie throws a Perrier bottle at Henry’s face, cutting into his right cheek and right eye (page 1256), then he uses the jagged edge of the bottle to cut Henry’s left hand. Later, Henry falls on the bottle, impaling himself on it.

Henry dies, and Eddie goes for the telephone for help. It’s ironic how “babyfag” has won the fight against the bully, with no help from anybody else. Once again, we’re reminded of how bullies like Henry are the real weaklings and cowards, projecting their inadequacies onto their victims, who often show surprising amounts of strength when they need to. In spite of his ‘mama’s boy’ upbringing, Eddie can kick ass.

He calls the desk clerk of the hotel and asks to be connected with Bill (page 1258). Bill answers his phone with a stammer. He tells Bill about the fight with Henry, and that he had the same knife as he’d used on that day when they, as kids, went into the sewers. Bill replies with another mid-sentence transition back to 1958, in the Barrens, with young Bill finishing the sentence, telling Eddie to get Ben (page 1259).

They can hear the thunder in the sky, and they’ve found the trapdoor to the clubhouse open, not the way Ben and Bev left it. Bill senses that Henry expects them to fight, and to be killed by him. By imagining that both Henry and It expect the Losers to stand and fight, Bill is implying he understands that Henry and It are one and the same, at least from a murderer’s point of view (page 1260).

Bill says they should all go to the pumping station, then he sees Victor, and a number of rocks are thrown all at once at the kids (page 1264). Bill gets a rock in the cheek. Henry is happy to get his revenge for the rockfight.

Bill insists that the pumping station is the way in, the way to It. Ben knows where to go, and he must take the Losers there (page 1265). The others are hesitating to go, but Henry et al are throwing rocks at them. A crack of thunder and a flash of lightning give them all a scare, Bill is running to the river, and a rock almost hits his face, but hits Ben in the ass instead. Henry gets a good laugh from that. The rain is coming down hard now.

After Mike throws a piece of scrapwood, hitting Henry on the forehead with it, all the Losers run to find the pumping station (page 1266). The Kenduskeag’s water seems higher, the rain-dark sky looks dangerously grey, and lightning is flashing again (page 1267).

With Henry’s gang chasing them, they reach the pumping station, and struggle to get the lid off (page 1269). They get inside and go down to where the sewers are, where George’s boat went almost a year before (page 1277), led by Bill, with Henry’s gang not far behind, Henry having warned them that they’ll die down there (page 1272). The Losers are also thinking about the ritual of Chüd (page 1276).

What’s interesting about the Losers’ current predicament is how they’re all running away from Henry’s gang, yet they’re also running straight into Its lair. I’ve been equating the murderous intent of Henry with that of It. What Bill is leading his friends into seems foolish on the surface, but looked at more deeply, his intentions start to make more sense, especially if you equate Henry with It the way I do.

The only way the kids will be free of their trauma, personified by Pennywise, is if they face It. Henry and his gang of bullies know themselves so slenderly that they’ll never be able to face their own traumas and therefore be freed of them. Bill is not only getting his friends into a situation where, if they’re successful, they can be freed of their trauma, but also they can wipe out at least some of their bullies.

Bill is luring Henry, Victor, and Belch into a trap, from which the latter two won’t get out alive, and from which Henry won’t get out sane. Bill is probably not even the slightest bit conscious of what this chase into the sewers will do to the Losers’ tormentors (after all, as I’ve said all along, the sewers are among those subterraneous places that symbolize the unconscious mind in this novel), but this is exactly what it will do, nonetheless.

In selfishly wanting his friends to risk their lives helping him get revenge for the murder of his little brother, the murder he feels so guilty about, Bill is also–in wiping out Henry’s gang–selflessly and heroically saving the town from a group of violent psychopaths. This is yet another example of the good/bad duality of It. Bill’s self-centered lust for revenge is leading to the greater good of all.

Please wait for Part VI.

Stephen King, It, New York, Pocket Books, 1986

Trust Is Like the Soul

About a month or so ago, my older sister, J., sent me a direct message on Twitter (stupidly renamed ‘X’ by Elon Musk, proving once again that the wealthiest in the world aren’t necessarily the smartest, just the most exploitative…but I digress). She has apparently read some of my blog posts on my family issues back in Canada. I don’t know which ones she read: there are so many of them that I doubt she had the time, let alone the patience, to get through anywhere even approaching all of them, but she seems to have gotten the basic idea of why I’m so upset with her and our two older brothers, R. and F.

I must say that this reading of hers is perhaps the first time she’s ever meaningfully paid close attention to my side of the story regarding my relationship with the family. Over a period of decades of never taking my point of view about anything seriously, her response to what I wrote is a precedent that I find quite…impressive.

Since she knows she has to choose her words tactfully in an attempt to hoover me back into the family, and my living on the other side of the world means that her choosing her words foolishly will only strengthen my resolve not to end my NO CONTACT status with her and our brothers, she expressed herself with the usual honeyed words. ‘I’ll always be her brother, and she’ll always love me.’ Pleasant words to read, no doubt, and the kind of thing a love-starved man like me needs to hear…but not the kind of thing that will make me easily forget decades of emotional abuse from her, our brothers, our dad, and most of all, our–in all likelihood–malignant narcissist mother.

I’m sure J. sincerely believes she loves me, but there are a number of things that need to be understood about this love to put it in the right context. I’m her younger brother: she has to love me. I’ve discussed in other posts how she, as the golden child of the family, was pressured by our mother to personify an idealized version of Mom: J. had to be the ‘perfect’ daughter, has to be the ‘perfect’ sister to R., F., and me, the ‘perfect’ aunt to our nephew and niece, the ‘perfect’ mother to her two sons–she has to be the ‘perfect’ family woman, all to please our mother and be ‘worthy’ of Mom’s love. Remember that a narcissistic mother makes her sons and daughters compete for her very conditional love, so they aim to please her in every way.

Now, to be fair to J., none of this pressure or her caving in to it was her fault–it was our mother’s. By placing these impossible-to-fulfill standards on J., and by manipulating her into believing she must embody–and has successfully embodied–these lofty ideals, Mom was not doing her job as a mother. In fact, J. should be infuriated with Mom for putting her through all of that. It was never J.’s job to be Mom’s ‘perfect’ daughter: it was J.’s job simply to be herself. But let’s at least be honest about all of this. J. ‘loves’ me because she has to, not because she deep-down wants to.

I, too, was assigned a phony role to play in the narcissistic family: I was the scapegoat, or identified patient. I was manipulated by Mom, through gaslighting, into embodying everything she hated about herself and therefore projected onto me–hence the autism lie, which was a projection of Mom’s narcissism (recall the early definition of autism, which is hardly applicable today). This role that I was forced into playing is why the family ‘loves’ me, but has never really liked me–and that includes J., who always tried to change me into a more ‘acceptable’ person. She thinks this kind of changing people is a form of love (she got this, no doubt, from Mom having done it to her), rather than thinking that accepting a person as he is will do a much better job of making him feel loved, which would in turn inspire him to change himself and rid himself of his dysfunctional habits.

J. is the only family member who makes any attempts at all to contact me, and that has far less to do with any genuine feelings of affection for me, and far more to do with her need to salvage what’s left of the family she’s lost over the years (her husband–for whom I composed this short piece of music–our parents, and me out of estrangement). She wants to keep alive her fairy-tale, romantic notion that we’re all a ‘happy, loving family’: this is all tied in with her being the golden child, as I described above. The point I’m trying to make here is that I exist, to her, only as a family relation–that is my whole value to her. As a unique, individual person, I mean nothing to her. Recall what she said: I’ll always be her brother, and she’ll always love me (my emphasis).

I mean absolutely nothing to R. and F., my two ‘brothers.’ I could rot away in a leper colony, and they wouldn’t care; they’d blame me for getting into the predicament rather than pity me for my misfortune. As I said in my post, False Families, they’d probably be amused at the idea of my home becoming a war zone from the US provoking a war with China over Taiwan, the way the MIC and NATO provoked Russia into a war over Ukraine. There is no affection between R. and F. on their side and me: I feel none for them because, in their constant bullying and belittling of me as a kid, teen, and young adult, they destroyed any foundation for a normal, healthy, brotherly relationship between us. Mom sat back and let it all happen, too, perfectly aware that her flying monkeys were hurting me. Dad didn’t do much to help me, either. R. and F. feel no affection for me because they regard me as a worm: why would I be OK with that?

The childhood trauma I suffered from the family’s abuse resulted in a number of dysfunctional habits of mine at the time, which existed as trauma responses, but which our mendacious, ignorant mother labelled as ‘autism symptoms’: these trauma responses included maladaptive daydreaming and social isolation. If no other people are around, I can feel safe, because my family’s treatment of me as a child taught me that people are mean and hurtful. Bullies at school and in the neighbourhood only made my problem worse, and I got no relief when I got home.

When your family betrays your trust, it’s hard to trust anybody, because as object relations theory teaches us, those primal family relationships you have as a child are like the blueprints for all future relationships you’ll have with anyone else. The bad relationships with family members become bad internal objects that haunt you like demon possession (<<p. 67 here). Alienation thus becomes epidemic: if those early family relationships go sour, you learn to believe all future relationships will go sour, too, because you don’t know any other way to relate to people; even if you try your best to fit in, you’ll unconsciously do something wrong to sabotage the relationship. As an adult, I have C-PTSD because of what happened when I was a kid, and I’ll always feel as though I can’t fit in, however hard I try.

Publilius Syrus once said, “Trust, like the soul, never returns once it is gone.” I first heard that quote in Child’s Play (not the Chucky movie), which I watched with my mother when I was a teen. I can never return to the family that betrayed me with lies, abuse, and gaslighting. I’m trying to heal, currently through the application of Jungian concepts like Shadow work and Active Imagination to get to the darkest recesses of my unconscious to find out what’s making me sabotage my life so much–I can’t heal by being in any way involved with the very people who made me sick in the first place.

If I were to be around R., F., and J. ever again (even if just online), I would be subjected to their little digs at me again. Those little digs may typically be small, by any objective measure, but even the minor ones would trigger in me memories of the nastier moments I endured with them when I was a kid. Also, I have good reason to believe that the three of them, as well as our mom when she was still alive, were doing so many smear campaigns on me–whenever discussions around the dinner table, for example, drifted towards me as a topic–that the younger generations have been taught to have at least slight regard for me, if not outright loathing.

You see, it isn’t so much that they ‘did this’ to me forty years ago, or ‘did that’ to me thirty years ago; it isn’t just the things that they did; it’s more about who they are that made them do these things, because I know that–them being who they are–they are sure to do those kinds of things again. I’m not just wallowing about in my remote past: I’m trying to protect myself from future re-traumatizing.

To regain my trust of R., F., and J. would be a Herculean task for them, especially with the limitations of the internet, and I simply don’t think the three of them regard me as worth the effort (R. and F. wouldn’t regard me as worth even a slight effort). For these reasons, I must maintain NO CONTACT with them, however well-intentioned my sister may seem.

Analysis of ‘The Lady Vanishes’

The Lady Vanishes is a 1938 film directed by Alfred Hitchcock and written by Sidney Gilliat and Frank Launder, based on the 1936 novel The Wheel Spins by Ethel Lina White. The film stars Margaret Lockwood and Michael Redgrave, with Dame May Whitty and Paul Lukas.

Though filmed in London, The Lady Vanishes caught Hollywood’s attention and Hitchcock moved there soon after its release, for David O Selznick was convinced of Hitchcock’s talent and believed he had a future in Hollywood cinema. Considered one of his most renowned British films, it’s ranked the 35th best British film of the 20th century by the British Film Institute.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, here‘s a link to the full movie, and here‘s a link to White’s novel.

In the novel, the female protagonist’s name is Iris Carr, whereas in the film, she is Iris Henderson (Lockwood). In the film, Henderson gets on a train and says goodbye to her female friends; in the novel, Carr’s friends get on the train while she, tiring of what she feels is oppressive human company, refuses to join them on it.

Instead, Carr goes wandering on the slope of a mountain in “a remote country in Europe (in the film, it’s a fictional country called “Bandrika”), for she is a young Englishwoman on vacation. She gets lost out there, and after only briefly enjoying her solitude, she soon comes to regret it, so she returns to her hotel, where she finds the other English guests similarly annoying.

In the film, Henderson’s only dislike of social convention is the marriage she is only reluctantly participating in. There is a sense, much more pronounced in the novel, of Iris not wanting to go along with social conventions. This reluctance of hers will have much more importance when…the lady vanishes, as we’ll soon see.

Many of the novel’s English guests are replaced in the film with such characters as the cricket-obsessed Charters and Caldicott (played by Basil Radford and Naunton Wayne, respectively), the comic relief of the film who would become very popular with filmgoers and reappear in such films as Night Train to Munich and Dead of Night (the Charles Crichton sequence).

As for Miss Froy (Whitty), in the novel, she’s just a governess and music teacher who accidentally learns of the misdeeds of the story’s antagonists, who then abduct her with the intention of killing her to silence her. In the film, however, she is a spy pretending to be a governess and music teacher. (In the novel, a character named Max Hare, who on-and-off helps Iris, imagines a hypothetical situation in which Froy could be secretly a spy [in Chapter XXV, “Strange Disappearance”].)

In the novel, Hare–a young British engineer who knows the local language–is replaced by Gilbert Redman (Redgrave), a musicologist. Gilbert begins by irritating the hell out of Iris by playing his clarinet to stomping dancers in the hotel room directly above hers. After she has the manager remove Gilbert from his room, the uncouth musicologist imposes himself on her by using her room for his accommodations without her consent, infuriating her all the more. But about halfway into the film, he proves himself the only real friend she has, in that he’s the only one who believes her that Miss Froy exists.

So a recurring theme in both the film and novel is that nothing is as it seems. Gilbert seems a cad, but he becomes not only a true friend to Iris but also her love interest by the end of the film. Miss Froy in the film seems to be a mere governess and music teacher, a sweet and innocent–if rather chatty–middle-aged woman, but it turns out she is a spy. A patient with bandages all over her face, we learn close to the end of the novel and an hour and thirteen minutes into the film, is the abducted Miss Froy. The Todhunters are believed to be honeymooners, but we eventually learn that they are an adulterous couple.

Just before getting on the train to leave the hotel, Iris becomes a tad disoriented after something drops on her head (in the novel, she suffers sunstroke). Her disorientation is used by the schemers who have abducted Miss Froy to make her doubt her memory and perception. I’ll come back to this issue soon enough, and I’ll expand on its significance.

Froy speaks, at a hotel dinner table with Charters and Caldicott, of how much she loves it in Bandrika. The two men, unimpressed with anything other than cricket, have no interest in the country or its culture, so as she is rambling on and on about the snow-capped mountains and the ubiquitous singing, the men rest their heads on their hands in boredom waiting for her to stop. (In the novel, it’s Iris on the train who is annoyed with Froy’s ceaseless chatter).

Froy’s interest in the locals’ music isn’t merely a sentimental one, though, as we eventually learn. As she is listening, from her hotel window that night, to a man singing a tune and playing a guitar, she’s tapping her hands to the music’s rhythm, for in this tune is a secret code she must bring back to England, something connected with certain unsavoury things the movie’s antagonists are planning to do. For this reason, the singer/guitarist is killed, and Froy is to be abducted, the antagonists pretending she doesn’t even exist. These intrigues for which she must be silenced aren’t in the novel, though.

Instead, in the novel, Froy is aware of “a small but growing Communist element” that she euphemistically calls “the leader of the opposition” in the country where she’s working as a governess. This “element” has accused her late, aristocrat employer “of corruption and all sorts of horrors” (which shouldn’t be surprising, since communists consider feudalism to be far worse than capitalism). Froy feels that these political matters are none of her business, so she doesn’t want to take sides. Still, one night she witnesses her employer using her bathroom to wash up (Chapter VIII–“Tea Interval”). She innocently thinks nothing of it, but later on we learn that he was washing blood off of himself after having committed a murder (Chapter XXVI–“Signature”). The aristocrat family employing her don’t know how much she knows, which she might share with the Reds, so the lady must…vanish. Hence, the Baroness in the coupé with Froy and Iris.

Now, when the lady vanishes from her seat on the train, and Iris asks the others in their coupé, they all deny Froy’s existence. Iris is shocked and amazed that they could deny her friend, for Froy has clearly been among them up until Iris, still reeling from her hit on the head (or sunstroke), needed to take a brief nap.

This denial of Froy’s existence extends to everyone on the train, though not necessarily for the same reasons as the Baroness and her family. Still, these people are lying in their denials, denying something so obvious to Iris. In this lying, we see an early example of something that would eventually get the name of gaslighting. Now, The Wheel Spins was published in 1936; The Lady Vanishes came out in 1938; and Patrick Hamilton‘s play, Gas Light, premiered in December of that year. The American movie version of his play, starring Ingrid Bergman and Charles Boyer, came out in 1944 (and incidentally, Dame May Whitty also had a supporting role in that film). So there is an amazing prescience in both the novel and Hitchcock’s film.

Gaslighting isn’t the only thing that The Lady Vanishes is prescient about, though. There is a political subtext in the film suggesting, in allegorical form, the lead-up to WWII. The conspiracy not only to abduct Miss Froy but also to deny her very existence is ignored by the British passengers on the train (apart from Iris and Gilbert, of course), except for when the train is detoured and stopped in a forest, where the British are now forced to confront the antagonists, who plan to shoot them all. These antagonists can be seen to represent such European fascists as those of Nazi Germany, Italy under Mussolini (recall the Italian magician in Iris’s cabin, Signor Doppo, played by Philip Leaver, who gets into a fight with Gilbert over the acquisition of Froy’s eyeglasses), Romania, Hungary, Poland, and Francoist Spain.

This late involvement of the other British passengers in Iris’s and Gilbert’s confrontation with the Bandrika conspirators can be paralleled with British appeasement of, if not outright support of, fascism in the 1930s (recall that infamous footage of members of the British royal family doing Nazi salutes). One needn’t look to Chamberlain‘s appeasement of Hitler in Munich, which happened just a week or so before the release of The Lady Vanishes.

[Note how Chamberlain-like Mr. Todhunter wants to avoid conflict with the antagonists right to his very death, when he foolishly gets out of the train to wave a handkerchief as a flag of surrender, then gets shot. I’m as anti-war as they come, but even I know when an enemy is so implacable, as the film’s antagonists are, that war with them is unavoidable.]

The fact is that fascism has always been used to further the interests of the ruling class, regardless of whether they’re capitalists or feudal aristocrats like the Baroness and her family in the film and novel. Britain and the other western capitalist countries began to oppose the fascists only when the latter began muscling in on the former’s imperialist turf, rather like when Charters picks up a pistol to shoot at the antagonists only after one of them has shot him in the hand.

So the climactic shoot-out in the train in the woods can be seen as prescient of, and therefore in this sense allegorical of, WWII, or of political conflicts in general, anyway. It is in this political context that we can begin to understand not only the true meaning of the gaslighting of Iris but also her sense of social alienation and Froy’s abduction, disappearance, and denial of existence. This understanding applies in both the film and the novel. In Chapter XXXII–“The Dream,” we learn of how “When she [Iris] was a child she suffered from an unsuspected inferiority complex, due to the difference between her lot and that of other children.” This feeling of being different, of not being able to fit in with other people, can lead to a tendency to see the world differently from the mainstream crowd, and to see injustice where others don’t see it.

How often are criminal acts, the ones that really matter, hidden from the public view, as Froy’s abduction and disappearance can be seen to symbolize? The ruling classes, the imperialists, the settler-colonialists, and the fascists commit the worst crimes in the world, and through their wealth and power, they usually get away with their crimes. Indeed, in the novel, Hare tells Iris that the Baroness will use her influence to evade being implicated in the conspiracy now that the doctor and his assistants have been arrested (Chapter XXXIII–“The Herald”).

Similarly, the powerful use their influence to marginalize all those who would challenge power structures and demand inquiries into any injustices committed, as Iris is isolated when she demands that Miss Froy be found. Evidence of crimes is eliminated or denied, as is the very existence of Miss Froy. Such an elimination of evidence is happening right as I type this, with the cutting-off of communications in Gaza while the genocide of the Palestinians is going on; elsewhere, many still deny that the Holocaust ever happened.

All of this brings us back to the central theme of the film, which I brought up earlier: nothing is as it seems. Dr. Hartz (Lukas) seems helpful to Iris and Gilbert, yet he participates in the gaslighting and intends to drug the two. In fact, the “nun” (bizarrely wearing high heels and played by Catherine Lacey), who under Hartz’s orders is to drug the drinks of Iris and Gilbert, never does so; our two protagonists fool Hartz by pretending to be unconscious until he leaves their cabin.

The nun is not only pretending to be such, but also to be deaf and dumb; furthermore, her loyalty to Hartz and the other conspirators is only apparent and ephemeral, for as soon as she realizes that Iris, Gilbert, and Froy are British, her own British patriotism is kindled, so she quickly switches from the antagonists’ to the protagonists’ side.

Hers is an example of the many British passengers waiting so long before switching to the good side, these Chamberlains of the film. The Todhunters don’t want to acknowledge Froy for fear of an inquiry leading to publicity and a scandalous exposure of their affair to their spouses. Charters and Caldicott won’t acknowledge Froy for fear of the resulting inquiry delaying the train, making them miss their so-fetishized cricket match (which ends up being cancelled due to flooding, anyway).

We see in these examples how selfishness gets in the way of justice, and it’s the obstinacy of our social misfits like Iris who ensure justice in spite of the odds. After all, she’s such a misfit, at the last minute she decides not to get together with her fiancé when back in England, preferring the uncouth Gilbert instead.

Making Froy into a spy, rather than just someone who’s innocently stumbled upon a criminal act without realizing its significance, was an improvement on the novel. Ending the film with a reunion of her–playing the coded tune on the piano–with Iris and Gilbert was also an improvement on the novel’s rather dull, anticlimactic ending, with Froy arriving at home and reuniting with “Mater,” “Pater,” and their dog, Sock, which is rather drawn-out and sentimentalized. The story works best as a political thriller, showing how going against the grain is often the best way to win out against the wicked in the world.

“Marble,” a Modern Myth to Encourage the Discouraged

My name is Casey. I have been trapped in a huge block of marble for as long as I can remember; and I have been struggling to break out of it for what must be years, even decades.

A conspiracy of sorcerers put me in this prison. How did they construct the marble in which they encased me? They performed repeated rituals, ceremonies of shame. They made me believe that I deserved to be held forever in this cell of marble, that I am ugly, repellant, of no worth at all. I believed it, and wept in my petrified confinement.

A while back, however, I began to doubt the cruel beliefs my captors put in my head. In my first doubts, I found myself able to do something I hadn’t been able to do in years, decades, even.

I budged.

Just a bit, at first.

Then I doubted a little more, and I could move a bit more.

I’ve continued doubting, and since this growth of doubting has slowly but steadily bloomed, I’ve become able not only of more and more movement inside this casing, but I’ve also been able to make this large block of marble shake on the ground where it’s sat all this time.

How do I doubt? I just keep thinking to myself that it isn’t I who am ugly, repellant, and worthless, but rather that it’s the marble I’ve been encased in that is ugly, repellant, and unworthy.

It seems that everyone outside, looking at this huge block of marble I’m incarcerated in, thinks the marble is beautiful, protecting the world from my hideousness.

But more and more, I know better.

Attempts are made, all the same, by those outside, to make me believe that there’s nothing good in me to make it worthwhile to break free. Once I come out of my fetter of engulfing rock, I’ll realize that I can’t do anything useful for the world, or so they’d have me believe. It’s best that I stay inside, apparently…

No! I must never believe those lies!

You may be wondering how I’ve been able to live and breathe while immobilized in this marble for so long, with no oxygen, food, or even an ability to relieve myself. The explanation is simple: the sorcerers who put me in this predicament used their magic to ensure that I’d never need to breathe, eat, or do any of the normal things that people outside do all the time and take for granted.

The fact that my tormentors are keeping me alive is part of how I know that I must have a secret worth that they don’t want to be known to the world. I have special abilities that they feel threatened by; if I were free to use those abilities, my enemies would be reduced to nothing.

Still, why not just kill me? Perhaps my abilities include a defying of death: maybe they can’t kill me, so encasing me was the best they could do. Perhaps they get pleasure from the idea of so capable a man as I being convinced I’m worthless that my powers would never be used, because I don’t believe in them. They laugh at how I’m so close to greatness, yet so far away, too.

Hence all those voices outside trying so hard to discourage me from trying to break free, all deliberately made audible to me, in spite of my confinement, through the sorcerers’ magic. But I’ll show them all!

Umph! I’ve…got…to break…out!

I can feel the marble block moving, wobbling a bit from side to side. Gradually, as I push left, then right…forward, then backward, I can feel the wobbles get slightly bigger over time. I am making progress!

The space between my body and the surrounding marble was originally so tight that it was pressing into me. With my years of struggling, the tightness is gone, and now there are a few millimetres of space all around between my body and the marble. Tiny pieces of it have broken off and fallen to my feet, erosion from my struggles!

Grains of marble from the outside must be breaking off, too, hence my ability to move the block more and more, and hence the voices of the people trying to discourage me, their voices louder and louder, and more and more agitated at my progress and determination.

I am an angel trapped in this marble, and it must be carved, as it were, until I set myself free! I must become the angel that I already am!

Ungh! I…must…keep…rocking…this…block!

CRACK!

What was that sound?

How big of a crack did I just make?

Instead of small, slow bits of progress, am I about to start making large ones?

I can hear the voices outside, moaning in surprise and…apprehension? Do they fear the coming of my success?

I…must…push…harder! Oof!

CRACK!

That one sounded much bigger. I’ll be free soon!

Hey, there’s a big crack in front of my eyes now. I can see outside, and I can hear the people out there much better. Quite a crowd is gathering, making a lot of noise.

Unh! I’m…gonna…keep…on…shaking…this…thing–Oh! Until…I’m…free!…Aah!

CRACK!

“Don’t do it, Casey!” I hear a male voice warning me. “If you come out of there, you’ll only realize, without any doubt, just how worthless you really are! Just stay in there, and spare us all the irritation of your presence!”

No! I mustn’t listen to voices like that! They’re lying!

Angh! I’m…getting…closer…to…breaking…free!

CRACK!

A huge chunk of the marble just broke off! I can see all the people to my front! There are at least a dozen men and women watching me break out. Some, with worried looks on their faces, are shouting at me to give up. Others, with hopeful looks, are cheering for me!

(In fact, I remember when I had my very first doubt, I heard the voice of a woman trying to encourage me to break out. That might be her voice that I’m hearing now.)

“Come on, Casey!” a woman is shouting. “You can get out of there!”

“Shut up!” a woman beside her is saying. “Don’t encourage the imbecile. He’s dangerous. The coven warned us about him!”

Speak of the coven, and they appear.

Indeed, I can see the group of cloaked sorcerers approaching the crowd; these were the six men and women who encased me in this marble I’m almost out of.

Under their hoods, their shadowy faces are showing great fear. I find this most encouraging!

Nnhk! Gotta…shake…this…thing, and…get…out!

CRACK!

What’s this? A big piece of marble just broke off from behind me! I can turn my head, and I see the crowd from back there now!

The coven is chanting in their ancient, mystic language. I don’t know the meaning of the words, but I know the intention: to cover me in a new, hardened prison, and to make me feel unworthy of ever trying to free myself again.

I must…resist them…Urgh! I must…break out…

CRACK!

Though another piece broke off, a big one to my left, just under my cheek, I can feel a soft, liquid form building up to fill in these holes. I…must…push through them…before…they harden…and become…new marble! I’m…so tired…I don’t have…much strength left…

The coven’s chanting is getting louder and more intense. More of that liquid is filling in all the spaces. I won’t be able…to get out…before it hardens…

“Stop it!” a woman’s voice cries. “Leave him alone! Let him break free! Stop hurting him!”

“Shut up!” a second female voice shouts. “Let him be sealed up! He’s no good to us! He’s a danger! Can’t you see that?”

“No, he’s not!” the first woman shouts. “Free him!”

“The coven says he’s a danger to us all!” the second says.

“He’s a danger only to the coven!” the first says. Out of my half-open right eye, I see her running off. In my exhaustion, I’m barely conscious. She’s come back…with a pick-axe! She’s chipping away at the marble with it! She’s helping me! She’s freeing me!

With her help, I feel valued for the first time in my life. Hers must have been that first encouraging voice I heard so many years ago. Now I have the courage to keep trying. She’s given me new strength. Nnmph! Now…I…can…break…out!

SMASH!

Fiery light is flashing out of me in all directions, now that I’m finally free. My light is burning the coven to a crisp. They are screaming in agony as they slowly die. Their blind supporters are weeping to see my enemies destroyed.

They are but ash now, blown away by the wind.

I’m free, my helper is free…we’re all free.

Free of the coven’s power over us, as their supporters are beginning to realize.

My light is shining for everyone.

Even the coven’s supporters are realizing that I’m not without value.

I am the good that the coven tried to hide in marble. I am the beauty that they called ugliness, because it was they were were truly ugly.

All the people who were lied to about me are no longer ugly. They’re beautiful, too.

We’re all beautiful, and valuable.

We’re free.

False Families

False families are primarily concerned with their public image, as ‘virtuous,’ ‘upstanding,’ ‘admirable,’ ‘moral,’ and ‘loving.’ Maintaining this image is far more important to them than actually striving to live up to such ideals, since doing the latter is, of course, far more difficult.

One doesn’t just put on an act of virtue and goodness, while secretly knowing that one isn’t the good family member one pretends to be. These people lie to themselves as successfully as they lie to the public. Contemplating the truth is much too intolerable, an unbearable blow to their inflated egos; so they must convince themselves that the theatre of virtue put on is real.

Conflicts and feelings of resentment are inevitable, even in the best of families, but the better ones will at least try to resolve these problems as fairly as they can. Toxic families, on the other hand, will find ways of ‘resolving’ these conflicts so that they can maintain an illusion of blamelessness for most of the family, while projecting the unavoidable blame on one, or a few, scapegoat(s).

A healthy family will, paradoxically, acknowledge fault, blame, and ill emotional health in all the family members who are at fault in the conflict, and they will reserve judgement fairly and in proportion to how much fault each member involved has. A false family, or toxic one, or emotionally abusive one (whichever name you wish to use to describe them), will dump all or most of the blame on the scapegoat(s), while absolving of blame other family members who may bear much, if not most or all, of the blame, thus maintaining the illusion of family health for the majority of the members.

A false family has a black-and-white view of the family members. Generally speaking, and with at least relatively few exceptions, certain members are seen as largely good: the narcissistic parent (the ringleader of the toxic family structure) and his or her golden children, his or her flying monkeys. On the other side are those deemed largely ‘bad’: the codependent parent and the scapegoat(s) or identified patient(s). Any reasonable person would know that everyone is a lighter or darker grey between the good and bad extremes, but the group narcissism of the toxic family will admit to little beyond the black and white.

This is the kind of family that I had to endure growing up with. To be sure, I have plenty of glaring faults, but I hardly deserved to be scapegoated because of them. In fact, a reasonable argument can be made that the exacerbating, if not largely the origin, of most of my faults was because of the emotional abuse that I suffered under my parents’ mismanagement of the family.

I have already described in detail, in the links given above as well as such links as these, the whole story of how I was bullied, belittled, lied to, and subjected to gaslighting by my late parents and older siblings (my brothers, R. and F., and my sister, J.). If you have either already read some or all of those posts, or if you don’t care to do so much reading, Dear Reader, then please just go along with what I’m saying to you now: that my having gone NO CONTACT with the family for the past seven years (as of this post’s publication) has been perfectly justified, for the sake of protecting myself against being subjected to any further emotional abuse in the future, something guaranteed from those three surviving siblings. When trying to heal from C-PTSD, one cannot do so while in contact with any of the abusers.

One of the family’s chief rationalizations for bullying me and treating me with contempt is one of those glaring faults I referred to above: namely, my self-centredness (something supposedly based on ‘my autism,’ or really their distorted, outdated definition of autism, which is a mental condition I learned from psychiatrists that I don’t really have, but was rather one of my late mother’s many fabrications). As far as I’m concerned, only my wife has the right to complain of my selfishness (which was really the result of my alienation from an emotionally neglectful family), for unlike the family, my wife is truly selfless.

As I said above, the selflessness of a false family is just that…false. It is an outward show, meant not only to impress and fool the public, but also for the false family to fool themselves into thinking they’re genuinely good people. One only has to use one’s instincts, though, to realize that there’s nothing good about bullies and narcissists. Accordingly, highly sensitive people like me can see through the family bullshit, and they as a result get scapegoated…to protect the lie.

When my mother was dying of breast cancer, she was nonetheless healthy enough to tell me a slew of lies online (see the links above for details), after I’d already known of other lies of hers (e.g., the autism lie mentioned above). When you know someone has lied to you, you cannot trust the liar ever again–this is ancient wisdom. I, living on the other side of the world and already refusing to communicate with her for fear of more manipulating, had no way of knowing if the messages by phone or email about her dying were real, or just another fabrication to make me feel guilty and manipulate me into making a visit to Canada that I vowed never again to make.

My brother R. wanted me to phone Mom, who was in hospital and on her deathbed, to make regular phone calls and chat with her, something I absolutely didn’t want to do, especially given her ever-impenitent attitude. R. wanted me to put on a show of love, which I refused to do.

He later stumbled upon a YouTube video I’d made about seven years before her death, in which I bitterly recited “This Be the Verse,” by Philip Larkin. The combination of my refusal to call her with my recitation of a poem with a four-letter word made him (freshly grieving over her death) so angry that, instead of letting himself calm down and then later asking me, in the comments section, what Mom had done to make me so mad at her, he made a snarky comment to the effect that I’m apparently mentally “disturbed,” and that I should be ashamed of myself for not loving a mother who, apparently, “loved [me] more than anyone else on the planet.”

No attempt was made at an investigation to find out what happened between Mom and me: there was just an assumption that she was ‘all-good,’ and that I am ‘all-bad.” This is the typical attitude of the false family, which idealizes the narcissistic parent and his or her golden children/flying monkeys, and a further vilifying of the family scapegoat.

The way I acted at her death, combined with my continued enforcement of the NO CONTACT rule, is essentially the family’s motive for never trying to contact me since, save for two or three puny attempts by my sister J.–the number one golden child of the family, who is obligated ‘to love’ her younger brother (for the sake of a show of family virtue, remember)–to contact me by email, Facebook, and Twitter. I never responded to this hoovering, of course.

The thing is, for the great majority of the family, save J. and Mom when she was alive, there was never an interest in contacting me, with ever so few exceptions, for the whole time I’ve lived in Taiwan. R., my other brother F., and all the others have never needed my reaction to Mom’s death as a reason never to contact me.

In our family, the word love is meaningless; the words like and dislike, however, do have meaning. Love for them just means family obligation. While love is supposed to be unconditional (i.e., we can be mad at or resentful of family members because of certain faults of theirs, but we won’t stop loving them for that), this family is selective about whom they care about. R., F., and J., and their spouses and kids (minus any new scapegoats intended to replace me and my cousins) are loved and cared for because they are liked.

As for us scapegoats, though J. pays lip service to caring about me (and is convinced that her fake love is genuine, as was Mom), we could all rot in a leper colony for all R. and F. care. I grudgingly respect my brothers’ attitude to me, since at least there’s a dram of honesty in it.

I’ve known the truth of the above for years, but recently I’ve discovered further proof to consolidate the accuracy of my judgement of them. This new proof lies in their total non-reaction to the growing crisis between China and the US regarding my home here in Taiwan.

It doesn’t matter if the family believes the lies and propaganda being spewed from the mainstream Western media about China wanting ‘to invade’ the ‘nation’ of Taiwan, or if they know the truth that I’ve known, which is that the American government has been trying to provoke China into invading, the way the US and NATO provoked Russia for years into invading Ukraine. My home is in danger of becoming a war zone, in which my wife, her family, and I could suffer and die.

…and my ‘morally superior’ family hasn’t lifted a finger to contact me and offer to get us to safety.

[It is totally unfeasible for me to return to Canada, since apart from my estrangement from the family, my limited skill set–teaching English as a second language–will not find me much of anything in terms of employment there; the vast majority of such jobs, teaching immigrants, are presumably already snatched up. My wife and I moving to Canada would almost guarantee us a future of homelessness. In any case, I have high hopes that the American empire will crumble before it even has a chance of bringing about a war with China.]

Now, a number of objections to what I’ve said need to be addressed and put into proper context. I haven’t exactly made it easy for the family to communicate with me–such is the nature of going NO CONTACT. I blocked them, for example, from sending emails to me; and as I mentioned above, I refused to answer J. in her attempts to contact me through Facebook and Twitter.

That said, though, attempts to contact me are far from impossible. Since they know my internet/pen name, they could contact me here in the comments section. They could contact the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office, who in turn could contact me by email or phone. The family could phone me themselves! A simple Google search of Mawr Gorshin could bring up a slew of websites where I can be found, and if I never answer their messages, they can pester me over and over again until I finally relent.

It’s not that they can’t contact me. They just don’t want to.

Please don’t misinterpret my meaning, Dear Reader. I’m not saying that I want them to contact me…No! I’d find such attempts at communicating with me to be nothing less than triggering. But this isn’t about what I want: it’s about what they want.

If my mother were still alive, to her credit, she would have stopped at nothing to break through my defences and get to me. My siblings’ attempts have been less than feeble…and they imagine themselves better than I, a mere scapegoat.

The point I’m trying to make here is that this lack of a response proves that they don’t really love me. There is a continuity between this callous disregard for my safety here in East Asia, and back in the day when I was a kid, when F. used to spit on me and hit me, J. played disgusting games with me when I was about eight or nine, and these two and R. shouting one four-letter word after another at me, usually over minor things I’d done to annoy them.

It simply doesn’t occur to them that I am a human being, with a heart and feelings, who has the same basic rights as everyone else. I’ll bet that R. and F. would smile at the thought of me trapped in a war zone…those two fucking bastards! J. calls them ‘brothers,’ by the way. Anyway, all of this only further justifies my continued estrangement from them.

Another objection to the conclusions I’ve drawn is that the family may mistakenly believe that I’m dead (from Covid, presumably–a virus the vast majority of those having died from being either people in their 70s or 80s, or people who had other health problems, neither of which apply to me). After all, J. sent me her direct Twitter message around that time, and as I said above, I never responded to it.

Aside from the overblown media hysteria around Covid, though, why would my not responding necessarily mean I died? Does J. think someone hacked my Twitter account? All she has to do is follow me there, find my many blog articles posted there, and read some of them to know, by my idiosyncratic writing style (and photo at the top!) that it’s really me. My politics have changed radically since the days when we were still talking to each other, but changing one’s political opinions (in my case, from centre-right to hard-left) is surprising, but far from impossible.

But again, this issue leads back to my argument before: if they really need to know if I’m alive or dead, they can just keep pushing and nagging online until I finally respond, or get the Taipei Economic and Cultural Office to contact me. If I’m dead, have they received proof of it? Did they get a death certificate? Has a corpse been produced?

Merely assuming I’m dead is just an excuse not to try to find out for sure. Again, it’s not that they can’t find out for sure. They just don’t think I’m worth the effort…these people who routinely bullied and belittled me when I was a kid, who deliberately undermined my ability to develop self-confidence, and whom Mom never reprimanded for it.

…and it justifies my estrangement from them all the more.

Their reason for not loving me is not because of my faults: everyone has faults, but some people’s faults are put under a magnifying glass (mine and my cousins), while others’ faults are swept under the rug (R.’s, F.’s, J.’s, and our parents’). It’s a vicious double standard, and it’s proof that my family is a false one.

Now, what I want to say to you, Dear Reader, is that if you find yourself the scapegoat of a false family, know that it’s not your fault that they don’t love you (though they may pretend to); it is their fault. They are supposed to love you, and it is their failure, not yours, that they don’t truly love you.

So give yourself heaps of love, to compensate for what they so cruelly denied you, because you’re worth it.

[Postscript: If by chance any of my elder siblings, or anyone else in the family back in Canada, should contact me here in the comments section, my response would be a quote I heard from my condescending sister decades ago: “You’ve left it a little late, haven’t you?” The US has been banging the war drums against China for years now. It’s been a hot item in the news for at least about a year, since Pelosi’s provocative visit to Taiwan last summer…and only now do they contact me, if they ever plan to?]

The Highly Sensitive Person

In previous posts, I’ve discussed how I suffered emotional abuse at the hands of a family whose members have had, in varying degrees, narcissistic traits of at least significant, if not pathological, levels. Because of my trauma, I as a child acquired a number of dysfunctional habits, including maladaptive daydreaming.

Instead of feeling empathy for me, and using such empathy to direct and motivate her towards getting to the root cause of my problems, my mother–the head narc of the family–claimed that psychiatrists who’d examined me diagnosed me with autism. Now, she’d described this “autism” in such extreme language that I find totally implausible. She claimed that the psychiatrists who’d examined me as a little kid had said I was, apart from being autistic, mentally retarded and that I should be locked up in an asylum, throwing away the key!…and by a “miracle from God,” I grew out of this extreme mental condition!

Combining the above with observations made by two psychiatrists I saw a few decades later, each of them concluding after examining me over a period of months that there were no signs of autism in me, and with far-too-low scores I got on the “Autism Quotient” test, I can say that my mother’s version of events were, to say the least, totally unreliable. To say the most, she was outright lying to me.

That she was lying to me I find to be the only logical explanation for her claims; the purpose of the lies was, as I see it, not only to project her own narcissism onto me (she tended to go by an old definition of autism as meaning ‘excessively self-absorbed,’ like narcissism), but also to avoid taking responsibility for the effects of the childhood bullying I’d suffered, at its core, from my elder siblings, against whom I, as a little boy, was helpless in a power imbalance.

In other words, the autism label was meant to indicate that I was ‘born that way,’ rather than correctly describing my maladaptive childhood habits (self-isolation, talking to myself, etc.) as trauma responses, as attempts to self-soothe and ease my anxieties. In point of fact, my real mental condition is C-PTSD, brought on by all that emotional abuse, bullying, belittling, and gaslighting.

Now, as true and valid as all of the above is, it doesn’t mean that I can’t locate any source of these dysfunctional behaviours as my having been ‘born that way.’ I’m convinced that there’s a particular, innate psychological condition that I have that’s contributed to these problems of mine in a significant way.

I am a highly-sensitive person (HSP).

I consistently get high scores on HSP tests. HSPs react more intensely to external stimuli, including discomfort and pain, than the average person. We’re also more empathic that most people (though being an empath and an HSP aren’t necessarily the same thing); we tend to internalize what’s around us more, including criticisms. Bullies can smell such traits in HSP children, and they’re quick to take advantage of our disadvantage.

Narcissistic mothers tend to make their sons and daughters play roles: the golden child (my elder sister, J.), the lost child (arguably, my elder brothers, R. and F.), and the scapegoat, or identified patientme. The narc mom chooses her golden children and other flying monkeys (all three of my sibs) based on how well they’ve learned to please her, or to give her narcissistic supply. She chooses her scapegoat based on how much narcissistic injury and rage the kid(s) cause(s) her.

Very often, that narcissistic injury and rage are caused not so much by how blunt or sassy the child is to her, but rather by that child’s display of qualities the narc mother knows she can only fake: sensitivity, empathy, and a sincere wish to confront and do away with wrongdoing, which includes phony displays of virtue…a narc’s special talent.

You see, the thing about the scapegoat, or identified patient, or black sheep–whatever you want to call the unfavoured family member–is that this person is the one who can see through all the family bullshit. He or she has the sensitivity to be able to tell the difference between real and fake love. For if the charade of love that is performed before our eyes is real, then why do we scapegoats get so short-changed?

It’s not as though we have a monopoly on human fault: the golden and lost children have plenty of faults of their own; but a double standard is clearly at play here–the flying monkeys’ faults are usually swept under the rug, as are the narcissistic parent’s faults, while those of the scapegoat are put under a magnifying glass. Not exactly fair, is it?

I’m not denying that I have faults; I have a whole slew of them (just ask my wife). The problem is that the family treated my faults as if they were the essence of who I am, rather than something that I have, just a few facets of the totality that I am, among other facets raging from neutral to quite good. And when you focus on the negative in somebody, you bring out that negativity all the more.

The scar to the narcissist’s ego, at the sight of the empathy and sensitivity of the target of his or her rage, comes from envy. The narcissist can’t bear to see another with virtues that he or she can only pretend to have, and narcissists are known for envying others, while imagining that others envy them (i.e., this envy is projected onto others). Hence, the narcissist feels a consuming need to destroy those virtues in the target, to create the illusion among everybody that the sensitive person’s empathy doesn’t exist.

Remember that in the narcissist’s world, appearance and reality are confused, swapped, even. So if the narc can make him- or herself look kind, generous, thoughtful, and altruistic to the public, while making the HSP seem self-centered and indifferent to the suffering of others, then he or she has come as close to reality as needed. One of the crucial manipulative tactics that the narc uses is projective identification, which goes beyond usual projection’s mere imagining that one’s own traits are in others, but which manipulates others into manifesting those projected traits, creating the illusion that the others really have those traits while the narc never had them at all.

I believe that my mother, with her flying monkeys’ help, did this kind of projecting onto me…and she did it with remarkable success! Any inclination in me to want to help others, or to connect with others, was crushed in me, suppressed, denied, and discouraged. To allow me to demonstrate such inclinations would make me step out of my assigned role as family scapegoat; I’d no longer seem “autistic,” and Mom couldn’t tolerate that!

When someone believes that he or she has this or that kind of personality, he or she will behave accordingly. To ensure that I behaved in a self-centered or uncaring way, Mom had to drill into my head the belief that I have such vices. So instead of telling me that I needed to change from my selfish ways, she just said that I am selfish…as if the vice were an absolute, unchanging trait in me, never to be corrected.

If I tried to do good, the family would twist things around so it would look as if I meant to do wrong. I’ll give a few examples, stories I’ve discussed before (links above), but I’m repeating them here to illustrate this point.

Over thirty years ago, it was my mother’s birthday, and I was having difficulty finding a suitable gift to buy for her, so I was late with it. My good intentions would have been clear to her and my sister, J. (I’d spoken to them of how I’d searched all over the city, with no luck), but J. decided to act as though I’d made no such efforts. After all, only the physical appearance of a gift matters, not the thought behind it. And besides, J. had to demonstrate as the golden child that, by having given Mom a gift on time, unlike me, the scapegoat, she was a better daughter than I was a son.

I gave Mom a birthday card, which she received warmly. I was anxious to buy her a gift as soon as possible, so as to avoid being late with it (it was her birthday that very day!). J., however, decided to interpret my intentions as me just wanting to get the buying over with, so I could enjoy the rest of Mom’s birthday as a “me-day,” to use J’s words (actually, since J. had already given Mom a gift, she was now free to get together for a dinner date with a woman-friend, to have a “me-day” of her own!).

I went to J. and joked about the card I bought Mom as a kind of “down payment” on her gift, since Mom warmly said she didn’t mind the gift being a little late. But J. got all snooty with me for being late with it, and this provoked me into getting into a fight with her. In response to J.’s ‘Thou shalt not be late for Mom’s birthday’ attitude, I inadvisably said, in all sarcasm, “…and a birthday is this god we have to worship!”

I meant this remark not out of disrespect to Mom, but to point out how needless J.’s insistence on standing on ceremony was. Nonetheless, Mom, overhearing what I’d said, took my words as disrespectful, and she blew up, shouting a barrage of four-letter verbal abuse at me. I immediately realized my verbal faux pas, and fell over myself trying to apologize, saying I never meant to hurt her…to no avail, of course.

Looking back on what happened, I have the creepiest suspicion that both Mom and J. had set me up to be the scapegoat for a forgetting of the birthday that, in fact, Dad and my brother, F., had actually forgotten. You see, J. had known that I was trying to find a suitable gift, since I’d asked her a night or two before Mom’s birthday what I should buy. J. knew I’d never forgotten, but she acted as if she thought I had.

And how could Mom have gone from a whisper to a scream like that, from so warm to so psychotic–so quickly? I suspect that Mom, in a private conversation with J. prior to the incident, lied to her about me ‘forgetting’ along with Dad and F.; and J., like a good flying monkey, just went along with the charade, because Mom wanted her to do so.

Another occasion when my good intentions were twisted into bad ones was when–again, about thirty to thirty-five years ago–all the staff of my parents’ restaurant, Smitty’s Pancake House, closed it up on a Saturday or Sunday afternoon (Mom and Dad were on vacation at the time) because some fumes…or something, I don’t quite remember now…were making the cooks too sick to work. F. came home that day and asked me why Smitty’s was closed. I simply explained what happened, matter-of-factly.

Apparently, I should have answered his question with all manner of histrionics, for F. told me that the way I’d answered his question sounded as if I didn’t care about the sick staff. His claiming that I don’t care about anyone but myself had been his favourite excuse to bully and harangue me at that time (i.e., over those past several years), and the fact that it was much more of an excuse to attack me than a legitimate complaint of my faults was made nakedly clear (not that he’d have ever noticed, let alone admitted to, it) in this choosing to hear my reaction as ‘uncaring,’ as opposed to my simply answering a question.

Since when did my answer even need to be ‘caring,’ anyway? Was my ‘caring’ going to help the staff recover faster, or something? F.’s constant bullying of me when I was a little kid, with virtually never any defence of me from the rest of the family (with only a few ever-so-rare exceptions from my parents), indicates that the family rarely cared about me in any meaningful way beyond the bare minimum (i.e., feeding me, clothing me, giving me shelter). Such a lack of caring is called childhood emotional neglect; this, combined with the emotional abuse I was suffering from all five of them, taught me that the world is an unsafe place, that hell is other people (I’m misusing Sartre‘s dictum on purpose here, though his original meaning applies to my situation, too), and that self-isolation was the only way I could feel safe.

…and if I was uncared for, then the family shouldn’t have been surprised to see me return that uncaring attitude to them.

Even still, I tried at times to be caring to them, even when they’d continued to hurt me. After J. made it clear to me that she didn’t approve of my marrying the truly caring person who is now my wife (indeed, Judy is the best thing that ever happened to me), I’d been loath to forgive J. for not keeping her disapproval to herself. Nonetheless, when I heard that J.’s husband was terminally ill with cancer, I allowed my ability to feel empathy and compassion to overrule my anger.

I offered to make a flight back to southern Ontario (I’ve lived in East Asia since the summer of 1996) to see J. and her husband one last time. Had I done it, paying for the trip would have broken the bank for me, but I was still willing to do it. This was in the mid-2000s.

The family should have been encouraging of me to do this selfless act…if selflessness is really what they wanted of me. Instead, Mom e-mailed me, telling me not to come, out of fear that my “tactless and insensitive” nature would have resulted in me putting my foot in my mouth in front of J.’s then-emotionally-vulnerable husband, agitating him.

I was furious at this rejection; yet, instead of simply admitting that she’d made a bad call, Mom continued to rationalize her arrogant position with the usual references to “my autism” (or Asperger syndrome, as she now liked to call it), all to make me feel further alienated from the family. Note how neither she nor the rest of the family ever considered, let alone took any responsibility for, causing the very alienation that has made me so cold to them ever since.

And since, as I explained above, the autism story had to have been a lie, Mom’s basis for rejecting my attempt to show solidarity with the family was also built on a lie. Another thing we must remember about narcissists and their relationship with the HSP as family scapegoat: since narcs are pathological liars, they will be paranoid of anyone exposing them as such. HSPs abominate liars, so narcs know that, in order to protect themselves, they must do a kind of preemptive discrediting of the HSP.

I’m convinced that my mother did exactly this to me behind my back, and that this discrediting, in the form of smear campaigns, triangulation, and divide and conquer, is the real reason that I, as the family scapegoat, never got along with Mom’s flying monkeys, my three elder siblings.

Her constant bad-mouthing of her youngest nephew, my cousin G., is what makes me believe she did the same to me. One time, during a phone call I had with her about a dozen years ago, when she was giving me a flurry of G-bashing, she raised her voice in an angry crescendo and claimed that G. must have had Asperger syndrome…exactly what she insisted I have. This disorder was meant to explain how G. is so ‘unlikeable’ (he’s a bit awkward, to be sure, but he’s nowhere near as bad as Mom characterized him). It’s not a leap of logic to assume that she was using “my autism” to tell the family that I’m similarly unlikeable.

As her health was deteriorating in the mid-2010s, she pulled more of her malignant, manipulative crap on me, in revenge–it’s safe to assume–on me for not ever wanting to communicate with her during the first half of that decade. (The above links give the full story, if you’re interested, Dear Reader.) I’ll try to make this brief.

In a series of emails and one phone call, Mom made a number of assertions that ranged from “Why should I believe a word of this?” to “That is most unlikely,” to “That couldn’t possibly have happened,” making all of it dubious in the extreme. And this was after I’d already established an understanding of her as a habitual liar, and not just about the “autism” story.

I told her so, most bluntly in an email explaining why I didn’t want to fly over to Canada to visit her. Predictably, she pretended not to know what I was talking about when I’d accused her of “Lies, lies, and more lies” in my email. Predictably, she made me out to be the villain and herself out to be the innocent victim when discussing my email to the family, who–predictably–believed her every word without question.

Well, of course the family believed her every word without question: they’d been conditioned to for years…decades!…to discredit any observation I made about anything that didn’t jive with their preconceptions about the world. Mom had preemptively discredited me, so my accusation of her lying wouldn’t be given a millisecond of consideration by them. Mom may have been dying, but her reputation was safe.

With her death, in the spring of 2016, the hope of a confession from her similarly died. Her last words to me, spoken on her death bed over the phone to me, were all about how my accusation “hurt” her (translation: caused her narcissistic injury–note how she was permitted to refuse a visit from me, but I wasn’t permitted to refuse visiting her), none about how the truth and validity of what I accused her of had hurt me. She didn’t even try to be fair, and acknowledge that there were many times in my life that she’d hurt me, and that she was sorry for that; instead, I got a pity party about how much of a bad son I was, and to add insult to injury, she congratulated herself on what a ‘good mother’ she’d been, apparently having given me “the most love,” of my siblings and me…during those very years (just before and around my pre-teen years) when she’d contrived the autism lie!

In short, she dumped a huge guilt trip on me while pretending she’d never done me any wrong–classic narcissism. Here’s the thing: if I’m so ‘uncaring’ of other people, why dump all this grief on me? It would make no difference to me–I’d just shrug it off, easily, wouldn’t I? The fact is, the family all know that I internalize all the abuse they ram down my throat–they know I feel the pain. The whole purpose of dumping that guilt on me is to manipulate me into doing what they want me to do, to control me…or at least to try to control me.

I feel so hollow now, so empty, the shell of what I once was, or could have been. Such is what narcissistic abuse does to victims: the vice of narcissism is projected onto the victim, who is fully misunderstood. We are made to live a lie of the narcissist’s making. It’s a terrible feeling, knowing your family doesn’t truly love you, that their ‘love’ was all an act, to make themselves look good publicly, or just family obligation.

Still, I can’t go on just feeling sorry for myself. The damage has been done, but there’s no one out there to do the repairing for me, so I’ll have to do it all myself (I don’t have the money for therapy.). I’ll have to find that sweet, sensitive little boy inside me, buried deep down under all of this pain.

Since I follow the Freudian (actually, post-Freudian) school of psychoanalysis, I don’t usually go in for Jung‘s ideas, but there is one of his that I’ve recently been interested in: his notion of the Shadow. As a result, I’ve been looking into what’s called Shadow work as a form of therapy to confront all this repressed trauma and self-hate, and therefore to heal me.

Since I assume, Dear Reader, that you’re reading this blog post as part of an exploration of the problem of narcissism to heal your own emotional wounds, then I hope that what I have to say here about Shadow work will help you find resources in your own healing journey.

There are so many different ways to describe what Shadow work is, and how to do it, that space doesn’t permit me to go over it all in encyclopedic fashion, but I can give you a basic idea of what it’s about, if you aren’t yet familiar with the concept.

According to Jung, we all have a Shadow aspect to our personalities, a dark, unpleasant side that we try to hide because it includes shameful and traumatic elements. We try to repress it, but we mustn’t; for after all, what is repressed returns to consciousness, though in an unrecognizable form…and this return of the repressed can come in quite nasty, regrettable ways. This repressed, ego-dystonic material must be confronted if we are to heal–Shadow work is this confrontation.

There are many ways to do Shadow work. The most common ways include journalling every day, putting our trauma into words. Other ways can include expressing your pain through art or music. Meditation is also helpful, including EMDR therapy…and there are lots of YouTube videos on these subjects. One of the websites I added a link to above recommend having a ‘dialogue’ with one’s Shadow: asking it questions and listening for answers in a contemplative silence. What’s most important is feeling that pain again (though not overwhelmingly so, of course!), as scary as that sounds, for the only way to heal is to process the trauma properly.

If you don’t feel that pain, you’ll try to repress it or project it, as my family did onto me. I’ve already explained the catastrophic results of that.

Stages

When
kids
make
their
entrances on the world that’s all a stage, they may lose
themselves within the roles they play to please Mom and Dad.

They
strut
and
fret,
but if they protest too much, their drama-critic parents
will pan their poor performances, and they’ll be heard no more.

Yet,
when
they
play
too well, the line between actor and character is unseen,
and they exit the stage at death, never knowing who they are.

So Undeserving

In spite of how logically indefensible as the belief in a just world is, in spite of how high the evidence is piled against believing in such an absurdity, many people out there still believe in it.

The reasons for having such a belief range from the religious, or a notion of philosophical idealism (the mind, or soul, determines how the world is), that ‘God’ is watching over everything and therefore He in His infinite wisdom will set everything right sooner or later, to the emotional need to feel safe and comfortable in such a disordered and scary world. If I’m good, nothing bad will happen to me, and if it does, with a little patience, I’ll see the wrong turned to right.

If not, then I must have deserved the wrong.

Here is where belief in a just world is not only logically indefensible, but morally indefensible, too, for victim-blaming is about as despicable as despicable gets.

In a previous post, I wrote about how wrong it is to think it’s cowardly and weak to say that we aren’t where we want to be because of other people’s thwarting of us in some way. There may be individual instances when it’s nobody’s fault but our own, but one would be amazed to find out how often our misery is caused at least partly, if not wholly, by others.

Similarly, the individualist capitalism of our day all too often attributes the great successes of those in our billionaire class to their own individual talent, while saying little (if anything at all) about the many people who helped those fat cats get so fat. Little attention is given to the people who were stepped on as those billionaires made their ascent to success, too.

The idea that the global poor ‘deserve’ to be as they are in ‘God’s just world’ because they are ‘lazy’ and ‘stupid’ is itself an intellectually lazy–and therefore stupid idea. The poor work very hard because they have no choice but to do so…otherwise, they’d starve. If they seem ‘stupid’ to you, consider the fact that they typically don’t have the money to get a proper education.

That the rich supposedly deserve to own millions or billions of dollars, while paying minimal if any taxes, because they ‘work so hard’ is also a dubious argument. There are only twenty-four hours in a day: how much ‘hard work’ can be done in a day for someone like Jeff Bezos…justifiably…to make $321 million per day?

It’s elementary Marxism (a materialist philosophy, as opposed to the idealism of the just-world fallacy) to know that capital is accumulated through the exploitation of labour, that is, the overworking and underpaying of workers–the talent and hard work of the capitalist, however present they may be, are if anything, more of a detail than a central element of his success, which is typically being born into at least some degree of affluence. Consider, on the other hand, the slavish suffering of Amazon workers, who have to piss in bottles so as not to be late with deliveries, and so Jeff could go up into space in his cock-rocket.

So undeserving, on both sides.

Did so many get plunged into poverty, often even greater poverty, over the past two years because they were ‘lazy’ or ‘stupid,’ or was it because of ill-advised lockdown policies and the exploitation of the pandemic (whose danger many of us still insist has always been exaggerated) by the capitalist class, causing the wealth of men like Bezos and Gates to go through the roof?

So undeserving, on both sides.

So many of us have lost work, going from fully employed to underemployed or completely jobless, and facing the danger of no longer being able to pay our rent or other basic necessities. Is this our fault? Not at all. The capitalist class–with its crises of overproduction and the tendency of the rate of profit to fall, problems we have known about and been able to foresee happening for decades if not centuries–are the ones to blame, as they are for the exacerbation of this problem with their exploiting of Covid as described in the paragraph before my refrain:

So undeserving, on both sides.

The capitalist class thrives, while the rest of us suffer. These economic problems have been further exacerbated by the backfiring sanctions on Russia, and the refusal to allow Europe to use Nordstream 1 and 2, just to kowtow to the US imperialists in their anti-Russian agenda, means Europeans will have to endure a winter without gas, or to buy the much more expensive American gas. This, even though Putin is willing to boost gas supplies to Europe after repairs (following sabotage that, in all likelihood, was caused by the US).

[These macrocosmic, global injustices have their parallel on the microcosmic level, in families and other social groups tainted with narcissistic abuse. The narc enlists flying monkeys and other enablers to assist in bullying and scapegoating the chosen victim, typically a highly-sensitive person who sees through the falsely altruistic veneer of the narc, calls him or her out for it, then suffers the consequences, being publicly shamed for merely telling the truth. Meanwhile, the narc continues to be admired and is never suspected.]

So undeserving, on both sides.

Now, we can see, as I observed in my post, The Toxic Family of Imperialism, how the global media celebrates political villains while scapegoating political victims, as is happening with the dangerously escalating war between Russia and Ukraine, one that–contrary to popular belief–was anything but “unprovoked.” Many of us have been trying to tell the uninformed and propagandized that Russia’s intervention had been thoroughly provoked for a period of eight years since a 2014 US-backed coup d’état replaced the democratically elected, pro-Russian Viktor Yanukovych with a government and military that includes Russian-hating Neo-Nazis. They make up small percentages, but they’re politically very influential.

These Ukrainian fascists have been discriminating against, physically attacking, and killing ethnic Russians in the Donbass region for eight years. Putin has tried to establish peace negotiations, first with the thwarted Minsk Accords, then in April of this year (thwarted by an intervention by BoJo), and recently with the Zelenskyy and American governments, both of which have refused to talk to Putin. Meanwhile, everyone demonizes Putin for merely trying to protect his country.

Zelenskyy and the Ukrainian Nazis are celebrated and regarded as heroes, and the US and NATO are perceived as ‘defending freedom and democracy,’ while they use this ridiculous slur on their scapegoat: “Putler.”

So undeserving, on both sides.

As I’ve said in previous posts, I don’t regard Putin as any kind of political ideal. He’s a bourgeois, reactionary politician who assuredly has his own secret, ulterior motives for wanting Russian control over the newly-annexed, formerly Ukrainian territories. But I see no reason not to regard the referenda results, of the people living there who mostly voted to join Russia, as legitimate. (I don’t trust the Western media bias against the Russian referenda; the West refused to legitimize them before they even got the results, as they were biased against the Crimea referendum.)

A great many of the people living there are ethnic Russians, and most eastern Ukrainians speak Russian (a language the Ukrainian Nazis wanted to prevent them from speaking): why would they want to stay in a country unprotected against Russophobic fascists? In any case, whatever faults are to be found in Putin are minuscule compared to those of the US/NATO warmongers (who have military bases all over the world, and are stealing oil and wheat from Syria, of which they’re controlling a third), who are pushing us all to the brink of WWIII and nuclear annihilation…all because the American ruling class refuses to accept the emerging multipolar world.

None of us is deserving of being killed in a nuclear holocaust.

Now, some of you who have read my posts on what I call The Three Unities, those being the Unity of Space, of Time, and of Action, may be thinking that, as they read this little rant of mine, I’m being hypocritical and self-contradicting. My discussion of The Three Unities, as well as my post, Beyond the Pairs of Opposites, in no way necessitates a belief in a just world. I’m not saying that the ups and downs of life are somehow equalized, and therefore ‘just.’ On the contrary, I stressed that the evils of the world “are all unqualified evil.” Good can flow from those evils as a dialectical response to them (and through human effort), though it far too often doesn’t.

Our negative belief systems (e.g., the illusion of a separate ego, black-and-white thinking, capitalist apologetics, bigotry, etc.) cause our problems to a far greater extent than the external difficulties of life. My Three Unities are an attempt to remedy those bad beliefs, not to deny the existence of evil.

Indeed, the belief in a just world is one of those very negative beliefs. The paradox of such a belief is that it leads to less empathy, or to no empathy at all, for those who suffer (i.e., victim blaming). Granted, to be fair, such a belief doesn’t absolutely lead to no empathy or to victim-blaming, but it does tend toward such an attitude.

On the other side of the coin, acknowledgment of the many injustices of the world tends to prod people towards trying to right those wrongs…again, I mean this as a tendency, allowing for many exceptions.

So, what should we think about the idea of a ‘just world’? It shouldn’t be conceived as already existing; it should rather be something to strive for, with all our hearts.

Don’t see a just world…make a just world!

Analysis of ‘Tommy’

I: Introduction

Tommy is the fourth studio album by The Who, released in 1969. Most of the songs were written by Pete Townshend, with two songs by John Entwistle (“Cousin Kevin,” and “Fiddle About”), “The Hawker” being Townshend’s adaptation of a song with lyrics by Sonny Boy Williamson II; and “Tommy’s Holiday Camp,” though credited to Keith Moon, being based on his suggestion of what kind of religious movement Tommy could lead, was actually written by Townshend, too.

Though there are some historical precedents dating from the mid- to late 1960s, Tommy is the first album to be billed as a “rock opera,” according to Scott Mervis of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette. Townshend himself made some musical forays beyond the simple three-minute pop song from 1966 onwards, with songs that have extended narrative elements, resulting in such suites as “A Quick One, While He’s Away” and “Rael,” the latter having melodic material in its second half that was used in “Sparks” and “Underture.”

In 1968, Townshend became influenced by the Indian spiritual mentor Meher Baba, and deaf-dumb-and-blind Tommy Walker’s connection to the world through vibrations (making him amazingly gifted at pinball, as well as a spiritual leader in his own right) came from Baba’s mysticism. Indeed, this mystical connection is the flip side to Tommy’s self-isolating trauma response to the killing he, as a sensitive child, has seen, but has been forbidden by his perpetrator parents to acknowledge having seen or heard, or to speak about. This trauma reaction, Tommy’s mental block, was also influenced by Townshend’s own experiences of childhood trauma. As of 1968, the rock opera was referred to by such tentative titles as Deaf, Dumb and Blind Boy, Amazing Journey, Journey Into Space, The Brain Opera, and Omnibus.

Tommy was acclaimed on its release by critics, who called it The Who’s breakthrough. It has been developed into other media, including the Ken Russell film of 1975 and the 1992 Broadway musical. The album has sold 20 million copies and has been inducted into the Grammy Hall of Fame.

Here is a link to all the lyrics of the album.

II: Traumatic Beginnings

The Overture is mostly instrumental, incorporating themes from “1921,” “We’re Not Gonna Take It,” “Go to the Mirror!”, “See Me, Feel Me,” “Pinball Wizard,” “Listening to You,” and “Sparks.” Another musical highlight is John Entwistle’s French horn. The song ends with one verse sung by Townshend, establishing that Tommy’s father, Captain Walker, is missing in action in WWI and presumed dead.

Tommy’s mother, left to raise the boy alone, takes on a lover. Though the year is 1921 in the album’s version of the story, Russell’s film changes the year to 1951; the war is thus changed to WWII, and her lover (played by Oliver Reed) has Fifties style hair. Furthermore, while on the album, Captain Walker kills his wife’s paramour, in the film, killer and killed are reversed.

Since the killing is the traumatic event that causes Tommy’s psychosomatic deafness/muteness/blindness, it’s interesting to explore the precise psychological circumstances of this trauma. We’re dealing with either the killing of Tommy’s father, implying an Oedipal wish-fulfillment (especially relevant given how the little boy’s mother is played by the oh, so hot Ann-Margret in the film), or the killing of her lover, suggesting what the boy’s daddy might do to him if he were to satisfy his Oedipal desires with her. (While Freud is generally considered passé today, recall how Townshend’s story was conceived at a time when the ideas of the founder of psychoanalysis were still in vogue, and his ideas are therefore a valid interpretation of the story’s meaning.)

Another crucial aspect of little Tommy’s traumatizing is the denying of what he’s seen and heard. The man and woman screaming at the boy, “You didn’t see it, you didn’t hear it!” happens while he says he did see and hear it, though his words are ignored. Such denial, or refusal to validate a painful experience, is the essence of gaslighting, which causes the victim to doubt his or her perception of the world–in Tommy’s extreme case, to doubt his very senses to the point where he feels forbidden even to use two of them.

The ultimate trauma, though, is in his being forbidden to talk about the painful incident. Being able to put one’s trauma into words is indispensable to healing, and his own parents, refusing to take any responsibility for what they’ve done, are denying the very thing the boy needs to do to get better. One is reminded of that old poem by Philip Larkin.

III: Lacan’s Angle

So this trauma, making Tommy psychosomatically deaf, dumb, and blind, has cut him off from society. The inability to communicate with others has isolated him from the world. Normally, a child of his age would, using Lacan‘s terminology, shift from the narcissistically Oedipal Imaginary Order to the Symbolic; that is, he would go from the dyadic mother/son relationship of self and other mirroring each other’s narcissism, to the healthy relationship of self to the many Others of society. Tommy’s move from other to Other would have been mediated by the Non! du père, the father’s prohibition of Oedipal incest with the mother, and the introduction of language, culture, law, and social customs.

Tommy, however, gets neither the Non! du père nor an introduction to language and culture. The murder of his mother’s lover (or, in the film, the killing of his father) precludes the boy’s entry into society with him seeing his father commit a crime (an antisocial act pushing Tommy in the opposite direction of society), or be killed. He cannot use language and relate to the Other of society if he’s deaf, dumb, and blind, so he cannot enter the Symbolic. Instead of le Non! du père, his is a case of les non-dupes errent: that is, not being duped by the hypocrisies of social life (because not initiated in society), Tommy errs in a non-Symbolic, solipsistic world.

If his mother is reunited with his father (or if, in the film, “Uncle Frank” [Reed] replaces his father, as Uncle Claudius replaced King Hamlet by crawling into Gertrude‘s bed), then Tommy cannot indulge in his incestuous, Oedipal desires with her, the transgressive jouissance of the Imaginary. He can be in neither the Imaginary nor the Symbolic. Therefore, Tommy is trapped in the traumatic world of the Real, a world of the undifferentiated, because of the absence of sight, sound, and speech.

IV: Heaven and Hell

Now, the undifferentiated world of the Real, or of Wilfred Bion‘s O, is not necessarily all traumatic. It’s actually on the cusp where heaven meets hell; it involves the dialectical relationship between the highest happiness and the most traumatizing pain. The only thing that marks the difference between an experience of bliss or one of horror is whether or not one is still attached to one’s ego (something formed during the mirror stage in the Imaginary).

In his essay Heaven and Hell, Aldous Huxley wrote of what he called antipodes, or extreme opposite “regions of the mind,” where one can have blissful or hellish visionary experiences, brought on by trances, meditation, self-flagellation, fasting, or the use of such drugs as LSD or mescaline, all of which in some sense biologically disable the mind–that is, turn off the senses, as Tommy has had his turned off.

Huxley wrote of how quickly one can shift from the blissful to the hellish experience: “In life, even the blissful visionary experience tends to change its sign if it persists too long. Many schizophrenics have their times of heavenly happiness; but the fact that (unlike the mescaline taker) they do not know when, if ever, they will be permitted to return to the reassuring banality of everyday experience causes even heaven to seem appalling. But for those who, for whatever reason, are appalled, heaven turns into hell, bliss into horror, the Clear Light into the hateful glare of the land of lit-upness.” (Huxley, page 90)

Now, we’ve already examined the traumatizing aspect of Tommy’s loss of connectedness with the social and sensory worlds. We must also look into the blissful, mystical aspect of his experience, something first heard in the song “Amazing Journey.” We learn that the “deaf, dumb, and blind boy [is] in a quiet vibration land.” The unifying vibrations of the Brahman-like universe are his only connection with everything around him…but they are also a powerful connection with it, because a connection not requiring the senses. Here we see the influence of Baba on Townshend.

These vibrations will be the mystical source of Tommy’s incredible talent at pinball. Since the regular, wave-like movement of these vibrations suggest a rhythm, we can see how Tommy’s interpretation of the world around him can be understood as a musical one. Such a context is what we need to hear “Sparks” in: a kind of musical dream. In this sense, “Sparks” can be interpreted to mean tiny flashes of symbolic light to guide Tommy through the darkness, and the rhythm of those vibrations is a sound he can feel rather than hear.

V: The Manic Defence

A quack/pimp known as The Hawker claims his wife, a drug addict/prostitute known as the “Acid Queen” can cure Tommy. The use of the lyrics to Sonny Boy Williamson II‘s blues song “Eyesight to the Blind,” which refer to how the beautiful prostitute’s sexy walk is so compelling that it would restore a man’s eyesight, his ability to talk and to hear, are effective in how they dovetail with my psychoanalytic interpretation of the cause of Tommy’s trauma.

The sexual allure of the Acid Queen (played by Tina Turner in the film), as well as the hedonistic escape that her drugs represent, embodies what Lacan called the objet petit a, the unattainable object-cause of desire. Since part of Tommy’s trauma is based on the violent expression of the paternal prohibition against the boy having his mother (given on the album in the form of his father killing her lover, on whom Tommy has projected his Oedipal desire; and given in the film in the form of “Uncle Frank” killing the boy’s father, usurping his position as his mother’s new lover and causing Tommy to have guilt feelings about a murder he himself has, however unconsciously, wished for…like Hamlet vis-à- vis Claudius, in Freud’s interpretation), the Acid Queen as seductress attempts to act as a replacement, a transference, for the Oedipally-desired mother, which if she succeeds, she theoretically could cure him of his mental block. Since the objet petit a never ultimately satisfies that forbidden desire, though, the Acid Queen’s attempt is doomed to fail.

Similarly, the boy may enjoy an intense LSD trip, as musically expressed in “Underture,” with musical themes similar to those of “Sparks” (implying the similarity between a drug trip and a blissful mystical experience of universal oneness, as Huxley observed), still, drugs won’t cure Tommy of his trauma any better than sex will. If anything, indulgence in these fleeting pleasures are the opposite of a cure, for they are only a manic defence against facing the pain, which is the only real cure. Hence, the Acid Queen’s drugs will fail, too.

VI: The Opium of the People

If drugs fail to help Tommy, religion, “the opium of the people,” will also fail. At “Christmas,” his parents fret about how the boy’s disconnect from the world around him means he doesn’t know about Jesus, and therefore cannot be “saved from the eternal grave.” Of course, these parents–being impenitent about a murder they’ve kept secret, a murder whose very secrecy is the cause of Tommy’s trauma–are in no position to judge whether Tommy, or anyone, for that matter, needs to be saved by Christ or not. Their main concern, in making Tommy a ‘good Christian,’ is in integrating the boy with the hypocritical bourgeois values of society.

Making Tommy know of religious custom, or the laws of morality and mores of society, is another manifestation of the Nom, or Non! du père (in this case, God the Father). But with Tommy, who won’t accept pretending he never saw or heard the killing (recall his protests of having seen and heard it in 1921), and who therefore won’t talk about it, is someone not willing to be duped by his parents’ social hypocrisies (including the phoney pretence of Christian piety). Therefore, the boy’s response to le Non! du père is les non-dupes errent: he won’t be duped into following the hypocrisies of society, so he errs in his psychosomatic disabilities.

Along with Tommy’s rejecting of hypocritical Christian piety is his flouting of other social graces. His playing of “poxy pinball,” of course, is a presaging of his uncanny skill at that game, but it’s a game played alone, without friends, and skill at pinball, like skill at billiards, is a sign of a misspent youth. Note how kids at Christmas normally are very excited, but the holiday means nothing to Tommy. He also “picks his nose,” a social horror that guarantees most people won’t like him. Still, since these dysfunctional habits are trauma responses to something his selfish parents have brought on, it is they, not he, who are to be blamed.

His parents ask, “Tommy, can you hear me?”, but if they’ve refused to hear him when he’s said he saw and heard their murder, why should he obligated to hear them? They should be more focused on removing the beams in their own eyes than on removing the mote in his eye (Matthew 7:3-5). Meanwhile, Tommy mentally pleads, “See me, feel me, touch me, heal me“: he so desperately wants to be able to connect with his parents, to be cured of his mental block.

VII: Fiddling About with Fourths

Indeed, far from making a decent attempt at curing him, his parents emotionally neglect him, something carried to the extreme that they “think it’s alright” to leave the deaf, dumb, and blind boy in the more-than-questionable care of, first, his bullying “Cousin Kevin” and his drunk, child molester Uncle Ernie, thus compounding Tommy’s childhood traumas.

A recurring musical motif in Tommy is the back-and-forth progression of suspended fourths to major chords (and variations thereof), a progression epitomized in “Pinball Wizard,” but also heard on “1921” (i.e., when we hear, “Got a feeling ’21 is gonna be a good year.”), and on such tracks as “Sparks” and “Underture” (i.e., the theme they share with that of the second half of “Rael”). In a way, it’s even heard on Townshend’s guitar part in “Cousin Kevin,” though the ‘suspended fourth’ part is actually in the context of a dominant 7th chord resolving to the tonic (i.e., the ‘fourth’ is really a minor 7th).

This back-and-forth, up-and-down movement between the suspended fourth and major third can be seen to symbolize the up-and-down, wavelike movements of the vibrations that Tommy feels are connecting him with the world. They’re the source of his mystical bliss, but paradoxically, they are also caused by his trauma. Significantly, the movement from suspended fourth to the major third chord is also a movement from musical tension to resolution (i.e., a symbolic move from pain to peacefulness). Hence, while we hear the back-and-forth of fourths and thirds in the mystical, visionary instrumentals (“Sparks” and “Underture”), as well as in “Pinball Wizard,” we also hear them in some of the trauma-oriented songs (“1921” and “Cousin Kevin”).

The trouble with childhood trauma, especially the kind that results in the “freeze” trauma response that Tommy’s deaf-dumb-and-blind mental block represents, is how quickly it attracts predatory types. Bullies like Cousin Kevin and child molesters like Uncle Ernie find people like Tommy, now a teen in the story, to be easy prey. Bullies and pedophiles are cowards who cannot take out their pain on people who fight back, so they prey on the weak, resulting in re-victimization for people like Tommy. PTSD thus grows into C-PTSD.

“Cousin Kevin” is sung by Townshend and Entwistle on the album, while in the film it’s sung by Paul Nicholas, whom we see torturing Tommy, who in turn is played by Roger Daltrey. “Fiddle About” is sung by Entwistle on the album, while in the film, the lyrics are growled by Moon, who plays Uncle Ernie. An amusing performance of this role, done during the reunited Who’s 1989 tour, was done by Phil Collins, dressed in the stereotypical pervert’s bathrobe, underwear, and with messy hair and glasses. Billy Idol did a profanity-laced performance as Cousin Kevin during that show.

“Fiddle About” switches from 4/4 to 3/4 when the song’s title is heard in the lyrics. That creepy, rocking 3/4 suggests the act of molestation, to our ears’ horror.

VIII: Heaven and Hell 2

It is fitting that “Cousin Kevin” should occur just before the Acid Queen giving Tommy his acid trip (“Underture”) in the sequence of songs on the album; then, that “Fiddle About” should appear just before “Pinball Wizard.” That is, two of the most traumatic events in his life should happen just before a great mystical or visionary moment, a move from hell to heaven. (Similarly, the traumatic “You didn’t see it!…” of “1921” immediately precedes the mystical/visionary “Amazing Journey” on the album.)

This juxtaposition of the worst with the best brings us back to what I discussed above about the traumatic and blissful aspects of Lacan’s Real Order and Bion’s ineffable O. Rudolf Otto, in his book The Idea of the Holy (1917, Das Heilige), wrote of the non-sensory numinous, the dual nature of experiencing God, which is both blissful and traumatic, mysterium tremendum et fascinans. Tommy’s traumas are so extreme that he’s come out the other end, dialectically speaking, from hell out to heaven; he’s so well connected to the world, so touched by God, so to speak, that he can excel at pinball without even seeing the ball.

As I’ve discussed in many other posts, I use the ouroboros to symbolize the dialectical relationship between opposites: the serpent’s coiled body represents a circular continuum with the biting head and bitten tail representing extreme opposites that meet, phasing into each other. All intermediary points are on the coiled body of the ouroboros, the head and tail of which can represent any pair of opposites–heaven and hell, sanity and insanity, etc.

In Tommy’s case, his mental state is right where the serpent’s head is biting its tail: the bitten tail is his trauma, and the biting head is the bliss of his mystical, visionary consciousness. So with the trauma of Uncle Ernie’s molestation of him, immediately preceding his amazing extrasensory powers as the usurper of the Pinball Wizard, we have a perfectly fitting juxtaposition.

IX: Tommy Uses the Force

How do you think he does it?” you wonder. “What makes him so good” at pinball? That Tommy has “no distractions” reminds me of that scene in Star Wars, when Luke is practicing with his lightsaber on the Millennium Falcon, and Ben has him wear a helmet with the blast shield down, making Luke unable to see the remote. Ben says, “Your eyes can deceive you. Don’t trust them.” Then he tells sightless Luke, “Stretch out with your feelings,” and Luke can, through the “mystical energy field” surrounding him, sense when and where the remote will shoot at him, and he can deflect its shots perfectly. Similarly, Tommy is, so to speak, using the Force when playing pinball.

On the album, Daltrey sings most of “Pinball Wizard,” while Townshend, elsewhere quickly strumming those suspended fourths and major third chords on his acoustic guitar, sings some lead vocals during the bridge (quoted at the top of the previous paragraph). In the movie, Elton John plays the Pinball Wizard (in huge shoes!) and, on his piano, plays over the suspended fourth and major chord acoustic guitar strumming with fast, descending arpeggios of subdominant and tonic triads. The film version of the song is extended to include variations on the main guitar riff to “I Can’t Explain.”

X: The Mirror

A doctor is found who, his parents hope, will cure Tommy. In the film, he’s played by Jack Nicholson (“The Specialist”), who–like Oliver Reed–also sings…for good or ill. In the song on the album, we hear a refrain of Tommy’s “See me, feel me…”, a reflection of his trauma; then soon after, “Listening to you…”, a reflection of his mystical, visionary state of mind–again, a juxtaposition of his inner heaven and hell. Realizing that Tommy’s disabilities are all psychosomatic and not at all biological, the doctor et al advise that Tommy “Go to the Mirror!”

It is interesting, from a Lacanian perspective, that blind Tommy would be brought before a mirror, of all things, as an essential part of his cure. An infant establishes its ego, its unified sense of self, an ideal-I, by seeing itself in the mirror reflection for the first time, bringing it into the Imaginary Order. Apart from seeing itself in the specular image, the infant feels itself to be a fragmented body, awkward, lacking in boundaries between me and not-me, and lacking in a unitary identity.

The traumatic arrest in Tommy’s development as a child came from his having witnessed the murder and his parents gaslighting him into not seeing, not hearing, and never talking about it. Also, his having been deprived of his Oedipal desires (note that a baby seeing his mother’s loving smiles is also a metaphorical mirror that returns his infantile narcissism back to him; note also that, in the film, Tommy’s oh, so desirable mother is seen in the mirror reflection with Tommy during “Smash the Mirror”) is connected with the need to establish his ego before the mirror, something his trauma has frustrated. This connection is now key to curing him.

Having Tommy stand before a mirror and stare at himself also symbolically suggests therapy through the methods of Heinz Kohut–that is, a temporary indulging of narcissism through the mirror transference before gently weaning him of this indulgence through optimal frustration. The problem is that Tommy’s mother, chanting “Tommy, Can You Hear Me?” with the others, grows impatient and frustrated herself, and she decides to “Smash the Mirror.”

Such a smashing is far from the gentle weaning of optimal frustration. It’s much too sudden and abrupt, and the fragmenting of the mirror, its shocking suddenness, is symbolic of the threat of psychological fragmentation, a danger often averted by resorting to pathological narcissism. Sure, Tommy’s mental block is gone: he can finally see, hear, and speak, but his “Miracle Cure” is a superficial one.

XI: The Messiah

Now, the narcissism of Tommy’s fancying himself as a Messiah-figure is the one thing keeping him from falling apart and having a psychotic break with reality. What’s worse, as we see especially in the film, his family is indulging his megalomania to make a buck or two.

Tommy has already had “disciples” from the discovery of his amazing pinball skills, but now he’s become a “Sensation,” gaining many more followers, including groupie-like “Sally Simpson,” whose preacher father disapproves of her involvement in Tommy’s cult. Since he’s “free,” Tommy is trying to get as many followers as he can, people who, devoted to him, are treated as mere extensions of himself. They are the other, a mirroring back to himself of his ego, the other of the Imaginary (i.e., a form of the objet petit a, where a is French for autre, only one ‘other’), not the Other (many people) with its radical sense of alterity, the alterity of the Symbolic.

Wishing to cash in on Tommy’s new celebrity, his Uncle Ernie, his mother and Frank (in the film), set up “Tommy’s Holiday Camp.” This whole set-up would be the rock opera’s satirical take on all those who would exploit the spiritual yearnings of the masses for profit.

And at first, the masses go along with it. There’s an ironic twist in having them wear ear plugs, eye shades, and a cork in their mouths. As we know, Tommy’s psychosomatic disabilities gave him a mystical connection with the “deep and formless infinite”; but his followers, seeking to be pinball-playing imitators of Tommy as Christians would be imitators of Christ, are being wilfully deaf, dumb, and blind followers…that is, unthinking adherents of this phoney new religion that gives Tommy narcissistic supply.

When Tommy starts scolding certain of his followers for drinking, smoking pot, or being “Mr. Normal,” they grow disillusioned with him and his restrictions on their freedoms, realizing he is no different from any other religious leader who becomes too authoritarian and repressive. Thus, they all chant, “We’re Not Gonna Take it,” and reject his phoney cult.

XII: Rejection of the Messiah

Their rejection of Tommy leads to an ironic repeat of his “See me, feel me…” plaintive singing. Before, the traumatized boy had our sympathies; now that he’s not only regained his senses but also become a powerful cult leader, his pleas to be heard and healed fall on…deaf…ears.

This irony leads to yet another. The masses’ rejection of Tommy, their refusal to indulge him in his narcissism and megalomania, has made him retreat into himself again. Now, his singing of “Listening to you…,” instead of being straightforwardly visionary and mystical, has become dubious in this new, narcissistic context.

XIII: Conclusion

So, what are we to make of the ending of Tommy? Is it a happy one? To hear the driving guitar, bass, and drums of Townshend, Entwistle, and Moon, as well as the operatic grandeur of Daltrey’s vocals, harmonized by Townshend and Entwistle, one would think it’s a happy ending. The lyrics certainly seem upbeat at the end. Let’s consider, however, what has happened in light of the plot.

Tommy’s recovery from his trauma, from staring at a mirror which is then smashed by his mother, is a shaky recovery to say the least. He’s replaced his previous isolation with a narcissistic Messiah complex. In the end, his followers have rejected him, relegating him to his loneliness, and he’s withdrawn into himself. From this, can he really “see the glory,” “climb the mountain,” and “get excitement at your feet”?

I would describe these ecstatic words not as an attainment of nirvana, but rather as him deluding himself that he’s attained it, as a narcissistic defence against fragmentation. He can convince himself that he’s found the highest bliss, though he’s actually lost his mind, because as I’ve argued above, the heavenly and hellish mental states are actually opposite sides of the same coin.

Still, the very dialectical proximity of these opposing states makes the ending of Tommy ambiguous rather than pessimistic. Just as his childhood trauma also gave him his mystical connection with everything, so can his new isolation, with all the pain of the world’s rejection of him, make him once again pass the ouroboros’ bitten tail to the biting head of visionary bliss.

The “you” he’s “listening to,” “gazing at,” and “following” could thus be his rejecting herd of followers, or it could be God…or it could be both.

‘Between the Divide,’ a Poem by Jason Ryan Morton

Here’s a new poem by my Facebook friend, poet Jason Ryan Morton, whose work I’ve looked at many times before. As usual, I’ll put his writing in italics, to distinguish his words from mine. Here’s the poem:

frenzied and lost
a shadow of what i was
lost in a second
fulfilled at any cost

the parallel lines
turn to parallel lies
I keep seeking the divine
but fall between the
divide

answers hurt to
questions unasked
i bathe in the glory
of a chemical axe
waging war within

that is a sin
as it goes beneath the
skin
to drown me deep within
and without
just another day that
passes far too quick

leaving me trembling
shaky and sick
what was a vision of
mortality
is now a passage of
doubt
and i’m lost again

too many yesterdays
still portraits
crawl with the rotten
stage
falling through my anger

and i just want to turn
the page
to burn the magazine
tie up all my aspirations
and burn the stage

winter is here and it is clear
i am not wanted here
too many disharmonies
to ever sleep without
fear

i close my eyes
and say goodbye
no more goodnights
no more lullabies

only the rage
the justifications
an empty gun
and a permanent
vacation

And now, for my analysis.

Jason is speaking of the struggle to find happiness, including spiritual enlightenment. We sense his frustration with the difficulty of attaining this in the first verse.

The “parallel lines” seem to represent, on top, the spiritual path of God above, and on the bottom, Jason’s attempt to emulate that path below, on the Earth. The problem is that parallel lines never meet, so try as he might, Jason cannot reach God, no matter how hard he may try to conform to the Christian way.

He learns soon enough, though, that those parallel lines are lies, an effective pun. The lie is the failure to attain spiritual enlightenment without “Christ,” which translates actually to not attaining it without first conforming to the catechism of the Church; hence his “seeking the divine,” and falling “between the divide,” another effective pun. The “questions unasked” of the Church, that is, the taboos of questioning and doubting Church authority, lead to “answers hurt.”

Other attempts to heal pain, the alternative of the “chemical axe/waging war within,” sound like the illusory euphoria of psychiatric drugs, with their chemical compounds: this medication never cures mental illness–it only keeps it under control. It “is a sin/as it goes beneath the skin/to drown [him] deep within.” The pills are “invisible handcuffs,” as Charles “Haywire” Patoshik (played by Silas Weir Michell) calls them in season one of Prison Break.

Realizing the hard truth of these false paths to happiness leaves Jason “trembling/shaky and sick,” “a passage of doubt/and [he’s] lost again.” Then there are his painful memories: “too many yesterdays/still portraits.” He just wants “to turn/the page/to burn the magazine,” to get rid of the past, to destroy all of it.

He feels the “winter” coldness of alienation and loneliness; he is “not wanted here/too many disharmonies.” He’d go to sleep and escape the cruel realities of daily, waking life; he’d “close [his] eyes/and say goodbye/no more goodnights/no more lullabies.” He feels “only the rage”…a rage brought on by “the justifications” of the Church that once betrayed him? He has “an empty gun” from having already fired out all of that rage.

His “permanent vacation” could be anything from indefinite disability leave to the dream of an eternal state of nirvana…or maybe even enjoying listening to Aerosmith!