Basic Decency

I: Introduction

When the scapegoat of a toxic family tries to confront them about their constant emotional abuse, one of the many forms of invalidation that the narcissistic parent and his or her flying monkeys respond with is to trivialize and minimize the pain and trauma they’ve put the victim through.

One manipulation tactic they may use in the service of this trivializing and minimizing is to say that one cannot hold the abusers up to some lofty and unrealistic standard of moral perfection: the narcissistic parent, after all, was never “given an instruction booklet” on how to deal with every single problem that inevitably comes along when raising children.

Never mind that the victim never required such unattainable ideals of parental and familial perfection. All the victim ever wanted was to be treated with basic, common decency.

As every reasonable person understands, even in the best and healthiest of families, there will sometimes be fighting, there will be moments of frustration, and otherwise beloved family members will have certain quirks and foibles that will drive us a little crazy. There is nonetheless a certain baseline that any decent family will not go under, despite those frustrating moments that are otherwise unavoidable.

I wish to discuss those things that a decent family would never do…or if they every now and then did lapse into such nastiness, they would snap out of it soon enough, apologize, and work hard not to repeat such nastiness. I write this as a guide that I hope will help anyone out there who may be in an emotionally abusive family, or suspects him- or herself to be in one, and who would like to have a kind of yardstick with which to measure whether or not he or she is in a situation sufficiently bad to need to plan an escape from it.

Naturally, as the scapegoat of my own family-of-origin, I’ll be using examples of my own experience of them to illustrate what I mean by those lows that go beneath the level of basic decency that one should expect from one’s family, that it–however imperfect–wouldn’t be a case of lowering itself to emotional abuse.

Families of basic decency won’t be consistently guilty of the following habits:

II: Gaslighting You Into Believing You’re Less Capable Than You Really Are

Your family is supposed to have your back, and while some criticisms of you, when necessary and appropriate, are unavoidable, being truly supportive of you means that they should be, under normal circumstances, helping you to build your self-confidence, not undermining that building of it.

Imagine being in a family with a narcissistic mother who tells you, a child, that you not only have autism, but that the psychiatrists who evaluated you had you do an IQ test on which you’d apparently scored in the early 60s. She tells you such a score means you’re retarded; yet, by “a miracle from God,” you turned out to have normal intelligence, that this “miracle” pulled you out of retardation.

She’s emphatic in stating that the psychiatrists recommended locking you away in an asylum and throwing away the key. She says she didn’t know if you’d even make a good garbageman–as long as you were happy. She says, on another occasion, that prior to the “miracle” recovery, she’d worried about herself and your aging father, decades into the future, having to continue caring for “a forty-year-old moron.”

It doesn’t matter that she said you’d grown out of your “retardation.” The damage has been done: you have been associated with the mentally deficient, and that’s damage enough for an impressionable child to have to grow up with.

Then, decades later, you learn, bit by bit, through therapy sessions with other psychiatrists and having done the Autism-Spectrum Quotient questionnaire, that you don’t, in fact, show any signs of autistic symptoms, not even the mildest, high-functioning ones. (Read this for the story in full detail.) You realize that you weren’t merely misdiagnosed as a child: your mother had been lying to you.

That happened to me. I was about nine when those lies were first told to me. Imagine the effect such lies have on the psyche of an impressionable child…heard from the mouth of my own mother! That’s an example of what I mean by a lack of basic, common decency.

Now, add to this psychological damage that a child suffers the constant verbal taunts, insults, and four-letter abuse coming from the mouths of his elder siblings. He gets called, for example, “You dip!” over and over again…on his thirteenth birthday, right at the party when he receives the cake; and thus begins a constant verbal barrage of being called “dipstick,” and “dork,” again and again, throughout his teenage years, those fragile years when a kid’s identity is just developing. Talk about undermining a kid’s ability to develop basic self-confidence.

Those taunts, of course, are just the mild end of the spectrum, for the kid is also being called “stupid,” “idiot,” “asshole,” and “you little shit!” any time those elder siblings are in a bad mood. And the kid is just a teenager, during an already emotionally confusing time in his life.

Now, while all of this, among other forms of bullying, is going on–much of it right in front of the narcissistic mother–she does nothing to stop it. She doesn’t help the bullied scapegoat, except in the rarest of exceptions, when she deems the bullying has ‘gone too far.’ Somehow, all the ‘moderate’ forms of bullying are acceptable to her. Well, naturally: they serve the same purpose as the gaslighting and lies: to control the victim.

III: Bullying

The bullying isn’t limited to verbal abuse and constant insults. There is physical intimidation going on, too. At least one elder sibling is threatening physical violence on the victim, if not actually hitting him. Sometimes the elder sibling orders the victim around, even calling him “slave.” Sometimes, the bully spits on the victim, then laughs.

Of course, the bullies will rationalize the awful way they treat the victim, listing his many faults: he ‘doesn’t care about anybody but himself’ (somehow, bullying is an example of caring about others); he’s ‘lazy and poorly motivated’ (hating him will surely fix that). Let’s consider a hypothetical situation: certain children have a problem with rhinotillexomania, which one understandably finds disgusting (will hitting them keep their fingers clean? Incidentally, the filthy childhood habit has been explained [as are other body-focused repetitive behaviours] as one not merely being an ignorant ‘pig,’ but as a way to reduce anxiety…oh, such children would never feel anxiety in an abusive family!). And, of course, there are many other such flaws used as convenient excuses for bullying.

Being mad at the victim for having this or that annoying habit or fault is far from the only reason he is being bullied, though…by the very people who are supposed to love him. The bullies frequently, freely admit to him that they do it for the sheer fun of tormenting him. And the narcissistic mother does nothing to stop the bullying. It’s as if she were telling the bullies, “Go ahead, throttle the little bastard, see if I care.” Indeed, one gets the sneaking suspicion that she’s been secretly fanning the flames of the bullies’ hate.

It’s well-known that narcissistic parents will pit their sons and daughters against each other, goad them into competing–and even fighting–each other for the parent’s (very conditional) love…to seem ‘the worthiest’ one of having that love. Though sibling rivalry is a reality in even the best and healthiest of families, any reasonable parent will do his or her best to minimize any feelings of jealousy among siblings. Narcissistic parents, on the other hand, thrive on that very jealousy, enjoying the ego trip they get from it, and so will intensify that jealousy at every opportunity, pointing out–right in front of the siblings–which one he or she supposedly favours the most.

This inflaming of jealousy can be a powerful motive to bully a sibling. That narcissistic mother I was talking about…mine…who lied about a mental condition I don’t have, who was capable of such mendacity, would have been all the more capable of telling my elder brothers and sister all kinds of lies about not only my faults–either exaggerating them, taking them out of context, or mixing in false faults with true ones–but also lying about preferring me to them, making them want to hate and torment me all the more. If that was true about her, in every detail, and I have every reason to believe it was all true, then she was being especially cruel to me.

Knowing the whole time that the bullying was going on, and doing nothing about it, she’d sigh and act as if it were just an inescapable reality, when a few sharp reprimands from her–given the respect she commended as our mother–my three elder siblings would have chilled right out…immediately. You see, one could make the argument that older siblings’ bullying you when you and they were kids is simply a matter of them having been immature at the time; yet even there, it was still the parents’ responsibility to intervene and stop the bullying. So many years having gone by with this abuse going on, without any substantial parental intervention, is simply a matter of childhood emotional neglect.

It thus still demonstrates a total lack of basic decency.

IV: Teaching a Child One’s Bigotries

One form of emotional abuse that shouldn’t be ignored is when a parent teaches his sons and daughters his bigoted attitudes. Again, an impressionable child is having his or her world view distorted by a parent’s biases and prejudices, thereby stunting the child’s growth and development, making him or her as ignorant and ill-informed as the parent.

I’ve written at length over the years on this blog about how I was emotionally abused by my mother and three elder siblings, with little complaint about my father’s contributions to the problem. In doing so, I haven’t been all that fair. It’s high time I discussed how he, too, contributed to messing my mind up.

He was a right-wing reactionary who justified his attitude with his euphemistic self-description as “conservative.” Just about every “ism” applied to him: racism, sexism, antisemitism, anticommunism, homophobia, etc. He not only had these attitudes, he also expressed them with a bitter, angry vehemence and vitriol. He was, to be perfectly blunt, a mindless, bigoted old fool; he was Archie Bunker with a Master’s degree in history–the one subject that, if anything, should have taught him to have leftist sympathies, had the subject been taught properly to him.

As a young man with liberal tendencies at the time (in the early 1990s, as I was attending university), I tried to resist his reactionary thinking, which even included defenses of evangelical Christian fundamentalism (not that he ever attended church or read the Bible for moral guidance, mind you; it was all just an excuse for supporting authoritarian thinking). But just as mainstream media saturations of bourgeois propaganda sooner or later tend to influence the thinking of the masses, I eventually was swayed, for a time, to his way of thinking…not completely, but to far too great an extent, anyway.

Indeed, from about the mid-1990s to about the late 2000s, I went through a period of lost years, growing increasingly reactionary in my own thinking, in part due to my own personal frustrations at the time, but also due in great part to his toxic influence. First, I became stridently antifeminist. Then, during the early 2000s as a reaction to 9/11, I went full neocon for several years, even supporting the Iraq invasion and Israel (yes, I sank pretty low).

It took a slow, sad and disappointed realization, confronting how the Bush administration had lied about Iraq’s “WMDs,” to turn me around; their bailing out of the banks in 2008 was the last straw. Since then, I’d slowly resumed a socially-liberal/fiscally libertarian stance; and after Dad’s death in 2009 and some temporary grieving of him, I felt psychologically liberated from any need for his approval of my political beliefs, and I thus embraced leftism.

And here I am now, a total commie red, with no qualms about it at all.

V: The Toxic Influence of the Petite Bourgeoisie

One thing related to my father’s bigotry, and also linked to my family’s toxicity (as well as, I imagine, the bigotry and toxicity of many families out there), is the issue of class. I’m the only member of my family–to my current knowledge–with any left-wing sympathies (and recall, my own sympathies in that way are only a little over a decade long as of this writing, and I’m 56 going on 57); none of the rest of those in my immediate family has a socialist bone in his or her body, which should tell you something, Dear Reader, as far as their empathy levels are concerned.

As owners of a Smitty’s Pancake House restaurant in the 1980s and early 1990s, my parents were petite bourgeois, and with that social position come the values and politics of such a class. The worker was looked down on by my father as a “lazy lout” (his exact words), and anyone receiving welfare was just mooching off the government and taxpayer. Just as my dad had tried to influence my political thinking rightward, so did my sister, J., though more liberal herself, try in the early 1990s to stamp on my identity that I’m “an upper middle-class young man.” No, J.: as a teacher of English in East Asia, I’m a worker, a proletarian.

When I was a teen and doing some of my first work in the mid-1980s, which in this case was some jobs here and there for the family restaurant, I was working for…$1 (Canadian). My father tried to drive into my head, “Oh, if you wanna make that dollar, you have to work really hard for it…” as if that precious dollar was a mint of gold or something. Later, as a young man and without work with sufficient pay that would allow me to leave home and live independently, my father, rationalizing that “You have to pay your way in this world,” made himself my landlord, requiring me to give him some of the meagre pay I was making for ‘rent’ each month. Granted, it wasn’t as high a ‘rent’ as one normally would pay, but still, this was my father, with his Attila-the-Hun right-wing mindset. One normally expects a more charitable attitude from one’s own family.

My mother was also somewhat more liberal than my father, though as a comparison to him, “somewhat liberal” isn’t saying much. She fiercely supported Israel to the point of flipping out on me one day in the restaurant for appearing there wearing an Arab scarf, something I’d bought on my university campus and–being too young and politically naïve to know anything about the Israel/Palestinian conflict–was wearing it just to be fashionable. In her hissy fit, she shouted that the scarf–looking like Yasser Arafat‘s black-and-white keffiyeh–made me look like a supporter of the PLO; she spoke of how awful it was that Palestinians throw rocks at the IDF, yet it didn’t matter at all to her how the latter have always brutalized the former, with state-of-the-art military technology provided by the US and other countries. My father had nothing kind to say about Zionism, of course, but that was because of his hatred of Jews, not from sympathy for the Palestinians, whom he called “murderers.”

Getting back to my sister, I mentioned in another blog post (I forget which one) how she was annoyed with the politics in Bruce Cockburn songs, in particular, “Call It Democracy.” She’d sneer at the title, imagining the singer “takes himself way too seriously.” Well, J., if you’d ever gone to Third World countries like Guatemala, as he did in the 1980s, and seen the appalling poverty there, caused in no small part by US imperialism, you’d understand why “democracy” in the West is and always has been a sick joke.

All of these examples show the connection between the microcosm of family toxicity and the macrocosm of toxicity in capitalist imperialism, the political gaslighting involved in the narcissism of capital. Capitalism causes alienation, causing in turn the lack of empathy easily seen in toxic families ruled by narcissistic parents. Accordingly, the use of psychological aggression by parents on their kids in the US (the bourgeois country par excellence) is almost universal, according to a study.

VI: Explosive Anger

Now, speaking of “psychological aggression,” one of the defining features of emotional abuse in toxic families is the propensity towards explosive outbursts of anger, happening all too frequently, and typically provoked by only minor offences. Everyone flies off the handle every now and then, even the best of people; but in toxic relationships, frequent explosive anger is a tool of control, meant to terrorize the victim to keep him or her in a state of timid submission.

I’ll now give some examples of sins a victim may have committed “to deserve” to be yelled and screamed at psychotically by a narcissist:

  • Being late with a birthday gift.
  • Interrupting someone.
  • Treating someone’s birthday as if it were of only minor importance.
  • Not bringing a bottle of milk home.
  • Eating all of the cereal (on multiple occasions).
  • Failing to respond when called to make tea for someone.
  • Slamming doors a few times too often.
  • Opening a package of ice cream incorrectly.
  • Rhinotillexomania (and messing up the furniture with the greeners).
  • Failing to wash the dishes when required to.
  • Failing to say ‘thank you’ for a ride to school.
  • Listening to music that others don’t like.
  • Saying someone does nice things for others only to get attention.

Granted, it isn’t easy to be patient with people who do these kinds of bad things, but surely one can deal with such problems in a healthier manner than by yelling and screaming at the offending party. Such excessive reactions won’t improve the behaviour of the offender by a long shot, either; in fact, the bad behaviour is likely to get even worse.

Such over-the-top reactions demonstrate clearly a lack of basic decency.

VII: Making the Bad Even Worse

That yelling and screaming at someone will make his or her offending behaviour, in all likelihood, worse rather than better leads me to my next topic.

The rationalizations often used for pressuring the victim in a toxic relationship to conform to more desired behaviour is that it’s meant “to help” the victim, “to improve” him or her in some way. Yet it is the very nature of abuse, abuse being by definition doing bad things to someone, to do the diametrical opposite of helping or improving somebody.

A common tactic used in attempts to deter undesirable behavior is to dump shame on the offending individual. The–frankly–Neanderthal logic behind using shame is that the offender will not want to be thus shamed, and so presumably he or she will be motivated to break the bad habits.

A modicum of understanding of human psychology, however, will demonstrate that the very opposite of the desired effect will result from shaming. The fact is, shaming the offender will only cause him or her to feel such self-loathing that he or she believes that it is in his or her nature always to be of such a defective nature…so the bad habits can never be stopped.

Object relations theory helps explain how one’s early experiences with caregivers and others in a child’s everyday life create a kind of blueprint, or template, if you will, for how just about all of one’s later relationships will be with others. So a healthy and happy early relationship with one’s parents and siblings should generally result in similar relationships with most other people, and the same goes with negative, abusive relationships. Such relationships become one’s “normal,” and anything different from that tends to be shunned, whether good or bad, because one isn’t used to such a contrast in human dynamics. Not being used to it means not being comfortable with it, so it is shunned, even if it’s good.

So the abusive way of dealing with unwanted behaviour, far from correcting it, will instead usually reinforce it, because it feels “normal” to be in such a negative social interaction. Instead of learning to depart from the undesirable way of behaving, one believes that it is an indelible part of one’s nature, thus perpetuating it.

I’ll give some examples from my family-of-origin. My eldest brother, R., was performing badly at school when he was a teen, probably far more because of difficult, emotionally confusing issues he was dealing with rather than a lack of intelligence. Our father’s Neanderthal way of dealing with R.’s poor academic performance was to shame him with notions that he was “too stupid” to do better. Shock and surprise!…instead of pulling up his socks and studying harder, R. ended up dropping out of school and leaving home; he was made to believe he could do no better. Our father took a bad situation and simply made it worse.

Several years later, when R. was at the end of his tether and could do more as a worker without even a high school diploma, he was finally motivated to come back home, go back to school, and study hard…all of which he did, and he succeeded–not because of Dad’s shaming, of course, but from sheer desperation to turn his life around.

R.’s successful bouncing back (he got into computers, and he’s surely the most successful family member now, having proven his smarts, now that he’d gotten past those adolescent emotional problems) came with some nasty side effects, though, much of which got taken out on me, who’d had a somewhat better relationship with Dad (from somewhat better grades at school). R. had come back home with a great big chip on his shoulder, imagining we all saw him as “the idiot of the family” because of those old bad grades (Really, R.? Ever get called “retarded” by Mom? You haven’t even got a clue!)

So R. had a motive (envy of Dad’s somewhat better evaluation of me), totally unjustified, for joining my other two elder siblings in bullying me. R. was too out of touch with his feelings to realize it was Dad he was mad at, not me, and he was too much of a coward to confront Dad with that anger, preferring to take it all out on me (then a shy teenager going through emotional problems of my own), which was so much easier for him to do.

As for me, there were many things I did that the family, of course, didn’t like me doing, but instead of finding constructive ways of making me stop doing those things, they shamed me for all of it, causing me to do those things all the more.

Apart from having been bullied regularly by my elder brother, F., when I was a little kid, I had to move with my family from the Toronto area to Hamilton in 1977, making me leave my best friend, Neil McIntyre: I was emotionally devastated from not being able to be with him anymore, and the pain stayed with me for years. Research has been done to show that such adverse childhood experiences as bullying and relocation can be traumatizing enough to cause a child to do such things as self-isolate and socially withdraw–it’s a trauma response.

By the late 1970s, my family was growing more and more concerned with my habit then of playing all alone, what was actually maladaptive daydreaming. Granted, they should have been concerned that I didn’t want to go out, find friends, and play with them; but their methods to get me to stop the maladaptive daydreaming were all poorly thought out, and they only served to make me do more of it. Rather than trying to understand why I self-isolated and showing compassion, they shamed me for my maladaptive daydreaming; me elder sister, J., coined a pejorative expression, “tooka-tooka,” to describe it and make me feel foolish for doing it. Such toxic tactics only increased my self-loathing, and made me do more of the maladaptive daydreaming.

My mother exacerbated my problems exponentially with her autism lie, which served only to make me feel as though I could never fit in with social groups. I’m convinced her reasons for pinning that label on me were outright malignant, a wish to make my life harder and undermine my ability to develop self-confidence. Other motives that I suspect she had were to act as if she were some kind of expert in psychiatry (she, while having training as a nurse, had no psychiatric training whatsoever), and fancying oneself to have abilities and knowledge one lacks is a narcissistic trait; another motive I suspect in her was to project her narcissism onto me, since her characterization of autism was by the original use of the word, meaning an excessive involvement in oneself (Sounds rather like narcissism, doesn’t it?), a retreat into one’s own private, inner world, as opposed to how autism is understood to be now–characterized by difficulties in social interaction and in communication, and restrictive, repetitive behaviours.

Needless to say, all of these things the family was doing to me were making my dysfunctional behaviour go from bad to worse, for, far from doing anything to help me, as they imagined was their intention, their true intention was to try to control me and make me into something they wanted me to be. This leads me to the next topic of what makes a family lack basic decency.

VIII: Forcing Conformity

A healthy family will want each member to grow and become who he or she really is and aspires to be, nurturing and encouraging one to be, in the parlance of our time, ‘the best version of oneself.’ In a toxic family, though, this is not so.

Instead, one is expected to become, if you will, the best version of what the toxic family wants one to be. One of the key components of emotional abuse is having power and control over the victim, and so forcing conformity is part of the abusive nature of the toxic family.

Now, of course, it’s perfectly reasonable that a family will want to deter any member from doing genuinely bad things, such as getting involved in crime, doing drugs, or performing badly at school. But the kind of enforced conformity that I’m talking about is of a far less reasonable sort. Healthy families don’t set precise agendas for their members, making them extensions of one’s ego (we see examples of this in the film, The Graduate).

As far as examples from my family are concerned, I already mentioned how my mother’s agenda was to trick me and manipulate me into believing I have a mental condition that I don’t have, so that–as I suspect–she could, via projective identification, split off and expel the narcissism in herself and impose it on me, a kind of exorcising of her personal demons (a plan of hers that never worked, for she stayed narcissistic to the end). I also mentioned how my father tried to push R. to become a superstar student, and in his frustration at teen R.’s having failed to do that, Dad shamed him for it. Now I’ll discuss some other examples.

Just as my mother wanted to project the worst or herself onto me, so did she manipulate J. into embodying what Mom saw as an idealized version of herself. The golden child of the family, J. was pressured into being the perfect daughter, the perfect sister, the perfect aunt, and the perfect mother–the perfect ‘family woman.’ Totally enmeshed in the family dysfunction, J. was required to give her whole life and identity to the service of the family. On any occasion that she tried to go off and do her own thing, all for herself, there would be hell to pay.

Now, this doesn’t mean, of course, that she never did anything for herself–it’s just that she’d have to prioritize the family over herself. One time, though my memory of it is vague, it’s enough to illustrate my point. We as a family (I was a teen) were in the car doing something we had to do together (I forget what specifically), but J. wasn’t with us. We arrived at the restaurant, where we saw her walking about, doing her own thing. Mom and Dad viciously bawled her out, reducing her to tears.

On another occasion, Mom and Dad had come home unexpectedly early one night, and they found J.’s boyfriend undressed and in her bed (again, I was a teen at the time, and in the basement, hearing the whole ensuing fight, so she, five years older than I, was a young adult). Mom freaked, screaming, “I’m ashamed of you!” at her repeatedly, again, reducing J. to tears…and all for doing something that, by the mid-1980s, was standard for a consenting young adult couple. J. had failed to be our mother’s ideal.

Since Mom forced conformity on J., tricking her into believing that such ‘guidance in the paths of righteousness’ was Mom’s way of loving her (this was J.’s trauma), my sister in turn tried to make me conform to the kind of person she thought I should be, imagining she was loving me and guiding me with her ‘wisdom,’ rather than just using me as an extension of her ego, as Mom had done to her.

J. carried this ‘guidance’ to some rather ridiculous lengths. In her ‘humble’ opinion, I can’t do anything right. I don’t dress the ‘right’ way, I don’t have the proper, ‘enlightened’ political beliefs, and I certainly don’t listen to the ‘right’ music.

Oh, the absurd attempts she made to deter me from listening to the music I liked! She’d berate me for it, dismissing its often experimental nature as “weird” and “strange” (note: we always label the things we simply don’t understand as “weird” and “strange”–her words were really more of a comment on her musical ignorance than they were on my idiosyncratic taste in listening). I was a teen at the time, though, and teens identify with their music: so in calling it “weird,” J. was calling me “weird,” another form of emotional abuse.

Needless to say, none of her attempts to shame me and discourage me from listening to progressive rock, jazz fusion, 20th century classical music, and other forms of experimental or boundary-pushing music ever worked. If anything, I got even more interested in that kind of music. So if listening to that kind of music was bad, then her tactics were just another case of the family pushing me from bad to worse. In any case, her “weird” labelling of my music, and by extension, of me, was just another way that that family gave me a complex.

Though my brother, F., was the worst bully of my three siblings, he imagines he tried to do me a good turn by teaching me how to play baseball. Actually, he forced me to play a game I wasn’t interested in playing; it may amaze him, but not every little kid is interested in playing sports, and that’s okay. And again, if he didn’t like my childhood habit of maladaptive daydreaming instead of going out and finding friends, then he should have made the link between his bullying of me and the harmful psychological effects it had on me as a kid…and if he was too young himself to make that link, then it was the job of our parents to help him understand that–which, of course, they never did.

On at least one occasion during that ‘teaching of baseball,’ he not only bad-mouthed me (about 8 or 9) to a girl neighbour of a similar age, which only increased my feelings of alienation and loneliness, discouraging me all the more from seeking friends, but he at the time also threatened to hit me, if not actually did (I don’t quite remember what exactly happened: traumas often cause memory loss). In any case, I went home in tears that day, and instead of getting any comfort from my parents, my mother loudly barked at me from another room, saying, “Take your bath!” I remember lying in the bathtub in a daze, stunned at the lack of love I was getting…and my mother’s last words to me before dying in 2016 were to tell me that, during those very childhood years of mine, she’d given me “the most love.”

It can be argued that Mom simply didn’t know what had happened, yet her attitude made it plain to me that she simply wasn’t interested in even listening when I tried to tell her. You see, we’re not talking about a few mere flaws in an otherwise basically good family here; we’re talking about a lack of basic decency. Family is not supposed to treat you this way, and the refusal to listen to the victim’s cries for help leads me to my next topic.

IX: Not Listening

If your family loves you, they listen to you. Period. It’s the same as in any other relationship.

Toxic families don’t listen. They preach. They pretend that their long-winded speeches are edifying for you. They aren’t so at all–they’re just annoying, an insult added to the injury of all their emotional abuse.

None of this preaching is for your own good, no matter how much the toxic family claim it is. It’s really about glorifying their egos.

This mentality was Mom’s an J.’s, all over. Just as my mother imagined she was a natural born psychiatrist, with no need for training or education in the field, so did my elder sister fancy herself a life coach of some kind for me.

J. imagines she has this huge treasure-trove of life wisdom to impart to me…actually, as I said above, she’s only five years older than I am: how much more could she possibly know about life than I do? On the other side of the coin, she imagines that I know nothing substantial about life, or about much of anything else, for that matter. This arrogant presumption of hers dovetails with what our mother had said about ‘my autism’ and being ‘mentally defective’ in general.

In fact, if J. and I were ever to switch roles, with me sharing any of my own thoughts on how to live one’s life, she would get outright snotty with me, as if I had the gall to break rank with her and be ‘insubordinate.’ I recall a couple of occasions when I was a young man, when I’d made comments, not at all serious, and she thought I was pretending to know more about life than the great philosopher did.

On one of those occasions, she’d expressed a rather snobbish annoyance at someone speaking ungrammatical English. I joked, “Sometimes in life, we all meet people who don’t talk good [sic].” She redirected her snootiness at me and said, in all sarcasm, “Oh, really? Tell me about life.” Her sense of ‘superior wisdom’ was so great…and her listening so poor, she didn’t even realize I’d merely attempted a joke–a silly one, but a joke all the same, not a serious lecture on life. So, what I’d unwittingly done was offend her narcissism, and I got needlessly hurt once again.

As I said, instead of just being quiet and listening to me, which is what I so desperately needed during those years I lived with the family, J. preached to me. She always thinks she needs to teach me something, that her words of advice will ‘guide me on the straight path.’ No, J., that’s not what I need; people can learn the lessons of life the normal way–by trial and error, through experience. Her words don’t add much to that.

Allowing people to talk, however, is very therapeutic. Allow them to get their pain off their chest, what’s called “the talking cure.” When an analysand free associates, the therapist just listens and takes notes, linking the themes that appear again and again in the patient’s endless talking; after enough themes are connected to show a consistent direction in the patient’s thinking, then the therapist may speak, giving an interpretation of the analysand‘s thought processes, which–it is hoped–will be an insightful one, helping the patient understand him- or herself better, thus leading to improvement in the patient’s mental health.

J., no more a therapist than our mother was, fails to understand the importance of listening. Instead, if I start to explain what’s troubling me, she breaks in and gives me a speech that, supposedly, makes visible the ‘larger philosophical perspective’ that I don’t see. Actually, what she typically says has little relevance, if any, to the subject at hand.

I’ll give a few examples. Once, when I was about 18 or 19 years old, I tried to tell her about a time shortly before, when Mom had yelled and screamed at me like a maniac for the unforgivable crime of having interrupted her. All J. had to do was listen. Instead, she interrupted me, saying, “Yeah, and I applaud Mom for it!” Then she went on about some nonsense about teenagers arrogantly thinking they know everything, which had nothing to do with Mom’s then-craziness or my attempt to remain calm as she’d spoken so hurtfully to me. That J. thought she knew everything about what had happened was lost on her, of course; I’m guessing she’d heard Mom tell her about our argument, misrepresenting what had happened and painting herself as the innocent victim, and me as the bad guy.

Another time, shortly before Mom died, I tried talking to J. on the phone about how Mom had lied to me so terribly (<<parts 5 and 6) that I didn’t want to communicate with her and put up with her manipulation anymore. Again, instead of listening to me, J. lectured me about how mothers ‘don’t have an instruction booklet on how to deal with every single family problem.’ Again, apart from J.’s typical condescension, her ‘perspective’ had nothing to do with what I was complaining about! Constant lying isn’t just a minor character flaw: it’s a serious personality problem, causing one to feel no longer able to trust the liar. It’s shows a lack of basic decency–not something to be endured. Actually, J. was enabling Mom’s emotional abuse by lecturing me the way she did, and this leads me to my next topic.

X: Enabling the Abuse

Many might read what I’ve written about here and think that I’m wallowing in the remote past like a ghost. Oh, those things you complain about happened so long ago, Mawr, decades ago! Get over it! Let it go!

First of all, those things happened in my childhood, adolescence, and young adulthood–my formative years, when my personality was only developing, and so the experiences would have a profound effect on the rest of my life, the same as anyone else’s experiences of childhood trauma. Such issues, thus, should never be trivialized or dismissed.

Second, the emotional abuse I suffered from that family was not limited to those early experiences. Once a toxic family, always a toxic family. After I left Canada to live in East Asia, the family could still communicate their nastiness by email or long distance phone calls…and they did.

Not content to have implanted the autism lie in my head when I was a child, my mother modified her lie by saying I have Asperger’s Syndrome: no need to have me tested by a psychiatrist during one of my visits home…my mother, the rank amateur psychiatrist, just ‘knew.’ I argued with her about this new label during the 2000s, and she wouldn’t let it go. It didn’t matter to her that she lacked the authority to give me, or anybody, psychiatric labels of any kind. Her presumptuous arrogance was just that brazen.

Of course, enabling of her emotional abuse came from her #1 flying monkey, J., the golden child, who in an email from the mid-2000s told me to “let this go” (i.e., stop arguing with Mom about the Asperger Syndrome label, and stop wallowing in the past). I was also instructed by J. not to reply, for I obviously have no right to tell my side of the story. Mom’s ‘version’ of the truth, in which she is blameless and I’m the bad guy, would suffice for J.

Another thing that had upset me at the time was how, when J.’s husband was terminally ill from cancer, my wife and I had offered to make a visit to Canada to see him one last time. My mother, in her usual condescending tone, said I shouldn’t come out of a fear that my ‘tactless and insensitive’ nature would cause me to put my foot in my mouth and say something to upset J. and her husband. Oh, those Aspies sure are tactless, aren’t they? Never mind how tactless and insensitive my Mom was being. My wife was every bit as offended as I was.

Indeed, I was furious, arguing all the more vehemently with Mom about it, thus leading to J.’s “let this go” comment. And around this time, I was beginning to have truly anti-Mom thoughts. I go into detail about all of this issue here, so if you’re curious about it, Dear Reader, you can go there, as a full explanation is beyond the scope of this article.

J.’s wish that I “let this go” must therefore be seen in the context of these more recent outrages of Mom’s, as was J.’s comment in 2016 about Mom’s ‘not having an instruction booklet to deal with every family problem,’ as discussed above. J.’s enabling of the family’s emotional abuse wasn’t just something from my childhood–it’s recent, too. J. claimed in a tweet to me a couple of years ago that, in spite of my having gone NO CONTACT with the family, she still ‘loves’ me: if so, her having read some of my blog posts on the family’s emotional abuse and having felt saddened by what I’d suffered, why has she–as I can safely assume–not pleaded my cause to R. and F. (if she had, and succeeded, surely they would have tried to contact me on Twitter and sought to make amends, wouldn’t they have)? The enabling of the family abuse, then, continues to this day–her ‘loving’ me was just an attempt to hoover me back into the family dysfunction.

XI: Conclusion

So, to summarize, families with a basic sense of decency will not allow the following problems to go on unchecked: gaslighting you into thinking you’re less capable than you really are; bullying you; teaching you to embrace bigotry and a petite bourgeois mentality (which can lead to fascistic attitudes and bigotry, given the right material conditions); explosive anger; making problems even worse instead of solving them; forcing you to conform to their way of doing things; not listening to you; and enabling their abuse of you.

These issues are not the result of minor, forgivable character flaws in otherwise basically good people. These issues come from people with serious personality problems. If you’re in a family with people subjecting you to this kind of abuse, don’t let them gaslight you into thinking that they’re ‘okay,’ but just a little flawed, and that you are ‘not okay’ for not tolerating their b.s.

They are the ones who are not okay. You are right to call out their abuse and demand better treatment. If, after your demands are made, they still won’t change, get help and get out. You deserve better than to be treated that awful way. Don’t let them guilt-trip you for setting boundaries and prioritizing your mental health over them.

By getting away from them and their toxic influence, you’ll truly get a chance to heal. Do what you need to do to be well.

Analysis of ‘Phantasm’

Phantasm is a 1979 supernatural horror film written and directed by Don Coscarelli. It stars A. Michael Baldwin, Bill Thornbury, Reggie Bannister, Kathy Lester, and Angus Scrimm. The film was independently produced, being financed by Coscarelli, his father, and local investors; the cast were mostly amateurs and aspiring professionals.

Following its expanded theatrical release, Phantasm would become a box office hit, grossing $22 million internationally. It got mixed reviews from critics, but in the years since its release, Phantasm has become a cult film. It’s on several critics’ lists of the best horror films, being praised by film scholars for its surrealistic qualities and themes of mourning, loss, and sibling relationships. JJ Abrahams is a fan of the movie.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, here are links (<<< this second one’s really bad) to the full movie, and here is a link to the (only first nine chapters, unfortunately, of the) novelization.

Since mourning and loss are major themes in the movie, I think it’s useful to go into the psychoanalysis of mourning. It’s also useful to examine the difference Freud saw between mourning and melancholia. In mourning, the painful process of dealing with the loss of a loved one is eventually gone through, and the mourner can redirect libido to objects other than the lost one; we can see Jody Pearson (Thornbury) largely getting over the loss of his parents and redirecting his feelings towards friends, bandmates like Reggie (Bannister), and women.

Things haven’t been so easy for Jody’s 13-year-old kid brother, Mike (Baldwin), who I would say is experiencing a repressed, unconscious form of melancholia, which involves not only a failure to accept the loss of his and Jody’s parents, but also involves the absorbing of their lost parents into his ego to make them internal objects (which in turn is the basis for object relations theory).

Furthermore, this internalizing also involves taking in those aspects of Mike’s parents that he doesn’t like, and so since those aspects are in him now, he dislikes himself for those aspects. His way of dealing with those disagreeable parts is to split them off and project them into the external world. These expelled objects would be what Melanie Klein called the bad father and the bad mother, those aspects of one’s parents that are frustrating and withholding of gratification.

These would be the Tall Man (Scrimm) and the Lady in Lavender (Lester), symbolically speaking, of course. Her sexual allure is symbolically in the Oedipally-desired parent, and his creepiness is symbolically in the Oedipally-hated parent. Since both are aspects of the same phantasm, they can also be seen to represent Klein’s notion of the combined parent figure, in which a child sees or imagines, in the primal scene, his mom and dad engaging in violent sex, which traumatizes him.

These phantasies (or phantasms) are the unconscious basis of all of the terror that Mike is experiencing as he continues failing to accept the loss of his parents. He’s been having nightmares ever since they died. Since part of him felt the usual frustrations any kid feels towards parents who don’t always do as a kid wishes, he imagines that he somehow ‘willed’ their deaths, and so he’s racked with guilt and self-hate over having ’caused’ their deaths–hence his being terrorized by the Tall Man, or the internalized bad father object, as his punishment for having ‘wished for’ the deaths of his parents. The terror he’s going through is all in his head.

Note that “phantasm” can mean both “spectre” and “fantasy,” or “figment of the imagination.” The Tall Man can be understood in both of these senses. He is a ghost terrorizing the Oregon town in which the film is set, and he is a fantasy in Mike’s mind. That fantasy comes from the internalized object of the bad father in Mike’s mind.

His conflict (and to a lesser extent, Jody’s conflict) with his mom and dad stem from the universal, narcissistic trauma of his love/hate relationship with them. They drove him crazy (presumably with their list of dos and don’ts) while alive, and now he can’t bear to lose them, now that they’re dead. He keeps them present and alive in his mind, in the unrecognizable forms of the Tall Man and the Lady in Lavender, for such is the way that repression works: feelings are pushed into the unconscious mind, then they return to consciousness, but in unrecognizable forms, hiding in plain sight.

What’s good and bad in Mike’s parents is split, in what Klein called the paranoid-schizoid position (“schizoid” referring to this splitting). The Tall Man, as Mike’s bad father, terrorizing him represents the persecutory anxiety the boy feels (“paranoid”) as a result of having rejected (and, as he imagines, having unconsciously wanted the death of) his father.

As with A Nightmare on Elm Street, Phantasm blurs the distinction between dream and reality. Because of this blurring, we can see the supernatural horror and the surrealism of Phantasm as being an allegory of the inner workings and conflicts of the unconscious mind. The dreamlike state that permeates not just this film, but also its sequels (generally regarded as inferior), explains to a great extent their many plot holes and inconsistencies.

The film begins at night, with a young man named Tommy making love with the Lady in Lavender in Morningside Cemetery. She takes a knife and stabs him to death, then changes into the form of the Tall Man. The juxtaposition of sex and death (or of Eros and Thanatos), as well as of the Lady in Lavender (or bad mother transference) and of the Tall Man (or bad father transference) allegorizes and personifies the unconscious processes described above.

Tommy has not just had the Oedipally-desired mother transference, he’s also experienced the combined parent figure, whom he penetrated and was penetrated by with a phallic knife (Indeed, in the novelization, the stabbing is described thus: “Quickly she sank [the knife] as hard and fast into his heart as he had plunged his body into hers.”). He later can be understood to be a kind of brother-figure for Mike, the way Reggie will be understood to be by the end of the film when we learn of Jody’s death, since we learn that Jody, Reggie, and Tommy were supposed to be a kind of Crosby, Stills, and Nash-style band of singers and guitar strummers (“It’s a hell of a way to end a trio,” Jody says of Tommy’s death to Reggie on the day of the funeral). The togetherness of the three young men suggests a tripling of Jody for Mike.

Because of the trauma Mike has suffered from his and Jody’s parents’ deaths, the boy has terrible fears of abandonment, and so he follows his older brother everywhere around town. Jody in fact plans on leaving Mike in the custody of his aunt, which of course the boy will hate, but Jody wants his freedom to pursue making music with Reggie, and leave that dull town.

Part of Mike’s fears of losing Jody the way he lost their parents can be seen as expressed in nightmare form: the stabbing of Tommy, and later of Reggie, the two victims being symbolic brothers. Mike’s unconscious mind is thus displacing the status of brother onto two men who aren’t his biological brothers, in order to ease the anxiety of facing up to the loss of his actual brother, Jody.

Mike’s melancholia, expressed musically through the haunting synthesizer theme in E minor, demonstrates the self-hate Freud wrote about in his paper on the subject (link above) in how the boy subjects himself to dangerous situations. His hanging out in the cemetery at night where the Tall Man’s crushed dwarves are, his going in the mausoleum, and even his rather precocious (for a 13-year-old) riding around on a motorbike (and, at one point, driving Jody’s car) all demonstrate at least potentially self-destructive behaviour, indicative of Freud’s death drive, something people who hate themselves might do, because they have bad internal objects haunting them.

After Tommy’s funeral, his death understood (but not believed, according to the novelization) to be a suicide, and it’s understood just how heavy his coffin is, Mike comes to the cemetery and sees the Tall Man pick up, carry, and put the coffin in a hearse all by himself. Mike is so amazed at the mortician’s superhuman strength that he whispers, “What the fuck?” and wants to tell a local fortune teller (played by Mary Ellen Shaw) about it. The height and strength of the Tall Man (especially as compared with the height of his dwarves) reinforces him being representative of the bad father, who from the point of view of a child, is much bigger and stronger.

The fortune teller, who has reassured Mike that if Jody leaves, they’ll go together, is an old lady. As such, she is as much a symbolic mother to Mike as the Tall Man is a symbolic father. (Her granddaughter, played by Terrie Kalbus, is a symbolic sister.) That the fortune teller is amused at Mike’s fear from feeling his hand trapped and hurt in a magic box indicates that she, like the Lady in Lavender, is a bad mother figure, too.

That the box seems to be taking away Mike’s hand and is scaring him (the losing of his hand would have been a symbolic castration) is indicative of castration anxiety, and castration at the hands of the bad father (or here, of the bad mother) can in turn be representative of corporal punishment. To overcome his melancholia, Mike must overcome his fear and unconscious hate of his dead parents. Only then will their bad internal objects stop tormenting him. Hence, the granddaughter (Sarah in the novelization) tells him not to be afraid, and only when he controls his fear does the box, a yonic symbol, release his hand.

The old and young women want Mike to understand that it’s fear itself that is his problem. A funny thing, though, happens soon after, for the granddaughter goes to the cemetery and enters the mausoleum; and when she finds a room in it with containers holding the Tall Man’s crushed dwarves (as we’ll eventually learn), she finds herself overcome with terror, and screams. We don’t see or hear from her again. The fear she warned Mike about became her very problem.

While she’s at the cemetery and mausoleum, Jody is at home, singing and playing his electric guitar on his porch, and Reggie arrives in his ice cream truck with his acoustic guitar and joins in playing the new song Jody has been working on. He’s singing of his lady having left him, and I can’t help linking that idea with how his parents’ death must have felt like an abandonment (hence, Mike’s fears of abandonment). The unconscious Oedipal attachment to Jody’s mother could have easily been displaced to his lady leaving him (his local girlfriend [see the novelization], or his coming sexual encounter with the Lady in Lavender). An expression of his displaced grief in song is one way Jody has been successful in overcoming his grief and loss–something Mike can’t do.

The novelization points out in Chapter Two that Tommy sang and played guitar just like Jody and Reggie–hence I say their trio would have been like Crosby, Stills, and Nash, especially judging by the mellow style of the song we hear the surviving two musicians working on. They only need to work out the vocal harmonies, which would have been three-part had Tommy still been alive, like the harmonies of CSN. As a trio, they would again be a tripling of brothers for Mike, an unconscious wish-fulfillment for a boy so scared of losing any more of his family.

When Jody and Reggie finish playing the song, Reggie takes out a tuning fork and strikes it, then touches it with his fingertips to stop the ringing sound. Immediately after that, we see Sarah, the fortune teller’s granddaughter, walking through a hall in the mausoleum towards the door to the room with the dwarf containers, where she’ll scream.

We learn towards the climax of the movie, when Jody, Mike, and Reggie find that room, that there’s a pair of metal bars sticking up from the floor. These look like a giant tuning fork, but without the connecting bottom. Mike will put his hand between the bars and see it disappear, just as when his hand disappeared in the box; he’ll discover what Sarah must have seen–a hot, hellish world of slave dwarves toiling away for the devil Tall Man. Reggie later will touch the tops of those bars, just as his fingertips touched the tuning fork. This causes a vacuum in the room from which he narrowly escapes.

We are left wondering what connection there could be between the tuning fork, the bars, and the box. Since as I said above, the events of Phantasm are an allegorizing of the goings-on of the unconscious mind, there will be an association of various images that we see, all signifiers of some kind meant to represent certain mental concepts. Since the magic box is a yonic symbol, the tuning fork and metal bars can be seen as phallic. Putting one’s hand in the box or between the bars makes the hand disappear, a symbolic castration.

Touching the tuning fork or bars, and putting one’s hand in the box, is symbolic masturbation. The threat of castration, symbolic of corporal punishment, is parental discipline against a child’s indulgence in forbidden pleasures.

Furthermore, the tuning fork and metal bars can be seen as both phallic and yonic, the spaces in between the “phalli” being yonis; therefore, the tuning fork and metal bars can be associated with the combined parental figure. That Mike’s hand disappears in the in-between “yoni” as well as that of the magic box indicates the vagina dentata of a punitive bad mother, one every bit as threatening as the bad father of the Tall Man, disciplining a child for his Oedipal urges. Recall how the Lady in Lavender, knife in hand, is ready to stab Jody just outside the mausoleum as Reggie is about to touch the bars and cause the vacuum in the room and the storm outside.

All of these elements in combination reinforce the idea that Phantasm is all about unconscious paranoid anxiety that the hated, internalized mother and father are out to punish Mike and Jody for wanting them dead and gone, however repressed that wish may be.

We learn from Chapter Seven of the novelization that Jody doesn’t want to take over his father’s bank. One can imagine some nasty argument between Jody and his parents over whether or not he should pursue a career in music rather than take over the family business. Jody’s wish to be free of his parents’ dictates surely contributed to an unconscious wish on his part to be rid of them…and so their deaths would have been a source of unconscious guilt for him as well as for Mike.

While Jody is visiting the bank in Chapter Seven of the novelization, he’s in the suit he had on during Tommy’s funeral, and apart from giving the management of his dead father’s bank to George Norby until Mike is old enough to take over, Jody also has a brief, intimate moment with Suzy, an employee there who likes him in that suit and, being of a traditional woman’s mindset, hopes her boyfriend will be the new boss of the bank. One of the film’s outtakes shows her with him in the office that was his dad’s.

Being an aspiring musician, though, Jody doesn’t want to be part of the money-obsessed, capitalist world. As I said above, I imagine his dad being upset with him for not wanting to do that. This conflict can be linked to the later scene of Mike seeing the slave dwarves in that hellscape beyond the metal bar portal in the room with the dwarf containers. Jody doesn’t want to be a slave to capitalism, angering his father, and so his and Mike’s unconscious is showing them the infernal punishment their devilish bad father (the Tall Man) has planned for them.

You see, Jody has a bit of paranoid anxiety of his own, though it’s not as intense as Mike’s is. Jody, too, has a nightmare, one of dwarves grabbing him and pulling him away into hell, just as Mike has a nightmare of the Tall Man standing over his bed with his arms out, ready to grab the boy, and the dwarves all then do.

With the blurring of the line between dream and reality, we don’t know for sure how much of Phantasm is actually in waking life. For all we know, it’s all a great big, unending nightmare, Dante’s tour of the hellish unconscious with Virgil. For this reason, I feel free to interpret any and every character as an extension of Jody’s and Mike’s family.

Thus, Suzy can be an extension of Jody’s unconscious Oedipal feelings for his mother (with Dad dead, he can have her, provided he’s willing to carry on with the family business). If not, though, he’ll be with the Lady in Lavender that night in the cemetery, taking his chances with the bad mother instead of having the good mother transference in his dad’s office in the bank.

Indeed, because things have gone sour between Jody and Suzy (she representing the good mother), he’ll go that night to the local pub and pick up the Lady in Lavender. Mike will be following Jody, as usual. The two lovers going at it in the cemetery represents a fusion of Eros and Thanatos, the life and death drives.

Mike, of course, will be in the cemetery, too. He’ll be scared by the presence of those dwarves, making him scream for help and distract Jody from her…also saving his life without him even realizing it.

The whole point of the Oedipus complex, properly understood in its expanded sense to include the jealous wish to hog the Oedipally-desired object to oneself (be this object the mother, father,…or really anyone), is that it’s a universal narcissistic trauma expressing hate and hostility to anyone who wishes to share that object and not let one hog him or her to oneself. This is what we see when Mike is following Jody everywhere, not wanting his older brother to be free to live his own life (e.g., to be with the Lady in Lavender). Saving Jody from her knife is thus a justification of Mike’s narcissistic wish to hog his brother all to himself, and is thus a wish-fulfillment. Remember how all of Phantasm could just be Mike’s ongoing dream, all an expression of his unconscious.

The next day, Mike is downtown, and across the street he sees the Tall Man walking up to Reggie’s ice cream truck. The cold of the truck seems to affect the Tall Man negatively. Indeed, we come to understand that the antagonist, being a devil of the hottest hell, has a strong aversion to heat’s diametrical opposite.

Later, Mike is in the garage, tinkering with a car. His precocious talent at fixing cars seems to reflect a wish to know how to bring things back to life, as it were. If only he could bring people back to life, like his parents. Dwarves scare him again, and he tells still-disbelieving Jody about them.

That night, Mike will go with a knife to the mausoleum to figure out what’s going on there. As he’s hiding in a coffin, he sees a caretaker looking around. This is another middle-aged man, like the Tall Man, so as far as Mike’s unconscious is concerned, the man is yet again representative of the bad father that the boy has internalized and whom he wishes he could be rid of.

Note how in all of Mike’s fear of the Tall Man and his dwarves, the boy still ventures out to the places that are the sources of his fear. This willingness to go out there demonstrates his self-destructive nature, which in turn demonstrates the self-hate he feels from his having internalized his bad parental objects, the source of his melancholia in the Freudian sense. He hates himself because he hates them, who are now a part of him.

Still, he keeps trying to project them outward, hence he has to confront them in the forms of the caretaker and the Tall Man. The coffin he hides in is a yonic symbol, representing his forbidden Oedipal desire, which as I said above is much more than just the wish to have his mother incestuously; but in the more expanded sense, it means he wants to hog all desired objects (her, the good father, Jody, and other brother-figures–Reggie and Tommy) all to himself.

Lacan‘s Non! du père forbids Mike to hog everyone just to fulfill his personal wishes, though: Mike must enter society and share everyone with everyone else; he cannot be the symbolic phallus for the mother, which represents the wish to be the desire of the Other. This inability to be that phallus is thus a symbolic castration, which is a recurrent motif in Phantasm.

Mike struggles with the caretaker, even biting his hand…and we’ve seen how a hurt or disappearing hand is symbolic castration. Mike wants the frustration of his wishes to be projected onto others. Immediately after the biting of the hand comes the flying ball with the blade, which stabs the caretaker in the head and kills him. This flying testicle and phallic blade are both castrated and (symbolically) castrating in their mutilation of the man’s face.

Right after this struggle, Mike has to confront the Tall Man, who chases him into a room, with Mike bolting the door to keep the mortician out, his hand slipping through the crack. Mike uses his knife to slice off the Tall Man’s fingers, yet another symbolic castration and Mike’s wish-fulfillment to project the frustration of his desires onto his bad father internal object. This wish-fulfillment is a form of revenge against his father’s frustration of his desires, which led to his unconscious wish for his parents’ deaths, which in turn led to his guilt and melancholia over their actual death. Instead of human blood, the severed fingers drip yellow ichor (the blood of the Greek gods), fittingly the colour of piss and therefore it reinforces how the fingers are phallic.

Mike takes a finger, puts it in a little box [!], and takes it home to show Jody the proof that he isn’t going crazy. Later on, the finger turns into a horrible, black flying insect that attacks Mike and then Jody and visiting Reggie soon after. Its ugliness, and the revulsion that the insect causes, are the diametrical (and dialectical) opposite of the beauty of Aphrodite, who emerged nude from the foam of the sea into which the severed genitals of Uranus were thrown. Indeed, the original sky-father god was castrated by his son, Cronus, in a reversal of the fear of the castrating father of Freud’s conception (Freud, on page 469 of his Interpretation of Dreams, wrote of a variation in which it’s Zeus who overthrows and castrates Cronus in revenge for devouring all of his children.).

The insect is shoved into the kitchen sinkhole, just as the Tall Man will be trapped in a hole going down into an abandoned mine shaft. Apart from being more yonic symbols, these traps also represent attempts at repressing traumatic memories…and of course, neither of them will last long or be effective. Reggie’s seeing of the insect means he too will be involved in doing something about the Tall Man.

Jody is the next to go to the mausoleum alone, and he’s attacked by the dwarves, one of which then chases him in a hearse, it being too short for Jody to see it through the car windows. It turns out that, once Mike has arrived in Jody’s car to help and that the dwarf has been stopped, that it was a crushed, shrunken version of Tommy.

Jody and Mike come to realize that the Tall Man has been killing people in the town (including their parents), and he has been crushing the bodies down to dwarf height, reanimating them, too, in order to do his bidding. As Mike later learns through the twin metal bar portal in that room with the dwarf containers, the dwarves will be the Tall Man’s toiling slaves.

On a symbolic level, this all means that the bad father wants to infantilize Jody and Mike (i.e., to shrink them down to size), and thus make them obey their dad’s every command (e.g., continue to run their father’s banking business, and so abandon their dreams of a music career, etc., and be good slaves to capitalism) without question. Another thing to consider is how the dwarves, as symbolic children, are projections of Mike’s self-loathing. He screams in terror at them because they are him; they’re what Wilfred Bion called ‘bizarre objects,’ hallucinated projections of Mike.

As Jody tries to confront what’s going on in the mausoleum, he tries to keep Mike out of it, in a misguided attempt to protect him. The Tall Man will go after Mike in the house, anyway. Jody trying to lock Mike up in his bedroom just makes Jody into yet another bad object, frustrating Mike in his wishes to be involved with confronting the Tall Man. Mike, in his frustration as Jody is carrying him upstairs to his bedroom, struggles and screams, calling Jody a “goddamn bastard!” and fearing that Jody will abandon him forever.

Mike manages to break out of his bedroom, and the Tall Man, all fingers intact again, abducts him and puts him in a hearse to take him to the mausoleum. Mike has a pistol, though, and he shoots his way out, making the hearse crash and go up in flames. He goes in the mausoleum and finds his father’s coffin, as Jody has already done.

Just before opening the coffin, Mike says, “I’m sorry, Dad, but we had to”…do what? Wish for his and Jody’s parents’ deaths? He’s horrified to see his father’s corpse gone. A bladed ball flies at his head, but Jody intervenes and shoots it with a shotgun. Instead of being mad at Mike for disobeying and escaping his bedroom, though, Jody hugs him. Jody is thus a good object again.

They’re pleased to run into Reggie again, knowing he isn’t dead (after having assumed that he and a couple of young women were killed earlier by the dwarves). Mike is especially pleased, of course, since Reggie’s another brother-figure. They go in that room with the dwarf-containers and the portal. Mike calls the other world, the one he’s almost fallen into, another planet, but I think it’s supposed to be hell, where the Tall Man and his dwarves are all evil spirits.

Finally, with everyone outside the mausoleum again, Reggie, thinking he’s helping the Lady in Lavender, is stabbed by her, just as Tommy–another brother-figure to Mike–was. Then Jody devises his plan to lure the Tall Man into the mine shaft and trap him there.

Mike has to confront the Tall Man yet again at home, the mortician calling him “Boy!”, like a harsh, disciplinarian father. He chases Mike out to the mine shaft, where he falls in the hole, one which Jody then drops boulders from on high to trap the Tall Man in. Jody seems like a triumphant hero.

Mike wakes up in bed. It was all just a dream…wasn’t it?

As it turns out, it was Jody who died…in a car wreck, and not Reggie from a stabbing. Mike knows those rocks won’t hold the Tall Man for long (if he could survive the fire from the crashing of the hearse into the pole, surely he can get out of that trap): of course not–Jody’s trap is merely symbolic of repression in the unconscious. We know Mike has been having nightmare after nightmare ever since his parents’ deaths, and now he’s having even more of them after Jody’s death.

Has the whole film been a dream, on and off?

We see Mike and Reggie in the living room of the house, with a fireplace burning behind them. It looks almost like a romantic setting. I don’t mean to say that Reggie is being a pederastic predator, or that Mike is welcoming such predation in his unconscious; but rather that these overtones are symbolic of Mike’s deep need to have the (platonic) love of a brother-figure, a need that would be particularly intense now that he’s just lost Jody. His feelings of abandonment are overwhelming.

Since Mike has been frustrated as well as loved by his now-all-dead objects, the bad versions of them, including that of Jody now, will all be internalized by the boy. He’ll need Reggie as a good object and brother-figure. Fittingly, Reggie picks up his acoustic guitar and begins humming and strumming that song he played earlier with Jody, the one about his woman leaving him. The film is all about loss, mourning, and a feeling of abandonment.

When Mike is in his room to begin packing for the road trip he and Reggie have planned, he sees the Tall Man again, in the mirror. Seeing the bad father, instead of himself, in the specular image is a reminder to us that the boy’s demons are all inside himself, internalized, not out there somewhere and so he’d be safe from them.

Like a stern father about to spank his son, the Tall Man calls out “Boy!” again, and the dwarves’ arms crash through the mirror glass, grab Mike, and take him screaming away. The childlike dwarves, about Mike’s height, get him because, like the Tall Man, they are him.

Analysis of ‘The Game’

The Game is a 1997 thriller film directed by David Fincher. It was written by John Brancato and Michael Ferris, and it stars Michael Douglas, Sean Penn, and Deborah Kara Unger, with James Rebhorn, Peter Donat, Carroll Baker, and Armin Mueller-Stahl.

The Game was well-received by Roger Ebert, The New York Times, and others, but it didn’t do all that well at the box office, as compared to Fincher’s Se7en; since then, though, The Game has gained a cult following among Fincher’s fans, and it’s now considered among some of them to be one of his most underrated films.

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

Nicholas Van Orton (Douglas) is a wealthy San Francisco investment banker. The film begins with sad piano music as a soundtrack to old, grainy home movies of his childhood and his rich father. Naturally, little Nicholas would have identified with his successful father, so when–as we later learn–his father has committed suicide by jumping off the roof of the family mansion, with little Nicholas seeing it, the traumatic scene is not only emotionally shattering for him, it’s incomprehensible that his father would have done such a thing…in a Richard Cory sense.

His father would have been the little boy’s idealized parental imago, one pole of Nicholas’s bipolar self, to use Heinz Kohut‘s psychoanalytic terminology. Not only the death, but also the witnessed suicide, of Nicholas’s parental ideal would have almost irreparably damaged that pole, necessitating compensation from the other pole, that of the mirroring of Nicholas’s grandiose self, given in the form of his status as a wealthy man, with his power to hire and fire employees, his wearing of good-looking and expensive clothes, and many opportunities to be icy and condescending to everyone around him.

Van Orton’s defence against psychological fragmentation, which would result from damage to his remaining pole, is thus covert narcissism, which is manifested in his deep insecurity, anxiety, and depression, all hidden behind a False Self of outward confidence and control.

Other manifestations of his covert narcissism include his victim mentality, which exists in spite of his wealth and power, and which is aggravated by the Consumer Recreation Services (CRS) game played on him, which feels increasingly like persecution; the real source of his victim mentality, though, is of course his childhood trauma from having seen his father kill himself. That he’s reached his 48th birthday–his father’s age when he killed himself–and that his birthday gift from his kid brother, Conrad “Connie” Van Orton (Penn), is the paranoia-inducing CRS game, don’t make Nicholas’s associations with his father any less unsettling.

More covert narcissist traits in Nicholas include his social withdrawal, to avoid being compared unfavourably with others and thus to maintain his illusory sense of superiority, and his difficulties in relationships–he’s divorced and lonely, clearly a result of his lack of empathy for others, yet another narcissistic trait.

Now, he should be able to go through life adequately, despite his faults…except that the CRS game is going to tear his whole life apart, and smash the other pole of his already fragile self.

Now, while it is true that birth order has very little impact on one’s personality development (contrary to popular belief), Nicholas and Conrad respectively embody the stereotypes of the high-achieving, organized, mature, and responsible eldest sibling, and the fun-loving, free-spirited, immature, and risk-taking youngest sibling. These stereotypes are evident not only in Conrad’s referring to himself as “Seymour Butts” in his invitation to lunch to Nicholas, but also in Nicholas’s cool, humourless response of yes to the invitation of “Mr. Butts.”

The elder/young sibling stereotypes are also evident later on in the film, when Conrad, flipping out over how the CRS people “just fuck you and they fuck you and they fuck you,” then when Nicholas, equally upset about CRS’s manipulations of his life, nonetheless keeps his cool as best he can and tells Conrad to stop being emotional; now, Conrad complains of having never lived up to the family’s expectations.

Furthermore, at the restaurant where the brothers meet so Conrad can give Nicholas his CRS gift, Nicholas tells Conrad he’s not allowed to smoke there, but Conrad lights up in defiance, anyway. Also, when Nicholas in his uptight nature is skeptical of the CRS “game,” Conrad–insisting it will be the best experience ever for Nicholas–tells him it will make his life fun…implying that Nicholas hardly knows what having fun even is.

Nicholas goes to the CRS building, where he meets Jim Feingold (Rebhorn), who explains that the CRS experience is a game, which will fill in what’s empty in Nicholas’s life. He’s still skeptical, but he does all the psychological and physical tests necessary to tailor the game exactly to his personality. When he asks someone who’s done the game before, he’s answered with a quote from John 9:25, “Whereas once I was blind, now I see.”

In a way, The Game is a modern retelling of A Christmas Carol, with Nicholas as Scrooge, with the game’s wild disrupting of his life comparable to the terrors of the three Christmas ghosts, shocking Nicholas into his final redemption. The naming of the protagonist sounds ironic, a glum receiver of a disruptive gift with a name that’s evocative of a cheerful giver of gifts to children.

There’s yet another association of Nicholas with Scrooge that is important: both men are rich. The CRS game is expensive, so much so that at the end, Nicholas offers to help Conrad pay for it, something the younger brother deeply appreciates. That this “game” is something only rich people can afford to play is significant, for the upsetting things that happen to Nicholas are things that, if one is of the lower or middle classes, one would not be able to walk away from, whereas “a bloated millionaire fat cat” like Nicholas can walk away from them, since none of them are real–just a game. If only they could just be a game for the poor.

The game begins for Nicholas in a surprising way, since after his psychological and physical testing, he’s been contacted by CRS by phone, and they tell him his application for the game has been rejected. So when he drives home at night and sees a wooden clown lying on the ground before his mansion, put there deliberately to look like his father’s dead body after his suicide, Nicholas is soon to realize he’s been thrown into the game, willy-nilly.

With the wooden clown in his living room now, he doesn’t yet know what to make of it, so he has his TV on with the business news, as reported by Daniel Schorr (playing himself). Schorr discusses the bad economy and how “a staggering 57% of American workers believe there is a very real chance they will be unemployed in the next five to seven years.” The image on the TV twitches from time to time, causing a normal news broadcast suddenly to be Schorr directly talking to Nicholas on behalf of CRS.

Soon enough, Nicholas clues in on this oddity, and he starts paying proper attention to Schorr. That CRS, which clearly represents the omniscient, all-controlling powers-that-be, would do this to Nicholas in turn represents how a fascist, totalitarian government would surveil and thus terrorize ordinary people. Nicholas is rich, so in the end, it’s all just a game. Not so for the lower and middle classes.

Now, while smart TVs hadn’t come into their own as of the making of The Game, it’s interesting in hindsight now, as of the 2020s, to make an association of them with the film. Furthermore, one might recall the “telescreens” in Nineteen Eighty-four. And since The Game came out long after the dissolution of the Soviet Union, describing the symbolic totalitarianism of CRS in terms of communism, rather than of capitalism, would be sheer nonsense.

On top of this TVs-that-watch-us surveillance is also a commentary on the manipulative nature of the corporate media, which as of the making of The Game was already two years into the enacting of the Telecommunications Act of 1996, which would result in mergers and acquisitions in American media, so that by now, 90% of it is controlled by only six corporations. These super-rich capitalists thus control most of Americans’ access to information. The totalitarianism of today is capitalist and fascist, not in any way socialist.

Nicholas learns from Schorr that the wooden clown’s head has a camera in it, and thus it is what is surveilling Nicholas. Big Bozo is watching you.

Later, Nicholas takes a plane for a business trip, but while waiting for the plane at the gate, he is informed by another man there (a CRS employee, as it eventually turns out) that the pen in his shirt pocket has exploded, staining his shirt with ink. This moment is a mild, early instance of narcissistic injury for him, the beginning of the eating away of his grandiose self, the only pole left of his bipolar self for him to hang onto.

In the nearby men’s room, he tries to remove the ink stain to the best of his ability, and a man in a toilet stall (presumably another CRS employee) asks him to give him a roll of toilet paper from a neighbouring stall. Nicholas leaves the restroom without helping the man, this being an example of Nicholas’s narcissistic lack of empathy, a Scrooge-like moment.

Nicholas meets with an employee of his, Anton Baer (Mueller-Stahl), to fire him and give him a severance package, but he cannot open his suitcase due to more CRS meddling; this is a problem whose significance will be understood later. When we see him outside, smashing his suitcase against a bench in a futile attempt to open it, his manic frustration shows that his personality is already unraveling.

I’ve used the psychoanalysis of Kohut to describe this unravelling; now I’ll use that of Jacques Lacan. The suicide of Nicholas’s father has deprived him of the man who, traditionally speaking, would have pulled him as a boy out of his narcissistic, dyadic, Oedipal relationship with his mother (the realm of the Imaginary), and brought him into the larger society of the Symbolic (hence his inability to relate with others), from the dyadic other to the Other of relating with many people. As his parental ideal, his father was also the object of inverted Oedipal feelings, so losing his father has jeopardized and compromised the stability of both the Symbolic and the Imaginary for him.

The agitations of the CRS game are therefore plunging Nicholas into the traumatic, undifferentiated Chaos of the Real, where one may experience a psychotic break from reality, the fragmentation I mentioned above. Nicholas doesn’t literally succumb to psychosis in the movie, of course, but the disruptions of the normal structure of his life, and the growing paranoia that he feels as a result of these disruptions, are certainly symbolic of such a psychotic break. Now, in Lacanian terms, foreclosure explains how the exclusion of Nicholas’s father from his family life has already set the stage for such psychosis.

Later, he goes to a restaurant where a waitress (actually another CRS employee–Unger) spills drinks all over his suit, to which he reacts with his usual lack of graciousness, in spite of her apologizing. His annoyance is a continuation of the narcissistic injury he felt when his pen exploded, and it will continue when he loses his thousand-dollar shoe from climbing a fire escape ladder as he’s been fleeing CRS agents with her.

He’s not even sure of her actual name: Christine, or Claire, as he learns by the end of the film. CRS has made his grip on reality so slippery that we can reasonably understand CRS to be a pun on curse.

Though she’s initially unfriendly to him as a result of his ungracious response to her apologies over messing up his shirt, she–an attractive young woman–later speaks and behaves in ways to suggest a sexual interest in him: displaying herself in a bright red bra to him (they both need to change clothes and shower in his shower-equipped office after a fall into a dumpster during the chase with the CRS agents), and telling him she was paid to spill drinks on “the attractive guy in the gray flannel suit”; earlier, trapped with him in an elevator, she tells him that she, in a skirt, isn’t wearing underwear when he wants to give her a boost to get out at the top. All of this sexual innuendo, of course, is part of her job as a CRS employee to keep him interested in and hooked on the game.

In the middle of this chase from the CRS agents, Nicholas has lost his impossible-to-open suitcase. What’s more, his American Express card has unaccountably been found at a hotel lobby desk. After retrieving it there, he is directed to a room he has…supposedly…booked, and there he finds his battered suitcase in a trashed room he’s apparently to spend time with a prostitute…and with lines of cocaine.

Now, the danger of a man of his socioeconomic status and reputation being exposed in a sexual scandal of this sort will cause him to feel intolerable narcissistic rage, even after he successfully removes all the evidence of his supposed naughtiness: photos of what looks like him with a prostitute indulging in various forms of kink, the lines of cocaine, video of a moaning pornographic actress, etc. A hotel maid wanting to come in the room to clean it only intensifies the urgency of burying the evidence; as he nervously tries to get rid of the cocaine, he cuts his thumb–symbolic of his narcissistic injury.

Assuming incorrectly that Anson Baer is responsible for the set-up of this potential sexual scandal (the motive supposedly being wanting revenge for Nicholas’s firing him), Nicholas goes over to the hotel he knows Baer to be in and angrily confronts him, throwing the embarrassing pile of photos on a coffee table before Baer, his wife, and their daughter. When it becomes clear that Baer had nothing to do with the photos, cocaine, etc. (he discussed the severance package with Nicholas’s lawyer, Samuel Sutherland [Donat], and he’s quite pleased with it), Nicholas leaves, apologetic and embarrassed, and he knows that the set-up was CRS’s doing.

From the photos, he’s recognized the red bra on the girl, and so assuming it was “Christine,” he knows he must find her again. Before that, though, he goes back to his mansion and finds it broken into. It’s been vandalized, and a loud recording of Jefferson Airplane‘s song “White Rabbit” is playing at top volume. This choice of song is fitting, for its lyric uses the imagery of Alice’s Adventures in Wonderland to describe the experience of doing drugs. The CRS disruption of Nicholas’s sense of reality is as surreal as an LSD trip (“When logic and proportion have fallen sloppy dead“), and like Alice, he feels as though he’s falling down a rabbit hole.

And again, where Nicholas, through his wealth and power, can find his way out of a mess like the potential sex scandal (as he’s angrily told Baer, investors won’t care about his reputation, but “whether the stock was up or down”), anyone of lower socioeconomic status would be destroyed. Similarly, Nicholas can handle a break-in far better than a poor man could. After all, for him, it’s all just a game–not so for the poor.

Nicholas meets with Conrad, who is acting (yes, acting) hysterically after apparently having been screwed over by CRS countless and seemingly unending times. The hysterical state we see him in, a display of the psychological fragmentation I described above, is a foreshadowing of what is going to happen to the more-together Nicholas. When Conrad sees a bunch of CRS keys in the glove compartment of Nicholas’s car, the younger brother acts all the more paranoid, as if Nicholas is in on the persecution of Conrad, when if anything it’s the other way around–Conrad is being like a CRS employee.

And of course, in the midst of Conrad’s emotional breakdown in front of his older brother is a revisiting of their family’s old emotional baggage as I’d mentioned above: how the younger sibling feels resentful over seeming ‘inferior’ to the far more successful eldest sibling. Such complaining is a kind of regression to a time of simpler gripes, to help Conrad forget the far more serious…or so it would seem…persecution from CRS. Conrad runs away from Nicholas in his supposedly growing paranoia, and Nicholas–with a flat tire–has to get a taxi.

He soon learns that his cabbie is another CRS employee. The driver jumps out of the cab just before having it go into San Francisco Bay. Again, because Nicholas is a rich man, this is all just a game, from which he’ll be able to escape; whereas a poor man with the bad luck of being in a cab–or any other kind of vehicle, for that matter–in which the driver is a maniac who crashes it is far less likely to get out of the predicament in one piece.

He involves the police and Sutherland, but there’s very little they can do at the moment, since the CRS building has been abandoned. Again, if one were poor, one would get virtually zero help from the police in a situation like this, since we all know who they really serve and protect; in fat cat Nicholas’s case, it will all end up just being a game.

He finally gets together with “Christine” again. At her home, he realizes she’s a CRS employee, for she tells him there’s a hidden camera in the room, with CRS doing their Orwellian spying on him. Such spying in a house anticipates the anxieties and fears many today are getting from the idea of smart home surveillance. Remember also that when I say ‘Orwellian spying,’ it’s within the context of a capitalist society, not a ‘Stalinist’ one. Nicholas will eventually get out of the game, but poorer people are far less likely to escape.

He, of course, doesn’t yet know this is all just a game (unlike the poor, who never have been nor ever will be in just a game), so he gets angry and shows that he knows he’s being surveilled. This provokes armed CRS personnel to swarm the house and fire in its windows. Nicholas and “Christine” flee.

This scene could make viewers of the film today think of what’s happened during Trump’s second term, with such incidents as the immigration raid on Chicago apartments. Or one might be reminded of the 1985 MOVE bombing. Rich Nicholas will learn it’s all just a game soon enough. The real-life victims I’ve just described will never find themselves in a mere game, though.

As Nicholas is fleeing with “Christine,” he comes to understand that CRS has apparently drained his bank accounts by guessing his passwords using the psychological tests he did, though Sutherland reassures him that none of his money has been touched. She says he’s in on the scam. How many poor-to-middle-class people have been conned out of their money, with no comfort of learning in the end that it was all just a game?

Finally, in another house, she gives him a drink, but it is drugged. As he’s getting dizzy and losing consciousness, she admits she’s part of the ‘scam,’ and that CRS is finished taking all of his possessions, since he’s given his card security code over the phone. At the risk of sounding redundant, I must say again: such a scam played on people of modest means would not end up to be a mere game.

He wakes up in a Mexican cemetery, buried there in a filthy white suit. Symbolically, it’s like a death, a harrowing of hell, and a resurrection; but instead of him experiencing a kind of ‘apotheosis’ or ‘deification’ in a ‘spiritual body,’ if you will, he’s been reduced to nothing. Not only is he materially annihilated, but he’s also been humiliated–it’s a Lear-like drop from the royalty of wealth to destitution. This is the greatest narcissistic injury he’s endured yet.

The only thing he has left of any value is a watch, a sentimental gift from his mother that he’ll have to hawk to get some money for a bus ride back to the US. He’ll also have to beg a ride back to San Francisco from a driver in a diner; none of the people asked wants to give a ride to such a filthy-looking ‘bum.’ Nicholas now knows what it’s like to be poor and despised for it.

This is the point where both poles of his bipolar self have been compromised: his birthday has made him the same age when his father, his idealized parental imago, killed himself and thus became an eliminated pole (all the more eliminated with the losing of his mother’s watch); and his grandiose self has been smashed from this financial ruin and abasement of his social status. This means that the other pole has been all but eliminated. He gets back to his (foreclosed!) mansion, takes a cold shower, puts on some respectable-looking clothes, and gets a pistol. Naturally, he wants revenge on CRS. When a carjacker tries to take his car, he points the gun at the guy and tells him he’s “extremely fragile right now”: with his bipolar self so compromised, he certainly is fragile.

He also learns of how fragile Conrad apparently is from the manager of a hotel Conrad was staying in: he’s had a nervous breakdown, it seems, and been taken to a mental institution. The younger brother’s apparent psychological instability is a double of Nicholas’s actual growing instability.

One redemptive moment for him is when he gets together with his ex-wife, Elizabeth (played by Anna Katarina), and he asks her forgiveness for his having been an emotionally neglectful husband. He’s gone through the extreme of hell and come out finding heaven, in this sense: recall the previous player of the game and his quote of John 9:25. I’ve discussed the dialectical relationship of such opposites as heaven and hell in other posts.

While with Elizabeth in a restaurant, Nicholas sees Jim Feingold on TV in a commercial–he’s an actor. He remembers the Chinese restaurant Feingold had gotten food from when they’d met before he did his tests. Nicholas manages to trace Feingold to a local zoo, where he is with his kids. Unbeknownst to Nicholas, this is all CRS just bringing him back into the game.

He forces Feingold at gunpoint to take him to the real CRS office, where he sees all the employees who were involved in his game…including, of course, “Christine.” Nicholas speaks of pulling back the curtain, so he can see, so to speak, the Wizard of Oz.

Such a rising up against the conspiratorial powers-that-be is a fantasy many have had, in their wish to believe that the world is run by some secret, Satanic cabal (run by ‘the globalists,’ ‘the NWO,’ ‘the Freemasons,’ ‘the Jews,’ etc.), since so many like to see the world as a kind of cosmic melodrama than as the banality that it really is. Seeing the world in such a melodramatic manner seems easier, since one can avoid seeing it simply as run by capitalists and see doing something about it as an impossibility; otherwise, one might have to take responsibility and plan a revolution.

Anyway, Nicholas has “Christine” on the roof of the CRS building; she speaks frantically of his gun not being a prop and that the whole thing has really just been a game, which of course he doesn’t believe. Doors open to the roof, and he assumes it’s CRS guards, so he fires…but the bullet goes in Conrad, who’s holding a bottle of champagne while the others with him are there to wish Nicholas a happy birthday.

Devastated, Nicholas has truly reached the lowest point, a low that makes the Mexican cemetery seem mild in comparison. Both poles of his bipolar self have been utterly shattered: he walks off the roof in imitation of his father’s suicide. He lands, however, on a giant air cushion in a banquet hall, where he is to celebrate his birthday.

The CRS employees predicted that he’d be pushed to a suicide like his father’s. Feingold later tells him that if he hadn’t jumped, Feingold would have had to push him off the roof. This all gives us a sense of how disturbingly omniscient CRS seems to be. As representative of a surveilling, totalitarian government, Godlike CRS comes across, in spite of having just played a game, as being just a little too powerful for our comfort.

In this would-be suicide leading to his entry to his birthday party, Nicholas’s ‘death and resurrection’ has truly seen him go through hell and into heaven in the dialectical sense I described above about the Mexican cemetery. Now his character arc is complete, like Scrooge after experiencing the horrors of future Christmases. He is transformed into a good man, willing to give and receive love.

But as I’ve related so many times, he as a wealthy man can afford (literally) to be put through all of this hell and come back okay. Some people might be put off by this ‘happy ending,’ but the point is that the wealthy can experience this kind of thing as a fun adventure, whereas if any of these things happened to the poor, they would never experience it as a game…except in the sense that it is a ‘game’ that the ruling class–the real CRS curse of the world–plays on the common people all the time. The poor would hit a hard ground in such situations; they wouldn’t hit an air cushion.