Analysis of ‘Thrak,’ ‘The ConstruKction of Light,’ and ‘The Power to Believe’

I: Introduction

Thrak (1995), The ConstruKction of Light (2000), and The Power to Believe (2003) are the last three studio albums by the progressive rock band, King Crimson. These lineups of the band were getting to be less British and more American since the half-British, half-American lineup of the 1980s: on Thrak, the 80s King Crimson (guitarist/bandleader Robert Fripp, guitarist/singer/lyricist Adrian Belew, bassist/Stick-player/back-up singer Tony Levin, and drummer Bill Bruford) would be augmented by two more Americans, Stick-player/Warr guitarist/bassist Trey Gunn (one of Fripp’s Guitar Craft students) and drummer Pat Mastelotto (previously of Mr. Mister). This sextet would thus be the short-lived “double trio.” After Thrak, Levin and Bruford left the band, Levin returning in the Crimson of the 2010s.

The three albums were generally well-received by critics, though somewhat less so for The ConstruKction of Light, with Fripp himself unhappy with the album; indeed, his own negative assessment of this album is comparable to his feelings about Lizard. For my part, though I prefer the 80s and John Wetton eras of King Crimson, of these three last albums, I’d probably say I prefer ConstruKction over Thrak and (slightly) over Power.

As with the 80s King Crimson, these last three albums show the band reflecting much of the musical climate of the time. The 80s KC incorporated such elements as new wave and minimalism; the 1990s and 2000s KC had more of a heavy, distorted guitar-driven sound that one might associate with grunge, an attempt at a return to the “flying brick wall” sound of the Wetton/Bruford years of such albums as Red, though I’d say not as successfully or powerfully.

Here is a link to the lyrics for the Thrak album, a link to the lyrics for The Construkction of Light, and a link to the lyrics for The Power to Believe. And here are links to the complete albums of Thrak, ConstruKction, and Power (with bonus tracks).

Now, apart from a wish to scrape the bottom of the Crimson barrel here, so to speak (i.e., I’ve done analyses of all of the other albums, which you can find here, if you’re interested, Dear Reader), I am lumping all three of these last albums together into one big analysis because I hear them as yet another trilogy–this time, one suggestive of Dante‘s Divine Comedy. Thrak corresponds to hell, ConstruKction to purgatory, and Power to heaven. “Heaven” vs “hell,” mind you, shouldn’t be taken in a strictly literal sense here; I speak of this opposition in a more dialectical, ironic way. To allude to another classic Christian epic poem, recall Satan’s words in Paradise Lost: “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

Indeed, the dystopian picture for the cover design for Power (featuring a detail from Fin de Siècle, a painting by P J Crook, whose work is on a number of more recent King Crimson album covers) hardly looks like paradise, and the loud guitar of Thrak sounds like Satanic fun. Do we prefer an ‘ideal’ world that cannot be, but which is forced on us by such authoritarian forces as the Church or the neoliberal market fundamentalists of today, or will we settle for a messier world of infernal fun, one that hurts a lot, but is freer? Is the whole point that there’s a mix of heaven and hell in everything? Let’s find out.

II: Thrak

Here is the one and only album with the “double trio” of the mid-1990s: two guitarists, two drummers, and two Stick-men (while Levin doesn’t play any Stick on Thrak, leaving that all to Gunn, on the Vroom Vroom live album, we can hear both of them playing Stick together).

VROOM

The first track, an instrumental, opens with one of several passages in which Fripp plays, of all things, a Mellotron. For a band so forward-looking with regards to technology, especially in the 80s (i.e., guitar synthesizers, the Chapman Stick, and electronic drums), why is he, in the 90s, regressing to such an obsolete keyboard, particularly one that had caused him such frustrations when it came to tuning it?

Still, here we are, with the Mellotron strings-tapes opening the track, so reminiscent of the old King Crimson sound of 1969-1974. According to an interview, Fripp explained that the Mellotron used on Thrak, mixed in with Belew’s playing of a guitar synthesizer, was meant “as a homeopathic link from the past.”

“Homeopathic” is an interesting choice of worlds, given the context of “Vroom” on the “hell” album, as I consider Thrak to be. Homeopathy is the pseudoscientific idea that a substance causing symptoms of a disease in healthy people can cure similar symptoms in sick people–“like cures like.” Put in the context of Thrak, the ‘hell’ of a Mellotron can bring about a ‘heaven’ in “Vroom,” or, ‘better to be cured in hell, than sick in heaven.’

“Vroom” was originally recorded and released in 1994, without the Mellotron opening, as part of an EP of the same name. So that version of the instrumental, if you will, didn’t have the ‘hellish’ element: it’s just pure rocking fun.

Indeed, let’s consider how one goes to hell, doing such dangerous things as riding fast on motorbikes: vroom, vroom! It’s wild, uncontrollable desire that leads to sin, and the wages of sin is death. Think of outlaw motorcycle gangs like Hell’s Angels.

Now we can begin to discuss the fun, main riffs of this instrumental. After the Mellotron passage, the heavy part opens with a descending guitar lead in two bars of 6/8, then one of 5/8, then there’s a driving riff in 4/4, in G.

In the bass and Stick, we hear G-G-A♯-B, G-G-F-F♯. The guitars play riffs reminiscent of the main ones in “Red,” in the climactic part of “Fracture,” and the main riff in Fripp’s “Breathless,” those piercing major thirds. It goes down to a dark E, then after a bit of a repeat of the beginning riff (without the drop to E), we come to a bit of a lull.

Fripp is playing softer, arpeggiated chords in 7/8 (subdivided 3+4), with Levin accompanying him by playing melodies up higher on the bass. Then there’s a return to the heavy main riff. Then back to the lull in 7/8. Then with a return to the opening 6/8 and 5/8 guitar lead, “Vroom” segues into…

Coda: Marine 475

Marine 475 was a Lloyd’s of London insurance syndicate of which the owners of Crimson’s and Fripp’s former label, EG records, were members–Sam Alder and Mark Fenwick. A vessel insured under Marine 475 was the Exxon Valdez, which hit a reef in Prince William Sound, Alaska in 1989, spilling 260,000 barrels of crude oil in one of the costliest maritime disasters ever.

Alder and Fenwick, in danger of financial ruin because of the disaster, decided to stop payment of royalties to EG artists like Fripp. A lengthy legal dispute followed going through much of the 1990s, and ending with the collapse of EG (the KC catalogue would then be bought by Fripp and reissued on his Discipline Global Mobile label–DGM).

The numbers spoken in this instrumental, provided by Fripp, are other Lloyd’s syndicates.

What we have in this coda is the hell of capitalism, in more ways than one. As we’ve seen, Marine 475 was associated with both the Exxon Valdez oil spill, an example of one of the environmental consequences–intended or not–of capitalism, and the exploitative, dishonest business practices of EG management (complained of by Fripp) being yet another example of the inevitable consequences the capitalist profit motive. One of the main goals Fripp had in establishing DGM was to bring music into the world without the values of the market, which include exploitation, deceit, theft, and greed.

So, fittingly, the music of this coda essentially involves a chromatic descent…a descent into the hell of capitalism.

Dinosaur

Belew is singing about his past experiences as a singer and musician in bands playing ‘dinosaur rock,’ a term typically used to describe progressive rock and other 1970s bands. Like the dinosaurs, these bands once ‘ruled the world,’ then they all died off–either breaking up because audiences, sick and tired of their ‘overblown, pretentious’ style and preferring the fresh, simpler sounds of punk and new wave (i.e., a return to three- and four-minute pop songs), weren’t listening to them anymore; or the ‘dinosaur bands’ tried adapting to the new musical trends by switching to a simple pop sound (think of Genesis as a trio, or 90125-era Yes), because these bands had to do so in order to survive.

Ironically, it was Fripp himself who first used the word dinosaur to describe the bands who were emulating the very musical style that he himself helped create. When he broke up King Crimson, all of a sudden on the completion of Red in 1974, he lamented having created a monster (to switch from the dinosaur metaphor to a Frankenstein one), and thus didn’t want to be part of a music scene that he correctly saw as doomed to destruction. He would later gladly embrace new wave and its shorter pop songs in the late 70s, producing and/or adding guitar lines to albums by Talking Heads, Blondie, Daryl Hall, Peter Gabriel, the Roches, and David Bowie.

So the wages of prog rock sin is death, too, a consignment to musical hell, and that’s how we can understand the lyric to “Dinosaur.” The song fittingly begins with that old fossil of a keyboard instrument, the Mellotron. The band comes in, playing a chord progression of E7, C7, E♭maj. 7th, and G.

“Long ago,” that is, back in the 1970s and thus “in a different age” from our more ‘sensible’ and ‘enlightened’ one today (or even as of the mid-1990s), when Belew “was just a dumb young guy,” the music of the dinosaurs reigned supreme. Actually, Belew made his professional start with much of the later, simpler music, playing with–after Frank ZappaDavid Bowie and Talking Heads before the resurrection of King Crimson in the 1980s.

Also, it must be understood that Belew has a musical split personality: part of him does avant-garde, experimental music with all those animal and industrial sounds emanating from his guitar; the other part of him likes to write pop songs. We have examples of the former part of his musical personality in songs like “Dig Me”; examples of the latter part are in songs like “Heartbeat” and “Man With an Open Heart,” as well as in the pop songs of The Bears, in “Genius of Love,” by Tom Tom Club (a song he cowrote), and in Belew’s solo albums, such as Inner Revolution. Evidently, as with Fripp, Belew isn’t as much of a dinosaur as he calls himself.

Indeed, the song “Dinosaur” is largely a pop song itself, quite unlike the prog ‘excess’ of the self-deprecating title of the song. Nonetheless, to get back to the lyric, Belew calls himself a prog “idiot savant,” that is, clever with the unusual time signatures, sophisticated harmonies, and experimental soundscapes of prog, but too dumb, apparently, just to write a straightforward pop song and communicate simple, human feelings (something utterly disproven already in the given examples of the previous paragraph). So calling himself “a dinosaur” and “something like a monument” is clearly meant to be taken with a generous grain of salt.

Now, “somebody’s been digging [his] bones,” because the dead prog rock dinosaurs’ fossils are all underground…down there in musical hell. The “idiot savant” prog rocker excels in ignorance, as I said above, excelling at demonstrating technical skill with his instrument, but ignorant of using that skill in the service of music. His “naïveté and pride” come from thinking that playing music is just about showing off, glorifying one’s ego. “Any clever predator” would be a music critic panning the latest ‘self-indulgent’ prog album.

“It’s a wonder [he’s] not yet extinct,” being in a prog band in the mid-1990s. He’s “made [his] fossil bed,” down in the dirt, underground in hell, and he’s tossing and turning, suffering the torments of the damned.

Walking on Air

A song with a title like “Walking on Air” sounds, if anything, like a song about heaven rather than hell. Remember, though, that just as I said above that ‘hell’ is often ironic on Thrak, so can ‘heaven’ be.

Indeed, the line “and the sheltering sky” should be a hint at that irony, if you’re aware enough. The words are an obvious reference to the instrumental on Side Two of Discipline, which is in turn a reference to the novel by Paul Bowles. Now, as I explained in my analysis of that instrumental, what Bowles meant by “the sheltering sky” was that it “hides the night and nothingness behind it; the sky shelters us beneath from the horror that lies above.” ‘Heaven’ hides hell.

Under the surface peace and tranquility of the music lies a melancholy, as heard in Belew’s switch to falsetto when he sings, “come alive, in your eyes,” or in the chords in A minor when he sings, “you don’t have to care.”

To walk on air is to feel extremely happy or excited, yet this music is calm and sedate, suggesting that any excitement or euphoria is of a surface kind only. Heavenly happiness is an illusion. The ‘peace’ of heaven is a reward for servitude to divine or Church authority; hence, “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.” It is in this context that we must understand this song lyric.

FDR once said, “A radical is a man with both feet firmly planted–in the air.” “Walking on air” thus can mean that one is living in a fantasy world of radical idealism, imagining the attainment of a perfect, utopian world without any grasp on reality. Being in the depths of despair and hopelessness, which hell symbolizes here, can result in a delirious state of mind that has delusions of peace and bliss, the mind’s attempt to escape the horrors of reality, using that sheltering sky to hide those horrors. Some people turn to religion as a crutch, as part of that escape attempt into radical idealism. (I’ll deal with ‘heaven’ as symbolic of such ideals of perfection when I analyze The Power to Believe.)

“I,” “standing by your side,” can be read to be God’s voice (or that of the Church), reassuring His flock that He’ll protect them and take care of them. This is a reward for their obedience. Note how Adam and Eve were thrown out of Eden for disobeying and eating the forbidden fruit. Protection has a cost.

Recall, in this connection, Tom, the chimney sweeper of William Blake‘s poem. This little boy is one of many, exploited in child labour in early nineteenth century England. He has a dream of being freed, with other sooty boys, by an angel; and they run in a plain and “rise upon clouds”…rather like Belew’s singing of being “under cover of the fading clouds” of “the sheltering sky.” So if Tom is a good boy, he’ll “have God for his father, and never want joy.” Tom can now be a good, obedient child slave, for the Church authorities have ensured his obedience.

Thus, “walking on air” is hanging out in heaven, experiencing only a superficial happiness while being oblivious of one’s own servitude. Recall what Marx said: “Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions. It is the opium of the people.” Religion gives you a heavenly high, to help you forget the hell of the real world around you.

B’Boom

The tense fade-in opening to this instrumental, right after the blissful ending of “Walking on Air,” suggests that the peace of the preceding track has had its illusions removed. The drums come in, playing first in a triple metre, then switching to other metres. The drummers are beating the illusion of peace out of the listener, bringing us back to hell.

This track is clearly a showcase of the drumming abilities of Bruford and Mastelotto, the b’booming on the snare and tom-toms. Since Thrak is the double-trio album, and ever since Belew became a part of King Crimson, double-guitar interplay has been a virtual requirement in the band’s music, we should expect a similar interplay between both drummers and both bassists.

It’s interesting in this respect to compare Thrak with Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, the other King Crimson studio album to have two drummers. First, percussionist Jamie Muir was the master and mentor of Bruford, whose fast paradiddles were deemed “crap” by Muir; while this assessment initially hurt Bruford’s feelings, it ultimately liberated him from playing drumming clichés and helped him to find his own musical voice. Now, on Thrak, Bruford is in Muir’s role vis-à-vis Mastelotto, who became the new ‘Bruford,’ learning from a master to find his own voice, which will be heard on the next two KC studio albums.

THRAK

Fripp has defined King Crimson’s onomatopoeic neologism, “thrak,” as a sudden and precise impact, or the sound of many guitars hitting a chord at once. It can also mean a harsh, heavy crashing noise, like wood or metal breaking.

Such definitions are helpful in describing what one hears when one listens to the title track, a dark, almost violent instrumental. In this title, then, we have an evocation of hell in both its horrifying and ‘fun’ aspects.

It begins in aggressive 5/4 time, with stress on the first and fourth beats. The bass, played by Levin on an electric double bass put through distortion, does a line starting with the tonic (in C), going up to a minor third, then up to the tritone, and going back down by the same intervals to the tonic. In general, the bass line is moving around the notes of the octatonic scale, allowing for an extensive use of the tritone.

The Church identified the tritone as the diabolus in musica, or the “devil in music,” because of its dissonance and (what were felt to be its) uncomfortably ambiguous qualities. Thus, the extensive use of the tritone in the title track of Thrak fits in well with the album’s theme of hell as I’ve identified it.

The middle section tones the intensity down a bit while retaining the dark tone of the instrumental. We hear some guitar synthesizer soundscapes as well as some soloing by Belew and Fripp, the latter of whom does some of his signature dissonant arpeggios, again with a lot of tritone in them (by “signature dissonant arpeggios,” I refer to Fripp’s idiosyncratic guitar work in such music as the middle section and opening, respectively, of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic,” Parts I and III).

A good live version of “Thrak,” performed at the Warfield Theatre in 1995, can be heard here. It has an extended middle section with more guitar soloing: Belew’s guitar (synthesizer, I assume) imitates a piano, sounding rather like some of that dissonant playing Keith Tippett did on In the Wake of Poseidon. Later, Belew applies a drill to his guitar strings.

There’s a return to the original 5/4 riff to end the instrumental off.

Inner Garden I

This is no Garden of Eden that Belew is singing about. Indeed, the song begins with some mournful guitar arpeggios in 6/8 time and in E♭ minor, which then modulate to other keys.

He sings of autumn coming “in her garden,” that is, bringing (what at least seems to be) an end to the vegetation and life of the plants there. Death…desolation…hell. Autumn has “come to paint the trees with emptiness, and no pardon.”

“She begins to cry” and “doesn’t know why.” “The words…fall through the air” “like the leaves on the ground.” Before, we were “walking on air” in a seeming paradise of bliss, but in this ‘fall,’ this autumn, this paradise lost, we realize that that Garden of Eden was an illusion, propped up by obedience.

Now all that’s left is loneliness and desolation, “her soliloquy, ‘Don’t leave me alone’.” As TS Eliot said in Act I, scene 3 of his play, The Cocktail Party, “Hell is oneself/Hell is alone, the other figures in it/Merely projections. There is nothing to escape from/And nothing to escape to. One is always alone.”

This viewpoint seems the exact opposite of that of Jean-Paul Sartre in his play, No Exit, in which it is famously said that “Hell is other…”

People

By “Hell is other people” (“l’enfer, c’est les autres”), Sartre wasn’t saying that we should all be recluses and avoid human company altogether. He meant that we are condemned to defining ourselves solely through the distorting judgements of other people. Other people are thus bad mirrors of ourselves, making us look ugly; this idea can be seen, in fact, as a dialectical contrast to Eliot’s idea of “other figures” as being “Merely projections” of ourselves, and just as there’s “no exit” from Hell in Sartre’s play, with its Huis clos, or “shut door,” so is there “nothing to escape from” or “to” in Eliot’s play.

Such an understanding of people can help us get a grip on what Belew is singing about in “People.” Musically, it’s a bluesy groove in D minor, “the saddest of all keys,” according to Nigel Tufnel of Spinal Tap. Sad as hell.

In the first two lines of the opening verse, we hear of how “people flee” from responsibility over what they’ve done. Belew puns on the animals people eat, “fish” and “beef,” the second word also meaning that people complain. People are “armed to the teeth,” too, connecting the killing of animals for food with (at least the potential of) killing each other.

People, for good or ill, are everywhere, from “the bottom of the sea” to men “walking on the moon.” We’re “in tombs” and “in igloos.” We “are the main spring, turning the world around,” that is, we think the whole world is all just about us…and that just might be why we’re destroying it, with billionaires today thinking of colonizing space instead of using their wealth to clean up our planet,…we’re “spinning this world upside-down.”

People get heated up in the sun, as the second verse tells us, and we tire in our passions as we destroy ourselves with cigarettes or drugs. We entertain ourselves with rock music and such sports as bowling and boxing…indeed, it’s fun to watch two men hitting each other.

We want others to do things for us in this judgemental hell of other people: we want them to “watch” us and “face” us, speaking favourbly of us, we hope. We’d have people “dress” us and “baby” us, “phone” us and “wire” us…as long as we still have people’s attention. It’s OK even to “bug” us or “fire” us…as long as we have that coveted attention.

There’s a repeat of “Face me, Fire me, Baby me,” to emphasize how we’re all in the thrall of other people’s attention and evaluations, this hell that is other people. There’s a repeat of the chorus, that “people are the main spring,” etc.

With some guitar soloing and polyrhythmic drumming (presumably by Bruford), the song fades out with a repeated progression of D minor, E7, and F.

Radio I

This brief instrumental is a soundscape, devised presumably on Fripp’s guitar synthesizer. Its eerie quality suggests the musical hell that people like Fripp must experience with the pressure to produce radio-friendly pop songs, not allowing musicians like him to have the freedom to experiment. So the experimental nature of this instrumental suggests his defiance of the record companies that continue on their quest for profits: “Better to reign in hell, than serve in heaven.”

One Time

This is another melancholy song, in 6/4 time and in C minor.

“One eye goes laughing,” Belew sings, while the other “goes crying” through life’s tests and hardships. “One hand is tied,” one feels oneself falling behind, and one is dying “in one breath.”

Belew is waiting for hope to return in this hell, “for the sun to come up…for the showers to stop.” He is waiting and hoping for something good to happen, for a change–“one time” for something good. It won’t happen, though: not even once.

The whole point of hell is not just that bad things happen there, but that there’s no hope of anything good ever happening again, not even “one time.” One may hope and hope, but those hopes are always frustrated. That’s why it says, at the entrance of Dante’s hell, “Abandon all hope, ye who enter here.” (Inferno, Canto 3, Verse 9, line 9)

Radio II

This instrumental is another brief soundscape, like the last one, having, as far as I’m concerned, the same meaning.

Inner Garden II

In the first “Inner Garden,” it was the autumn that came into her inner garden, bringing with it melancholy and a feeling as if life was ending. In this second one, it’s Rome that “now comes to sit” there, an image of Italian romance.

Instead of lamenting the present sadness, we remember good old memories, for in hell, happy memories are the only good that we have left.

So the imagery is all of pleasant things: “her room with a view,” “love made a bed of happiness,” “sweet is the voice…that speaks sotto voce,” and there’s “the golden air to quiet the day”–but these are all just memories “from far away.” None of these are enjoyed now.

So there’s no doubt of my interpretation, note how we hear Belew singing against the same lugubrious musical background, with those same mournful guitar arpeggios that we heard in “Inner Garden I.”

Sex Sleep Eat Drink Dream

One of the things that lead us all to a hellish existence is the repetitive life cycle of only satisfying basic human physical drives, as the title and refrain of this song imply. There’s no more to life than that, apparently. That sex, eating, and drinking are some of these drives is so obvious that they needn’t further elaboration.

That sleeping and dreaming are included deserves a closer look. So many of us are asleep, as it were, in our mindless pursuit of physical pleasures like sex and food. It’s so bad now that speaking of being “woke” has actually become a pejorative. In our metaphorical sleep, we dream of a greatness we don’t want to put the work into making a reality.

On a deeper level, though, “sleep” and “dream” can be linked to Hamlet‘s soliloquy, “To die, to sleep,–/No more…To sleep, perchance to dream:–aye, there’s the rub.” (III, i) If death is like sleep, then dreaming is like the afterlife; and as Hamlet has been contemplating suicide (“To be, or not to be”), which is a sin, then the only dreams he’ll have are the nightmares of hell.

My point is that in linking together all of these–sex, sleep, eat, drink, dream–we can see how, as the Buddhists observe, desire leads to suffering. Now we can get a handle on what this song means.

The song starts with a basic guitar riff in E, suggesting the dull, cyclical routine of life, going through the motions to get one’s physical needs and desires satisfied, yet without there being any kind of deeper meaning. To quote Hamlet again, in Act IV, Scene iv, when the Danish prince says, in another soliloquy,

What is a man,
If his chief good and market of his time
Be but to sleep and feed? A beast, no more.
Sure He that made us with such large discourse,
Looking before and after, gave us not
That capability and godlike reason
To fust in us unused.

Belew sings of being “primal” and “tribal,” as if being closer to animal than human–not to disparage tribal societies, but to point out how we, in our ‘modern’ world are, if anything, the real primitive ones, who for all of our modern technology and its supposedly liberating conveniences, are stuck in a mindset of fulfilling only basic physical needs, when we should be able to do much better.

Belew lists off a number of foods: “apple, egg, vegetable, eel,” an example of our preoccupation with just eating, rather than thinking. He has “a new canoe but it does not have a wheel.” This primitive modern man bought a boat, as if it were a status symbol to be shown off in his neighbourhood, but it’s his preoccupation with face, with impressing others, that makes him so backward in his thinking that he’s as “primal” as those who haven’t even invented the wheel yet. He has an “animal Oldsmobile mind.” His obsession with social status is based on his fear of the hell of other people’s judgements of him.

He’s “sitting in the fireplace” of a hell of overstimulation and preoccupation with physical drives, “burning up [his] time.” He’s an “animal” watching an “empty TV,” since there’s nothing but media garbage on it and capitalists trying to sell him stuff.

“Primal tribal chemical digital night” sounds like he wants to go out dancing in the clubs (listening to DJ music like that of the Chemical Brothers?); he has “to get dressed to go out of [his] mind,” that is, dress well for the clubs, take drugs like ecstasy, and flail around like a crazy person on the dance floor.

Speaking of crazy, at two points in the song, it breaks away from the original, laid-back groove I mentioned above, and the music gets chaotic and dissonant, with wild drumming by (presumably) Bruford that’s played much faster than the tempo of the rest of the band. One is reminded of Bruford’s wild bashing of the drums on “Indiscipline.” This chaos we hear is the chaos of hell and of unbridled passions.

VROOM VROOM

After another Mellotron opening, the track begins with a guitar line in 3/4 time, then there’s an aggressive guitar riff reminding us of the one in “VROOM,” the one that, in turn, reminded us of the main guitar riff in instrumentals like “Red.”

Speaking of “Red,” “VROOM VROOM” incorporates a variation on the middle section from “Red”; you might recall, from my analysis of Red, that I considered the main theme of that album to be of illusion, or a distortion of reality, like the danger/distortion levels seen in red when recording something too loud. I’ll return to the significance of this distortion idea later.

The instrumental ends with that opening guitar line of “VROOM” in triple meter, this time doing an extension of it.

VROOM VROOM Coda

This instrumental sounds fittingly like a variation on “Coda: Marine 475,” though instead of hearing the spoken numbers, we hear a lot of guitar noise by (presumably) Belew.

“Guitar noise” is an apt description here, because just like the onomatopoeic titles of “VROOM,” “THRAK,” and “B’Boom,” what we have here is inarticulate sound instead of communication through language. What Jacques Lacan called The Real, an order in which experience cannot be symbolized or expressed in language, is a traumatic world of non-differentiation, one that cannot be emotionally processed, and so it is quite a hell of its own. The distortion of “Red” that I mentioned above in “VROOM VROOM” is thus symbolically such a distortion of communication, like onomatopoeic noise-words.

III: The ConstruKction of Light

With this album, we go from hell to purgatory, which is a kind of temporary hell, purging one of sin and getting one ready for heaven. As such, it is the dialectical Aufhebung of heaven and hell, a midpoint between hopeless suffering and salvation.

In the late 1990s, Bruford and Levin left the band, so that with Fripp, Belew, Gunn, and Mastelotto remaining, Fripp was the sole Englishman among three Americans. The double trio was thus purged, if you will, making a new “double duo” (Was the 1980s King Crimson also a “double duo”? What about the band of Starless and Bible Black?).

With none of the music on TCoL ever performed live prior to the recording of the album, Fripp felt that TCoL failed to convey the power of the music, and so he was unhappy with it. A substantial reworking of the album was done in 2019, called The ReconstruKction of Light, with Mastelotto’s original all-electronic drums replaced with a predominantly acoustic kit.

The album has received mixed reviews: AllMusic largely disliked it, whereas eclipsed considered it one of the 150 best progressive rock albums ever made, and the reviewer on Audiophile Review said the 2019 version was a vast improvement, particularly with better dynamics and the new live drum track from Mastelotto. The ‘purgatory’ album was thus purged of what some deemed a disappointment.

ProzaKc Blues

Belew electronically altered his voice for this track, using a pitch shifter and distortion to make his vocals lower and grittier, like one of those old bluesmen from back in the day. The effect is rather comical.

As the song title implies, the musical structure is more or less 12-bar-blues, but with the usual King Crimson perversions of the form: the tonic in E, the subdominant in A, back to the tonic E, then twice with C7 and the dominant B7, and it’s all in 6/4 time. The guitar riff is single tones of E, E-G-E-B♭-E, E-G-E-B♭-E-B♮-E-G-A-B♭-E, etc.

Prozac, of course, is an antidepressant used for treating such clinical problems as major depressive disorder, among others. So just as purgatory purges one of sin to make one ready for heaven, so does Prozac ‘purge,’ if you will, one of one’s clinical depression, anxiety, OCD, panic disorder, etc. Yet also, just as purgatory’s process of purging the soul of sin is fraught with pain, so does Prozac give Belew the blues, as he sings.

The first verse gives us a parody of that cliché blues line of “I woke up this morning.” Belew the bluesman is “in a cloud of despair.” Now, despair is a sin that, in losing one’s faith in God, can lead to suicide (recall Hamlet’s suicidal ideation above), which in turn sends one straight to hell.

Belew complains about a loss of hair in the next few lines of the first verse, this being a real problem for him that he has attributed to the stress of being in King Crimson. He goes to his physician, who tells him that, apart from his excessive “Elephant Talk chit-chat,” he recommends that Belew get “a bottle of Prozac” for his depression.

The depression Belew is complaining about is clearly linked with his experiences in King Crimson, as the references to hair loss and “Elephant Talk” indicate, and there are other such references elsewhere in the song. These include how “the world…is a circus full of freaks and clowns,” in which we should recall “Cirkus,” the first track off of Lizard, in my analysis of which I discussed as being all about the experience of working in King Crimson. Indeed, the k and c in “Cirkus,” like the K and c in ProzaKc Blues,” “FraKctured,” and “ConstruKction of Light,” are the k and c of King Crimson.

When Belew sings of “a man who has everything,” this would seem to be an ironic reference to how King Crimson (and Fripp in particular) have had all the praise and respect musicians could ever want…though getting far less in terms of money or popularity. As for “giving[ing] him back his edge,” one might hear an attempt at that in the 1990s and 2000s King Crimson opting for a heavier sound, like that of the Wetton era (which seems to be reminisced about on tracks like “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Pt. IV” and “FraKctured”), rather than their lighter, 1980s sound.

“Can you make him want to sing?” sounds like a reference to the 1980s Crimson, when Belew tended–instead of singing–to do a lot of spoken word, as heard in songs like “Elephant Talk,” “Indiscipline,” “Thela Hun Ginjeet,” “Neurotica,” and “Dig Me.”

In the final verse, Belew sings of having “shaved off my head,” which could be him considering doing what Levin started to do around the late 1970s, accepting defeat for his own hair loss; the combination of his shaved head and his mustache by the 1980s would result, of course, in the iconic Tony Levin look he has had ever since.

Belew “went to see the gatekeeper who was standing by heaven’s door,” which is where you would go if you’ve had all your sin purged away in purgatory; hence, the gatekeeper tells Belew he’d better have “brought a good supply of…” what else? but Purgatory Prozac.

The ConstruKction of Light

This track, having the same title as that of the album, establishes and presents us clearly with the purgatory theme, if fittingly interpreted. The light is being constructed, built, created, out of the darkness. Note that the cover design of the album is almost all black, with a rectangle of partial blue light against a black background…a little bit of hope in hopelessness. The construction of light here is thus only beginning.

One is reminded here of a few lines in Book II of Milton‘s Paradise Lost: “Long is the way/And hard, that out of hell leads up to light.” (lines 432-433) Satan speaks not specifically of purgatory here, but one can imagine the experience of purgatory to be about the same as in his description.

Musically, we’re hearing essentially the octatonic scale, with a lot of the minor thirds of a diminished 7th chord, particularly in the interlocking guitar lines of Fripp and Belew. The first part of “TCoL” is instrumental, starting with Gunn and Mastelotto playing in 7/4, then in 6/8. After that, the guitar comes in, which bears a resemblance to the ‘gamelan‘ guitar style of the 80s Crimson, though it’s often slower and with a hocket effect of single notes traded back and forth between Fripp and Belew.

As the interlocking guitars are playing, Gunn and Mastelotto are repeating their parts in 7/4 and 6/8, in polymetre to what Fripp and Belew are doing, which is sometimes in 5/8. Other time changes occur during this instrumental section, which include triple metre, a 4/4 moment subdivided 3+3+2, and a bit of 5/4 just before Belew comes in singing.

Andrew Keeling’s analysis of the album points out a movement from pessimism to objectivity and ambiguity towards final optimism in “Coda: I Have a Dream.” Such a conception of the entire album’s theme dovetails well with my ‘purgatory’ interpretation–crawling out of hell, leading up to a gradual construction of light.

In the second part of “TCoL,” the choruses that Belew sings are all lists of single words, ones of either positive meanings (e.g., “day, sky, beauty…joy, love…” etc.) or negative ones (“Pain…die, lack…empty…hate…ache…hurt…rage…anger…dark…”). This combination of positive and negative again suggests the Aufhebung of heaven and hell that purgatory can be thought of as, an in-between point where pain is temporarily felt to prepare the imperfect soul for the joy of heaven, a slow movement from pessimism to optimism.

Hell is perceived as total separation from God, and hence, hopelessness. Heaven is eternal union with God, to be enjoyed forever. In the in-between of purgatory, God’s existence is questioned by the suffering, imperfect soul, as is the basic worth of the doubter also questioned. We can hear Belew singing of such feelings in the first verse, after the first list of positive and negative words. Heaven, seen through the eyes of the doubter suffering in the temporary hell of purgatory, is perceived as merely “a hole in the sky.”

Along with a doubt of God’s existence and of oneself (“if God is dead, what am I?”) comes doubt of one’s own abilities and talents, just as one may doubt the genius of artists like Andy Warhol (the ‘gods’ of culture), deeming them instead to be frauds and con men, cheaply achieving fame without putting in the proper effort themselves.

The surreal line of “a speck of lint on the penis of an alien buried in gelatin beneath the sands of Venus” on the surface means the planet that the alien once visited. Since surrealism expresses unconscious thought processes, however, one could, via free association, link this line with the goddess Venus, having been born after the castration of Uranus, whose severed genitals were thrown into the sea, her arising from the foam of the genitals. The “speck of lint” is “buried in gelatin,” which could in turn be associated with an ejaculation, as could the foam. “The sands of Venus” could be the shore she walks on after leaving the sea on the giant scallop shell as seen in the painting by Botticelli, an artist more universally declared great than Warhol ever was.

After his castration and usurpation, the sky-god Uranus must have felt as worthless as the singer, and also like an alien, one from up in the sky and beyond in space, alienated from the heaven and earth, Gaea, that he once ruled. He’s a god who is dead, to all practical purposes, as the sky-father God of the Bible is to many skeptics of today. “Sky,” recall, is one of the words in the lists of positive and negative ones I mentioned above. Uranus’ usurpation, a reaction against his tyrannical rule of heaven that included hiding his and Gaea’s children–the Titans, Cyclopes, and Hecatoncheiresinside her, in Tartarus (Hell), because he hated them. So, freeing the children from hell, which eventually would lead to the Titanomachy, is in a sense like coming from the hopelessness of hell to painful yet hopeful purgatory, with the purging of Uranus from the heavens.

In the second verse, after the second list of positive and negative words, we contemplate how dinosaurs evolved into birds. Remember the song, “Dinosaur,” in this connection, and thus how King Crimson evolved from a dinosaur prog rock band into its 1980s quasi-new wave form, with Belew the bird, who “can speak” (i.e., those spoken-word moments in the songs of that era, which also included the seagull sounds in “Matte Kudasai”). King Crimson freed Fripp from prog rock hell and brought him into a purgatory of hope for his band, where there would still be tensions–a kind of Titanomachy of giant prog dinosaurs that, when the recording of “Requiem” on Beat was being done, included a spat between Fripp and Belew resulting temporarily in the near end of the band–and so things would be better than hell, but still painful.

“Should it be implausible that a man might supervise the construction of light?” Must we not believe in hope, if there is hope for King Crimson? If Fripp’s band can have hope, surely anyone can! “The construction of light” could be associated with Prometheus giving man fire, to give man hope against the tyrannical gods, who put Prometheus through a hell of his own, with an eagle sent to eat his nightly regenerating liver every day while he was chained to a rock in the Caucasus mountains. He suffers an eternity of hellish torment, so man, though still suffering on earth, can at least have a purgatory of hope through the use of fire.

Into the Frying Pan

Now, I’ve written here of “hope” in purgatory, in that while one suffers there, it is only temporary, to purge one of sin so one can be ready for heaven. None of this, however, is to trivialize or minimize the suffering in purgatory…only to say that it isn’t as bad as hell–it isn’t hopeless.

Recall in this connection how the Ghost of Hamlet’s father couldn’t describe the torments of purgatory to his son, that they would make his hair stand on end if he’d heard of them. Falling into the frying pan isn’t as bad as falling out of it and into the fire of hell, but it’s plenty bad anyway.

The song begins with Fripp and Belew playing leads, one of ascending notes and the other of descending ones; these start and end at octaves (on C), the intervals closing together to reach a unison in the middle (on F♯), then expanding to the second octave at the end. The singing begins in C major, largely in 4/4 time.

Belew sings of “the jaws of life” (as opposed to the jaws of death, leading to hell), which is another name for hydraulic rescue tools, used by emergency rescue personnel to aid in getting accident victims out of their crashed vehicles, or to rescue people from other small spaces. These tools thus could be seen as a metaphor for purgatory, rescuing the sinner from hell by purging him of his venial sins.

“They chew you up and spit you right back into the frying pan.” Just because purgatory rescues you from hell, preparing you for heaven, doesn’t mean it won’t be painful in itself.

“Life unwinds round and round, up and down; you think you’re fine, but then you’re right back in the frying pan.” The ups and downs of life make us think we’re fine one moment (one of the ups), then we’re down again. Purgatory relieves us of the fires of hell, but purgatory’s frying pan burns us plenty as well.

Those ups and downs are well represented by those ascending and descending guitar leads: paradoxically, purgatory is an ascent from hell, leading eventually to heaven, but at the same time, the pain felt in purgatory feels like a descent into hell.

We hear two solos, first by Fripp, then by Belew. Belew sings again about “the jaws of life” and how “life unwinds,” etc. After more soloing by Belew, with his signature use of the whammy bar, the song ends with a guitar synthesizer soundscape, presumably by Fripp.

FraKctured

This instrumental was originally going to be called “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part V,” but it began to sound more like a variation on “Fracture,” the last track off of Starless and Bible Black, hence the name change.

To be fractured is bad, of course, but not as bad as completely broken. So fracture is to purgatory as completely broken is to hell. The first requires the break to be healed in purgatory; the second is a break that is total separation from God.

We hear more of the interlocking guitar parts of the sort that we heard in “TCoL.” Then Fripp awes us with more of his super-fast cross-picking technique, as he demonstrated in that amazing middle section of “Fracture,” that moto perpetuo moment that lasted for about three minutes.

Much of this fast picking is in 7/8 time, Fripp playing very fast sixteenth notes. There is relief in one gentle section of both Fripp and Belew playing slower and softer, in 5/4, in the middle of the instrumental. FraKctured ends with them playing another interlocking part in 5/4, a variation on one we heard at the beginning.

The World’s My Oyster Soup Kitchen Floor Wax Museum

If the world is your oyster, you have endless opportunities, complete freedom to go anywhere, and the power to achieve whatever you want to. Like finding a pearl in any oyster, the world holds great rewards if you seek them.

Sounds rather like heaven, doesn’t it?

Except that the world here is actually a bowl of oyster soup, a soup kitchen, a kitchen floor, floor wax, and a wax museum. We’ve descended from the oyster of joy, freedom, opportunity, and power, to merely some (maybe) tasty soup, then to a place where the hungry and homeless may enjoy the charity of free meals, then down low to a kitchen floor, one made of wax, and finally, to a wax museum. This last one might remind us of that classic old Vincent Price horror film, House of Wax (there is the hope, though, of being saved from the villainous, disfigured Professor Henry Jarrod [Price], just as there’s hope of heaven when in purgatory).

So this series of free associations in the song title can feel like a descent from the heaven the Catholic receives from having been redeemed by Christ, yet having also died with some of his venial sins not confessed and absolved in time, he must go to purgatory for final purification. When Belew sings “get pissed,” and “get it up,” for example, his vulgar language can be heard as a lesser, venial sin, one that won’t break his friendship with God, so if he were to die immediately after saying the bad words, it would only be purgatory that he’d have to suffer.

On the other hand, the way Belew arranged the lyric of this song–with lists of words that pair up with each other, each to make different associated meanings, as in the song title and refrain mentioned above, but also in lines like “Hat bandana graham cracker jackhammer in a nail file suit your self-service man” (i.e., hat-band, bandana, anagram, graham cracker, Cracker Jack, jackhammer, hammer in a nail, nail file, file a lawsuit, suit yourself, self-service, and serviceman)–suggests the psychoanalytic idea of free association.

During psychotherapy, the patient (or analysand) is allowed to speak freely about anything he or she likes, while the therapist (or psychoanalyst) associates, or links up, all the themes that recur in the strands of everything the patient is talking about. In time, the therapist gains insights into the unconscious workings of the patient’s thoughts, and in the therapist’s interpretation of those thoughts, helps the patient to understand him- or herself better, which is a revealing of repressed feelings and traumas. This understanding will lead, in turn, to psychological healing. Hence, free association, as a way of processing trauma, is linked to what has been called “the talking cure.”

So the pairs or groupings of words that Belew is singing, and how they can represent the idea of free association and the talking cure, can thus be linked in turn to the idea of purgatory, since the purging of sin to prepare one for heaven can be compared to the therapeutic purging of repressed traumas to allow a patient to be free to live a healthy life. The patient must confront his or her repressed pain–in Jungian terms, that would be called doing Shadow work–in order to be healed and get better, just like enduring the temporary hell of purgatory to be ready for heaven.

Musically, the song is ambiguous as to whether it’s in G, as the opening guitar riff seems clearly to indicate, or in E, especially when the bass comes in. There’s also a lot of B♭, to give off an overall effect of a diminished triad (E, G, B♭), which in turn can give off octatonic scale associations. Such musical ambiguity is linked with the ambiguity of feelings in the ‘in-between-heaven-and-hell’ state of purgatory.

Belew coughs a couple of times in the song: once at the beginning, and another time before his guitar solo. He needs some cough medicine; the analysand needs a psychoanalyst; the sinner needs salvation. As Jesus said, “They that be whole need not a physician, but they that are sick.” (Matthew 9:12)

“The world’s mine oyster” is from Shakespeare’s comedy, The Merry Wives of Windsor. (Accordingly, it’s fitting that Belew should sing of “Shakespeare fishing gear” in the fourth line of the first verse.) In the play, Pistol says the famous expression in response to Falstaff‘s refusal to lend him a penny. Pistol intends, thus, to use his sword to open the Falstaff-oyster and take the pearl-money that he needs, while Falstaff remains adamant about not lending him any money.

So Pistol, in his willingness to threaten Falstaff with physical violence to get the money he needs, is demonstrating his sinfulness. The “fishing gear” Belew sings of also involves taking by force the fish for food, killing them. When you consider the free association word linking, this force gets all the more violent, with Shakespeare, spearfishing, and fishing gear.

Later on in the song, the lyric makes references to other, older King Crimson songs, as we’ve already seen to be a recurring feature of TCoL. There’s “…happy as a lark’s tongue in cheek” (happy as a lark, larks’ tongues in aspic, and tongue-in-cheek). There’s also “…kitchen door frame by frame (including door frame). And “back talk” was heard after the B-words verse of “Elephant Talk.”

Belew’s ramblings about earlier King Crimson songs in his free associating sounds like him trying to give himself talk therapy as a cure for the traumas and neuroses he suffered in the “absolutely terrifying place” of hellish King Crimson. His talk therapy is thus his purgatory, leading to heaven.

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Pt. IV

As I explained in my discussion of parts I, II, and III of the Larks’ Tongues suite in my analyses of the two albums they appear on (links above, in the second paragraph of the introduction), larks’ tongues were an ancient Roman delicacy and a symbol of their wealth. Such preoccupations with wealth and status are examples of the deadly sins of greed and pride, mortal sins that might land the unrepentant in hell. If a Roman Catholic, on the other hand, redeemed by Christ, still indulged in the lesser kind of greed and pride that eating larks’ tongues in aspic might have symbolized, he might end up in purgatory instead.

Now, the Coda to part IV, “I Have a Dream,” suggests the hope of getting out of the fires of purgatory, since the sinfulness Belew sings of there is far worse than the killing of larks to eat their rare, difficult-to-get tongues. I’ll be discussing that sinfulness in detail when I get to the coda below.

Part IV is similar in a number of ways to part II, not least of which for its heavier, more guitar-driven sound. Indeed, the hard-rocking, interlocking rhythm guitar parts that Belew and Fripp play here in E, with a tritone of B♭, remind us of Fripp’s 5/4 to 4/4 riff of stacked perfect fourths in G, as heard at the beginning of part II. In part IV, we have stacked minor thirds, though not all heard simultaneously, instead (E, G, and B♭, as detailed below).

Of course, that tritone of E and B♭, “the devil in music,” reminds us that we’re under the influence of the Evil One, and therefore a cleansing of sin in purgatory, at the very least, will be necessary.

The first section of this instrumental begins with chords in C, B♭, B, over which a guitar lead of E, F♯, D, E, D, E, C, D, A…then it goes into that rhythm guitar riff in E with the tritone B♭. G chords are also thrown into the mix of Es and B♭s, creating that diminished triad, octatonic effect we got from “TCoL,” and the interlocking E/B♭tritones with the Gs are syncopated, the two guitars almost competing with each other.

There are some ascending guitar leads, doubled by Gunn on the Warr guitar, that remind us of the arpeggios of G-D-G♯ (2x), D♭-G♮, and its further development by Fripp, in part II, which in turn was a slower variation of the fast, dissonant arpeggios he plays in the middle of part I (see my discussions of parts I and II for clarification if you don’t get my meaning here, Dear Reader–links for those analyses are above).

After the guitar leads with Gunn’s Warr guitar, the main guitar riff modulates to G, with more of the B♭, but syncopated against the Gs, as the Gs had been to the Es before. Another set of ascending leads, with Fripp and Belew ending with a harmonized major 6th, lead back to the riff in E. Ascending, harmonized guitar leads bring us up to G again. Another set of ascending, harmonized guitar leads–mostly rising in groups of three, but also a couple of groups of two–brings us to harmonized leads in 5/4 that resolve on F♯…then we return to the riff in E.

Since what I’ve written is already very long (and I haven’t even gotten to The Power to Believe yet!), I fear that continuing my analysis of part IV in the same amount of detail will get to be tedious, so I’ll just point out a few highlights here before skipping to the coda.

Mastelotto does some interesting polyrhythms as the instrumental progresses. We hear a guitar riff of perfect fifth power chords that yo-yo a whole tone apart from each up and down (while Gunn is playing something dark and eerie in the background on his Warr guitar); this riff then goes up a minor third to do the same thing there, then back down to the original position, then up a major third, up a minor third from there, down a minor second, up a minor second, down a major second, and ending with those harmonized guitar leads in 5/4.

In the next section, Fripp does his fast cross-picking to Belew’s heavy power chords in the background; Fripp will be doubled by Gunn on the Warr guitar towards the end of this passage. Next, a variation on that yo-yoing riff will be heard, but in major thirds this time, rather than power chord perfect fifths. This section ends with an extended variation on the beginning guitar lead of going up a whole step, down a major third, up a whole step twice, down a major third, etc. (Recall the opening E, F♯, D, E, D, E, C, D, A.)

Next, it’s Belew’s turn to solo, with his so recognizable use of the whammy bar. The mood sustained has been mercilessly dark…purgatory.

Coda: I Have a Dream

The coda musically involves chromatic descensions along four semitones before key changes, each of which go up a semitone to start off the next four-semitone chromatic descension. The feeling the listener gets is of going, step by step, down a stairway to hell, but with one step up in hesitation for each four steps down.

After hearing this for a while as an instrumental, we finally hear Belew sing. He brings up many of the horrors of the twentieth century, mostly those of the latter half, but also a mention of the Holocaust and Hiroshima. He mentions the Kennedy assassinations (JFK and Robert), the AIDS epidemic and the fear surrounding it in the 1980s, the Oklahoma and World Trade Center bombings of the 1990s, apartheid in South Africa, the Vietnam War, the deaths of Princess Diana and John Lennon, and the Columbine shootings.

After mentioning all of these horrors, like suffering in the fires of purgatory, Belew ends on a note of hope, alluding to MLK Jr.’s famous “I have a dream” speech and to Neil Armstrong’s comment on setting foot on the moon: “one giant leap for mankind” to get us out of the purgatory of our hateful world and into a heaven of equality and human progress.

Heaven and Earth

This instrumental, from ProjeKct X, has a title that, in a way, encapsulates the dialectical opposition whose Aufhebung, as mentioned above, is purgatory, since life on our Earth can be a hell all of its own, as the verse Belew sang in “Coda” demonstrates.

It opens with some guitar synth soundscapes. As one hears this opening music, one imagines looking up at the sky and seeing the clouds, those of heaven. One might connect such an image with how, at the very end of Dante‘s Inferno, Canto XXXIV, Dante and his guide, Virgil, leave hell and “make [their] way back into the bright world” to see “some of those things/of beauty Heaven bears. It was from there/that [they] emerged, to see–once more–the stars.” (Dante, lines 134, 137-139)

Next in the music, the rest of the band comes in, with Mastelotto’s drums propelling a beat that gives off the effect of being in transit…from Earth up to heaven, as I hear it. We are leaving the purgatory of TCoL and moving up to the heaven of The Power to Believe.

To add an apt quote from Dante’s Purgatorio, Canto XXV, “these spirits…[in purgatory] are burned by fire: this is/the care and this the nourishment with which/one has to heal the final wound of all.” (Dante, lines 136-139)

Towards the end of the instrumental, the drum propulsion ends, leaving us with more celestial guitar synth soundscapes. We’re arriving at the clouds of heaven, with some leads by Fripp as a soundtrack. One more quote from Dante is fitting here, this one from the very end, Canto XXXIII, of Purgatorio: “[Dante] was/pure and prepared to climb to the stars.” (lines 144-145)

IV: The Power to Believe

This is King Crimson’s very last studio album. It also marks the second time, after the three 1980s albums, that there has been the exact same lineup of musicians on consecutive KC albums, only with Gunn and Mastelotto instead of Levin and Bruford. TPtB was met with generally favourable reviews, with some critical praise for the album’s heavier sound (its original title was to be Nuovo Metal). It was preceded by the 2002 EP, Happy with What You Have to Be Happy With.

The Power to Believe I: A Cappella

This track is the first of a four-part suite that is spread throughout the album. The lyric and title are derived from a song Belew wrote for his 1996 solo album, Op Zop Too Wah, a song called “All Her Love Is Mine.”

The love he sings of doesn’t seem like that of a man in love with a woman: it’s much more spiritual, eternal. She seems to be God, as in the contemporary sense of ‘God is a woman.’

Instead of how his solo song has a full band and his twangy, whammy-bar guitar leads, this version is, as its title indicates, a cappella. His voice is electronically altered, with some reverb and echo; one is reminded of Greg Lake‘s solo voice on “Peace–A Beginning” and “Peace–An End,” from In the Wake of Poseidon. Peace: how fitting for heaven.

Apart from “she” as ‘God is a woman,” “she” could also be heard as Dante’s Beatrice, his guide through Paradiso, and symbolizing Christian grace or revelation. After all, “she carries [Belew] through days of apathy,” like a spiritual guide. “She washes over [him],” the way the blood of Christ washes away one’s sins.

“She saved [his] life, in a manner of speaking” sounds a tad ironic, as if the salvation isn’t absolute, or if it has strings attached to it, such as the requirement “to serve in heaven,” as opposed the preference Milton’s Satan has, which is “to reign in hell.” Recall what I said early on in this analysis, that neither hellish torment nor heavenly bliss is purely so.

In Canto I of Dante’s Paradiso, he sees Beatrice during a sunrise, which “brought morning there…almost/all of that hemisphere was white–while ours/was dark–when I saw Beatrice turn round/and left, that she might see the sun…” (Dante, lines 44-47). She is guiding him from the darkness to the light.

So when Belew sings “she saved my life…when she gave me back the power to believe,” this can be heard as a conferring of salvation by grace through faith (Ephesians 2:8). One might recall those lines from “Amazing Grace”: “How precious did that grace appear/The hour I first believed.”

Level V

This instrumental, significantly as I see it, is the only one of the “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic” pentalogy not to have “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic” in its title. As I explained in my analyses of the other four (links above), there is a sin to be observed in killing larks for their rare tongues to be put in food as a sign of the wealth of the ancient Roman ruling class. So the lack of larks’ tongues in the title of this track can be seen to represent a lack of sin, the natural result of it having been purged in purgatory.

Level V” could also be seen as representing Mars, the fifth of the concentric spheres surrounding the Earth (along with the Moon, Mercury, Venus, and the Sun) as Dante understood them–in a universe then conceived to be geocentric–when Beatrice guided him up through heaven. Since Mars is the Roman god of war, this can help us understand why the music sounds so dark and tense in this instrumental, even though we’re supposed to be in a heavenly state here.

In Cantos XV to XVIII of Paradiso, Beatrice guides Dante through Mars, the home of the warriors of the Faith, who include Joshua, Judas Maccabeus, Charlemagne, Roland, and Godfrey of Bouillon. So the tension in the music of “Level V” can be understood to represent this violent defending of the faith, as when God’s angels fought Satan and his rebel angels, the latter then losing and falling into hell. Onward, Christian soldiers…

One thing to keep in mind, in connection with this notion of “warriors of the Faith,” is that TPtB was released in 2003, two years after 9/11 and the same year that the US, under the Bush administration, invaded Iraq. Despite the denials of Bush et al that the ‘War on Terror’ wasn’t a holy war against Islam, many insist justifiably that it was, given not only the imperialist motives behind these wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, and later in Libya, Syria, and now Iran, but also Bush’s rhetoric, which included saying, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” that Iraq, Iran, and North Korea constitute an “axis of evil,” and most significantly, the ‘War on Terror’ was a “crusade.” (Recall Paradiso‘s reference to Godfrey of Bouillon, who was a preeminent leader of the First Crusade.)

The point is that when I speak of Thrak, TCoL, and TPtB as respectively representing hell, purgatory, and heaven, I don’t mean these ideas to be taken literally. ‘Hell’ represents hopelessness on the one hand, and defiant desire and sinning on the other; ‘purgatory’ represents suffering with the hope that it will soon end; and ‘heaven’ represents an ideal of perfection, too lofty to be attained, and not an actual state of perfect bliss (or at least not necessarily so).

TPtB, therefore, in the post-9/11 world can be heard to represent the authoritarian capitalist/imperialist desire to impose its definition of ‘heaven’ (as a neocon imperialist/neoliberalfree market” paradise) on the world. Hence, the dystopian album cover.

I assume by now, Dear Reader, that you’re getting sick and tired of my literary and political digressions, and you’d like me to get back to a discussion of the album, “Level V” in particular. I will do that now.

The instrumental opens with a high-pitched guitar lead that reminds us of the beginning of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part IV.” It’s a descending line of G♯, G♮, F, E, E♭, D, D♭. Then we hear the main riff, which is lower notes on the guitar playing G, B♭, D♭, and down to E; the E alternating with an upper C. The other guitar is playing the lines a parallel fifth above. Then they play the same nots as indicated in unison, then back to the fifths. This riff is in seven, subdivided 4+3.

Next, a set of ascending leads is also done in seven, but subdivided 3+4. Then it returns to the main riff. At one point, the parallel fifth lead is played an octave higher. Next, the riff is played in a different key, B, with other variations on the riff, but still in seven.

This seven (if you’ll indulge me yet again), could symbolize the seventh day of Creation, when God rested after finishing His work, as the Christian too will rest eternally in heaven, as St. Augustine allegorized Genesis, Chapter One, in his Confessions, Book XIII, 3-38. (Augustine, pages 346-347) So, the Christian soldiers will rest after their ‘work’ (i.e., killing all the ‘infidels’) is done. How heavenly.

There’s a section in the middle, about two minutes into the instrumental, in which we hear Fripp and Belew playing interlocking guitar lines that remind us of the same thing going on in “TCoL,” with a similar, diminished seventh chord, octatonic feel. Remember how this feel is filled up with the tritone, “the devil in music,” just like the main riff, with its G, B♭, D♭, and E below the G, the first and third notes of these, as well as the second and fourth of them, being tritones of each other.

So, with “the devil in music” existing in “heaven,” we see the dialectics of the Divine Comedy. One cannot have a sense of angels without a sense of devils, too. Those who would push on us their ideal of heaven must impress on us the danger of losing paradise to ‘infidels.’ Hence the ‘warriors of the Faith’ on Mars, the “Level V” of Dante’s Purgatorio, those who have fought in the Crusades and other battles against the infidel, and now are at rest in Augustine’s eternal Sabbath.

There’s a restatement of the opening, descending guitar lead, but it’s in five, and it’s lower pitched, in a different key. Then we hear aggressive power chords in seven. The chords are hocketed between Fripp and Belew, similar to the syncopating hocketing between them in the main riff of the first section of “Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part IV.” This is alternated with some fast ascending runs by Fripp. After these alternations are some more interlocking guitar leads, but descending this time.

Then there’s a return to the main riff, but in E. Belew solos over it, with his trusty whammy bar. The riff is first in E, then in G, then back to E, then in B, then there’s a return to the power chord riff, all while Belew is soloing. Then we come back to the main riff in E.

The instrumental ends with a return to the ascending leads, those subdivided 3+4.

Eyes Wide Open

This is a song about missed opportunities, and the need to keep one’s “eyes wide open” in order not to miss any new opportunities. The repeated line “here comes another day” and variations on that recall Scarlett O’Hara‘s famous line at the end of Gone With the Wind. Though she is weeping in near-despair over Rhett Butler‘s leaving her, she regains hope at the end and says, “Tomorrow is another day,” that is, another chance to get him back.

So keeping one’s eyes wide open for new opportunities, after the disappointments and frustrations of the lost opportunities of the past, is how one keeps one’s sense of hope, and hope, along with faith and love, is one of the three things that last forever (1 Corinthians 13:13).

Keeping one’s eyes wide open also means, of course, always seeing. And according to the song “Amazing Grace,” when one didn’t believe, one “was blind, but now, [one] see[s],” being a believer. As such, one has the faith to acquire grace, to be saved, and to enter…heaven. The opportunity to receive that grace is always there during life, if one sees it.

So in the first verse, Belew sings of present opportunities, “a knock on the door” (Matthew 7:7). In the second verse, he sings of past opportunities missed. So in the chorus, he’s learned his lesson, and he’s keeping his “eyes wide open all the time, ’cause you never know what you might see.”

The song opens with guitar synth soundscapes from Fripp, and some guitar picking by Belew. Then they’re playing in C♯ minor. When Belew is singing the verses, the key switches to C♮minor. For the chorus, they go back up to C♯ minor. There’s a feeling, when they go down a semitone to natural, of disappointment; when they go up a semitone to sharp, there’s a feeling of realization and renewed hope.

The band is playing mostly in 4/4 time, but at the ends of the second, fourth, and eighth lines of each verse, there’s a bar of 3/4 instead. At the end of the sixth lines, there’s an additional bar of 2/4. The choruses are all in 4/4.

So God is like Rhett Butler, and the sinner is Scarlett O’Hara, the latter having missed opportunities to keep him (in turn, like the Prodigal Son, except Rhett’s leaving her, instead of vice versa), then keeping her eyes wide open for “another day.”

Elektrik

This track is largely instrumental, except for some barely audible or intelligible voices. It opens with guitar synth imitations of oboes playing these intervals: a perfect fifth (C and F, the latter being the tonic), and a minor third, A, below the C, altogether making an F first-inversion major triad; next, a minor third of D♭ and E; the C, F, and A again, but followed by a major third of A♭ and C; the C, F, and A again, followed by a major second of D and E, then the C, F, and A, with the A♭and C again. After hearing the intervals simultaneously, and with descending arpeggios (an augmented triad of A, F, and D♭, a minor triad of A, F, and D♮, and A, F, and E♭), we hear them in succession, then all simultaneously again.

Then, the whole band comes in, with regular guitars playing interlocking lines based on notes from the whole tone scale, with lots of major thirds. These are transposed many times to different keys, but all parallel and based on the whole tone scale. The music here is in seven.

As for the voices heard, I cannot make them out, so I’ll have to rely on what the Genius lyrics website says, as well as a comment from somebody on Reddit (“Waking-Hallow”). The ideas expressed on the “Elektrik” page on Genius, and the idea of the Reddit comment, could be said to be opposing, or complementary, ones.

The Genius page ideas include “At the center of learning…increase the complexity…there’s a tradition of ours,” and “there’s no times” (or should it be, “there’s no time_”?). One gets a sense in these words the complexity and stress of modern life, the noise of the contemporary world, what the title “Elektrik” seems to be referring to.

Such an experience is hardly heavenly, to be sure; but as I said above, we must see “heaven” in a dialectical way, and understand what it is as well as what it is not. Heaven is an ideal, not an actual place of perfect bliss. The sheltering sky protects us from the horrors of real life.

Contrast the Genius lyric page’s idea with what the Reddit comment says: “Silence is an echo of the presence of God” (quoted with my corrections). Instead of the complexity and tension of our world here, there’s the peace, bliss, and silence of God’s presence, in heaven…the abstract ideal, as opposed to reality.

So when we hear that opening “oboe,” it can represent the silence of God, whereas the rest of the instrumental, with its whole-tone-scale guitar interlocking, can represent our tense, modern, electric reality.

Approaching two minutes into the instrumental, the time switches to 4/4, and Fripp and Belew are playing hocketed guitar lines, echoing pairs of notes a major third apart from each other. After that, there’s a return to the main riff idea in seven, then more of the 4/4 guitar hocketing.

Next, there’s a brief section with groupings of 3/4 (mostly 3x) and 2/4 (2x) as Fripp and Belew play more pairings of major thirds. This alternates with softer passages that are a variation on the hocketing idea, but the guitars sound as if volume pedals are being used (or is it guitar synth?), and they’re playing to a 4/4 beat subdivided 3+3+2, with a final 3+3 at the end of each phrase.

After this comes a brief heavy passage in 4/4, at a slower pace, but still with the major third intervals on the guitars. After variations on the main riff in seven, as well as the 3/4 and 2/4 part, the instrumental finally ends with a reprise of the “oboe” passage.

Facts of Life

The intro of this song is an ethereal guitar synth soundscape. One imagines clouds passing overhead: “the sheltering sky” is about to bring on a storm. The instrumental intro ends with some guitar and drum pounding…representative of thunder?…then we go into the song proper.

The song opens with a heavy rock riff and Belew singing in a raspy low voice. “Six billion ants crawling on a plate” are the world’s population, which it was approximately, around the year TPtB was released, in 2003. That the world is represented by a plate could be a reference to the old belief that the Earth is flat, something still believed by some eccentrics in our modern world. The plate therefore is a reflection of man’s foolish beliefs.

Recall Captain Beefheart’s song, “Ant Man Bee”:

All the ants in God’s garden
They can’t get along
War still runnin’ on
It’s that one lump sugar
That they won’t leave each other ‘lone

“None of them give back as much as they take,” Belew sings of the ‘ant-men,’ just as Beefheart did. Man has foolish beliefs, and he tries to hoard as much as he can for himself, without helping others much, if at all (which is especially true of the ruling class today). “Doesn’t mean you should, just because you can.”

The “ants” verse is in E, with alternating bars of 5/4 and 6/4 and mostly ascending guitar leads for each bar. After that verse, the key switches to A, and they’re now playing in 4/4. For the “Doesn’t mean you should…” verse, we’re back to the alternating 5/4 and 6/4 riff, but it’s in C.

“Like Abraham and Ishmael fighting over sand” is a reference to the modern Middle East conflict, with Abraham personifying Israel–since the Jews consider themselves descended from him, their patriarch–and Ishmael personifying the Arabs, who believe themselves to have descended from him. You’ll note in this line the implied liberal stance that ‘There’s bad on both sides’ of the Palestine/Israeli conflict, when it should be clear, especially since the events of October of 2023, which is the far guiltier, if not exclusively guilty, side.

The chorus of “That is a fact of life,” sung twice, is in F. The notion of the “facts of life,” as they relate to the theme of heaven in TPtB, can thus also be related to the concept–in the religions and philosophies of India–known as dharma. Dharma is, on the one hand, the cosmic law or ultimate reality of life, and on the other hand, the understanding of one’s social duties and moral responsibilities. So when one knows the facts of life, one should act accordingly, and with the proper effort and faith, one should thus reach heaven.

At least, theoretically, such is the ideal to be understood.

“Some of us build, and some of us teach,” the good ones, presumably. “And some of us kill what some of us eat.”–the bad ones, especially in the eyes of vegetarians. “That is a fact of life,” that we must be able to differentiate between the good people and the evil ones, to separate the sheep from the goats (Matthew 25:32). To know good from evil is a necessary condition for getting to heaven, a part of dharma.

“Nobody knows what happens when you die,” Belew sings in the final verse. “Believe what you want; it doesn’t mean you’re right.” Indeed, one’s religious beliefs won’t guarantee one’s virtue (Matthew 7:21; also, James 2:14-26).

Please note, Dear Reader, that though I am referencing a lot of Scripture in this analysis, and echoing a lot of Christian doctrine, please don’t mistake my words for ‘preaching.’ In saying these things, I am merely exploring the themes I hear in these three albums of hell, purgatory, and heaven, and what the three realms symbolize as I see them. I’m not ‘defending the faith”; I’m merely analyzing it. As for my own, personal thoughts on the Christ myth

The Power to Believe II

This track has the same lyric as the a cappella first part, so refer back to my analysis of that for its interpretation. To sum up its meaning in a more succinct manner, the lyric is about an idealized notion of salvation and heaven.

The track begins with more guitar synth soundscapes, evoking the ethereal heights of heaven and its clouds. A guitar (synth?) lead, presumably by Belew because there seems to be whammy bar involved, plays an exotic tune. Mastelotto is playing around with electronic drums.

Gunn comes in with a fretless Warr guitar line that is largely in 7/8 time, though with a few rhythmic tricks here and there. The music is in C minor.

After this section, Mastelotto sets his electronic drums to sound like one of those metallophones heard in gamelan music. Once again, King Crimson is alluding back to its 1980s incarnation. This is a beautiful passage, and though Brufurd will always be my favourite Crimson drummer, Mastelotto here has come into his own, showing himself to be Bruford’s worthy heir.

The exotic, otherworldly quality of this music, which includes Belew’s singing of the lyric, perfectly evokes the ideal of heaven, as well as the melancholy felt of never being able to attain it; this is the sheltering sky that hides the horrifying nothingness behind a meaningless ideal of perfection.

The track ends with leads from Fripp, backed by a return to the Gunn Warr guitar line and the ethereal guitar synth soundscapes.

Dangerous Curves

The title of this instrumental track is derived from how the structure of the music is perceived to be winding and turning, as if one is driving up a treacherous mountain road. Since the way to heaven is supposed to be straight and narrow (Matthew 7: 13-14), the twists, turns, and curves that life puts on that road are what is so dangerous–temptations to sin.

Again, we’re talking about an ideal of perfection, as opposed to that reality that one cannot attain such perfection. It is the authoritarian nature of the Church that has such high standards and pressures its flock to come as close as humanly possible to such ideals, punishing them with guilt when the fail…hence, the “dangerous curves,” which incidentally could also refer to the curves of a beautiful woman, tempting a man to sin (Matthew 5:28).

The instrumental opens softly with a guitar synth soundscape, in a gradual crescendo, again evoking the cloudy heavenly heights. Mastelotto comes in with the electronic drums again. They’re playing in a triple metre.

While the ethereal soundscapes continue to be heard, the other guitar is playing consistent, palm-muted phrases of unchanging notes. Such playing suggests the heavenly aspirant’s wish to stay on the straight path and avoid the “dangerous curves” of sin. The triple metre, in this connection, could be heard as symbolic of the Trinity.

After the music reaches a climax, it ends with a loud, dissonant, distorted guitar chord. “Long is the way/And hard, that out of hell leads up to light.”

Happy With What You Have to Be Happy With

This is a song about the process of writing a pop song. As such, there’s a lot of deliberate repetition in the verses, particularly in the chorus. This is meant as a satirical jab at how pop songs are crafted, made to be simple, easily processed, and digestible for the public.

Such preoccupation with simplicity and repetition is, of course, anathema to the very principles of progressive rock. What’s more, far from sounding like a pop song, the musical style is heavy metal; accordingly, Belew sings “through a distortion box.”

Such ironies wouldn’t have been lost on King Crimson, or on Belew in particular, who as I said above, has a musical split personality–sometimes playing prog, other times playing pop. Since he was with Crimson for so long, that prog/pop dichotomy rubbed off on the rest of the band, too, of course. Recall Fripp’s comment about the contrasts between Sides One and Two on Three of a Perfect Pair: “The left side is accessible, the right side excessive.”

The heavy metal aspect is also a self-reference to how King Crimson’s music moved more in a prog metal direction since the 1990s double trio era, as well as to the prog metal leanings of the band during the Wetton years (i.e., Red). This move of the 90s and 2000s KC was also a reaction to the more grunge-oriented music of the time, an attempt to make Crimson relevant then, as the band had done in the 1980s, with the new wave and minimalist influences.

Always, there’s this tension between wanting to go one’s own way musically and to experiment–prog–and needing to make the music conform to trends–pop. Even in Red‘s move toward prog metal, though, Fripp was moving then-in-vogue prog away from the lush, dainty sound of other bands of the genre (Yes, Genesis, etc.)

Sometimes, you have to be “happy with what you have,” and accept the simplicity of pop as against ambitious prog (as many prog bands had to do in the late 1970s, after punk and new wave took over). And sometimes, you have to be “happy with what you have,” and accept the moderate happiness of human life (when it can be happy), as against wanting the ideals of heaven.

The Power to Believe III

The only things Belew sings on this track are “She carries me,” and “She saved my life.” The track begins with him singing the first of these. After that line, there’s a guitar synth soundscape, suggestive again of the ethereal heavens.

So in this version of “The Power to Believe,” we don’t get the ironic qualifier of “in a manner of speaking” after “She saved my life.” It’s as if he’s just been saved and carried by ‘her,’ that is, ‘God as a woman’ or his spirit-guide, Beatrice–whichever.

Instead of the ironic qualification, though, we get eerie music, with a pounding bass motif from Gunn and Mastelotto. Fripp will add to the eerie atmosphere with some of his signature, sustained guitar leads. Mastelotto will rattle on the tom-toms and, towards the end, play a beat with a sped-up and slowed-down tempo, suggesting a sense of instability in heaven.

All of this suggests a salvation only for those willing to “serve in heaven,” like the chimney sweeper in Blake’s poem. So there’s an implied threat of losing that salvation if disobedience is at all suspected.

The Power to Believe IV: Coda

This one opens with yet another guitar synth soundscape. We hear Belew sing the entire four-line verse of the a cappella first part, with the soundscape continuing in the background. So we have that ethereal, celestial atmosphere throughout, as if Belew has finally found true salvation.

There seems to be no conflict, no fear of punishment, “…in a manner of speaking.” Just as Winston Smith loved Big Brother, so does Belew love God here, or so it would seem.

V: Conclusion

As I’ve said previously, notions of ‘hell,’ ‘purgatory,’ and ‘heaven’ are meant to be taken neither literally nor as absolute, fixed states of being here. Rather, they are metaphorical and dialectical, ironic.

Hell, in a manner of speaking, is defiant despair, as well as a willingness to be “happy with what you have to be happy with.” So, thrak away with that rebellious guitar noise, and reign in hell.

Purgatory, in a manner of speaking, is suffering with a hope of ending that suffering; so be “happy with what you have to be happy with.” Carry on constructing the light.

Heaven, in a manner of speaking, is a servile safety. So be “happy with what you have to be happy with,” and recognize that “the power to believe,” the faith that grants us grace, is only a limited power.

Analysis of ‘The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway’

I: Introduction

The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway is the sixth studio album by Genesis, released in 1974. It’s also the last Genesis album with original lead singer Peter Gabriel, who then quit after the tour promoting this album to pursue a solo career. So this is the last Genesis album with the classic prog quintet–Gabriel (vocals/flute), Tony Banks (keyboards), Mike Rutherford (bass/12-string guitar), Phil Collins (drums/vocals), and Steve Hackett (guitars)–which gave us Nursery Cryme, Foxtrot, their first live album, and Selling England by the Pound.

A rock opera, TLLDOB tells the story of Rael (played by Gabriel), a troubled youth from New York City who goes through a journey of self-discovery in a surreal Manhattan. The story is richly allegorical and metaphorical, drawing ideas from religion, mythology, literature, and psychology. It is by turns brilliant and yet of a frustrating “obscurantism,” to borrow a word from a critic in the Rolling Stone Album Guide (fourth edition, page 328).

Here is a link to all the song lyrics, here is a link to the entire album, illustrated and with the lyrics, and here is a link to Peter Gabriel’s liner notes from the inner gatefold of the album cover.

Since this album is so frustratingly obscurantist, there are probably as many different ways to interpret what it all means as there are people to interpret it. What follows below, therefore, is my own personal interpretation, for what that’s worth.

Gabriel’s narration in the liner notes mostly do more to make the story obscurantist, as do the black-and-white photos on the cover, than do his lyrics. Perhaps obscurantist is the whole idea, though, since as I see it, the story is about Rael going from his angry, rebellious, self-centered youth to reaching a high state of spiritual enlightenment, a mystical experience that cannot be adequately expressed in words, music, or images.

II: The Lamb Lies Down on Broadway

The song begins with Banks on the piano, playing wavelike phrases with his alternating right and left hands hitting intervals of fifths and fourths on every strong beat (the first, fifth, ninth, and thirteenth of the sixteenth notes in every bar of 4/4 time, the other groups of three sixteenth notes being intervals of thirds). We can hear in his playing the clear influence of classical music, a defining feature of prog.

Then the whole band comes in, with Gabriel singing the album and song title (Collins doing backup vocals and hitting cymbals), to a chord progression of B-flat, B suspended 4th, and resolving to E.

Now, what does “the lamb lies down on Broadway” mean? Note what Gabriel says in the liner notes: “This lamb has nothing whatsoever to do with Rael, or any other lamb–it just lies down on Broadway.”

Are we supposed to take Gabriel at his word here, or is he deliberately trying to keep us from the correct interpretation? I think it’s the latter. Why should we believe it’s just a lamb lying down on Broadway, meaning nothing else? What would be the significance of that, if that’s all there is to it?

Denial is a common defence mechanism used to keep us from confronting a painful truth. Here, at the beginning of the story, Rael hasn’t yet begun his spiritual journey. He’s full of anger, rebelliousness, and hatred of everyone around him. He has yet to understand that the hostility he sees in the world around him is just a projection of his own hate.

The lamb is another lamb: the Lamb of God as symbolic of someone going through a painful journey of self-discovery and enlightenment, who must learn to sacrifice himself for others. Therefore the lamb is Rael. Gabriel would deflect us, for the moment, from that conclusion so that we won’t figure out the meaning of the story too quickly or easily…or to make it obvious that his denials are b.s. I generally regard the liner notes narration as unreliable, so I won’t reference it again.

The lamb lies down-that is, dies, like the light that dies down towards the end of the story–like Christ on the Cross. This happens on Broadway, where theatrical and musical productions are done, for “all the world’s a stage.” Rael will make a sacrifice–saving his brother, John, from drowning–in the middle of the theatre of life.

Rael isn’t at that stage of his spiritual progress yet, of course (a progress somewhat like John Bunyan‘s Pilgrim’s Progress, one of Gabriel’s inspirations for Rael’s story, by the way). At this point, he is just angry at the world, part of his reason surely being its phoniness, like the theatre of a Broadway show.

He would have his identity and individuality known to the world, hence his can of spray paint and wish to put graffiti on the walls (“Rael, imperial aerosol kid. Exits into daylight, spray-gun hid.”). He’d have the world know he’s not one of their kind: “I’m Rael!” he shouts.

“Rael” is a pun on real. He’d have the world know he isn’t phony as they are, “all the men and women [who] are merely players,” as Jacques calls us in As You Like It. As I said above, though, everything Rael sees that’s wrong in the world is just a projection of what’s wrong in himself, and his spiritual journey will help him to understand that over time: no, Rael isn’t all that real, either. His journey will make him real.

So if the lamb is Rael, and is a symbol of crucified Christ, the Light that will die down on Broadway, then it makes sense that “the lamb seems right out of place,” for Rael is far from ready to be that salvific symbol, a selfless rescuer of his fellow man (personified in his brother, John).

Rael is trying to establish his identity and individuality, that is, his ego. The problem with doing this, though, is that–as the Buddhists and Lacan independently concluded–ego is an illusion. Our identity is interwoven with every other identity and with everything else around us. By the song, “It,” Rael will come to this understanding.

“Somehow [the lamb is] lying there/Brings a stillness to the air.” Two aspects of the lamb sit in contrast to those of the city: the lamb’s passivity and its representation of nature, as opposed to the aggressive hustle and bustle of New York City, and “the man-made light…the neons dim to the coat of white” (i.e., the white fur of the lamb). The light of the neon is nothing compared to the light of the white lamb.

The passivity of the lamb, its “lying there” and its “stillness,” means it not only has Christian symbolism, but also that of Taoism, which favors the passive, feminine yin over the aggressive, male yang. While ultimately, Taoist philosophy is about having a balance of yin and yang, in Rael’s case, he has too much of the yang in his anger, aggression and vandalism, so he must learn to emphasize the yin as symbolized in the lamb in order to restore a sense of balance in himself. Since the lamb also represents nature as contrasted against the urban reality of New York City, this love of nature is also how the lamb is Taoist in symbolism.

“Something inside [Rael] has just begun,” that is, his spiritual journey is beginning. He doesn’t know what he has done because, contrary to his loud declaration of his identity (“I’m Rael!”), he doesn’t know himself. As he goes on his journey, though, he will come to know himself.

The song ends with an ironic quote from the old Drifters song, “On Broadway” (also covered by George Benson, whose version was used in the All That Jazz soundtrack). The irony in the quote in the Genesis song is how the bright lights and the “magic in the air” are illusory, the fake theatricality of life.

III: Fly on a Windshield

Here is the inciting incident of the story, Rael’s call to adventure. A dark cloud is descending into Times Square. No one else notices it or seems to care.

There is soft guitar strumming as Gabriel softly sings. Banks’s organ is hovering in the background, too.

The cloud is like a “wall of death.” The wind blows dust into Rael’s eyes; where he thought he saw clearly before, now he realizes he cannot see. That same dust, settling on him and making a crust on his skin, has immobilized him. He is terrified and wanting to run to safety, like the hero rejecting the call to adventure, but of course he can’t, so he feels like a fly, about to die by smashing into a windshield.

There’s an instrumental outro in E minor in which the whole band joins in, with Collins bashing away on the drums and Hackett playing leads. It goes up to F-flat, then to B, segueing into the next track.

IV: Broadway Melody of 1974

Here’s where the surrealism of the story really takes off. Gabriel’s lyric is of a stream-of-consciousness style (some might call in self-indulgent writing).

We’re hit with a barrage of images from a variety of sources in popular culture, religion, myth, and politics: Lenny Bruce, Marshall McLuhan, Groucho Marx, “mythical Madonnas,” the Sirens, the Ku Klux Klan, Howard Hughes, the song “In the Mood,” and criminal Caryl Chessman. So we have people involved in performance, as is Broadway, though many have in some sense failed (Bruce got busted for obscenity, Groucho’s “punchline failing,” and media man McLuhan has his “head buried in the sand”), since Rael sees through the fakery of the theatre of life.

There’s a sense of a mix of good and evil throughout, for “Ku Klux Klan serve hot food,” “the cheerleader waves her cyanide wand” (we may find cheerleaders charming, but cyanide is usually extremely toxic), and a robber, kidnapper, and serial rapist “leads the parade.” Chessman “knows, in a scent”…a pun on innocent, from a man who was most certainly guilty. This mix of good and evil, a blurring of opposites making everything to seem a chaotic mess, implies that Rael has entered the realm of the Real, Lacan’s notion of an undifferentiated, traumatic world that cannot be described verbally…hence, Gabriel’s obscurantist lyric.

The song ends with some soft guitar strumming and Banks on the Mellotron (strings tapes).

V: Cuckoo Cocoon

Rael finds himself in some kind of cocoon-like cave. Like Jonah, who also refused his call (from God) and thus was caught in the belly of a great fish, so is Rael caught in this dark, enclosed space wherein he’ll undergo a spiritual transformation.

He is perhaps too early to be going through this transformation, though: “Cuckoo cocoon, have I come to, too soon for you?” He’ll need to experience a lot more before he’ll be ready to shed his ego and live for humanity, his brother (literally John, and metaphorically everyone).

Gabriel sings over soft 12-string guitars from Hackett and Rutherford. Gabriel also does flute solos in the middle of and at the end of the song.

VI: In the Cage

Where at first he felt “secure” and “good” in the “cuckoo cocoon,” now Rael is “drowning in a liquid fear,” and he wants to get “out of this cave.”

He’s felt like an embryo slumbering in the womb, but now he wants out. Rael is experiencing something comparable to Jesus’ harrowing of hell, or Jonah’s terror in the belly of the great fish. Rael’s “sleep in the deep” will feel like a nightmare.

We hear Tony Banks’s organ with a heartbeat pulse in 6/4, in B-flat minor. When Gabriel sings of keeping self-control and being safe in his soul, the key changes to E-flat major; but when Rael’s “cynic soon returns, and the lifeboat burns,” the key goes down to C-sharp minor, with an A-flat major for a dominant chord.

Stalactites and stalagmites shut Rael in and lock him tight. On the one hand, they could be seen as teeth about to bite and chew him up; on the other, they are like the bars of a cage. Now he wants to get “out of the cage.” He’s “dressed up in a white uniform,” like a straitjacket, since he’s obviously troubled and difficult for society to control: has he been put in an insane asylum, and the cave/cage is just a hallucination from his unstable mind?

He sees others trapped in cages like his, with the stalactite/stalagmite ‘bars’: “cages joined to form a star, each person can’t go very far.” This sight has the potential to give him the understanding that we’re all in the same predicament, caught in a trap of some kind. Rael also sees his brother, John, for the first time in the story. He calls out to John, hoping for help, but John leaves him there.

Gabriel then makes references to two old songs: “Runaway,” by Del Shannon, and “Raindrops Keep Fallin’ on my Head,” sung by BJ Thomas, written by Burt Bacharach and Hal David, and heard in the soundtrack for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid. John is Rael’s “little runaway,” leaving him in the lurch as the raindrops keep falling on his head, the raindrops of pain he wants to get out of. If he could be a liquid like those raindrops, he “could fill the cracks up in the rocks” and escape, but he is solid, his own bad luck.

Interestingly, though, when John disappears outside, Rael’s cage dissolves. This moment is a hint as to what he must do to be spiritually edified and enlightened. John is the key to Rael’s salvation. If he cares about John, he’ll be free of the cage of his own egoism. In this sense, his sojourn in the cave, or cocoon, like Jonah in the belly of the great fish (a moment in Joseph Campbell‘s Hero’s Journey, as are the call to adventure and the refusal of the call, as mentioned above), has been spiritually transformative for him.

VII: The Grand Parade of Lifeless Packaging

The song begins in A major, with Banks at a keyboard and Gabriel singing. The verses generally are in A major, with some shifts to C major in later verses; the refrain, in which Gabriel sings the title of the song, is in E major, and the song is more dissonant at the end. Collins’s drumming is rather like a marching beat, suggesting the regimented life of the scene Rael is about to see.

Rael is now in a factory, being given a tour by a women there. He sees people being processed like packages of dolls. Here we can see the source of Rael’s suffering, as well as that of everyone else in those cages: capitalism. People are being commodified, hence, “the grand parade of lifeless packaging.” This is the society that has produced Rael’s rage.

He recognizes some of the people in the production line, members of his New York City gang, it seems, with the same rage as he because of everybody’s commodification, “in labour bondage.” Indeed, the imagery of capitalism runs throughout the lyric: “Everyone’s a sales representative/wearing slogans…”, “I guess I’ll have to pay.”

Unlike the “free marketdelusions of the market fundamentalists, a true understanding of capitalism recognizes that there’s “no sign of free will.” We live, work, buy, and sell under capitalism because we have no other options…and this lack of choice is among us leftists, too. Such is the hegemony of neoliberalism, which had only gotten worse after the 1974 release of TLLDOB.

We get a sense of worker alienation and the commodification of humanity in lines like “The hall runs like clockwork/Their hands mark out the time/Empty in their fullness/Like a frozen pantomime.” People feel like machines, operating with mechanical precision, yet they’re empty, frozen, and lifeless, bereft of humanity, even in the “fullness” of everything they’ve shopped for and bought.

It seems that the commodified people have all been fittingly given each a number, since John, among them, “is number nine.” Is this a reference to Lennon, with “Revolution 9”? This also seems fitting. If I’m right in that interpretation, and so much of the source of the suffering of Rael and everyone else–including John–is capitalism, then revolution is the solution. Lennon spoke of “Revolution 9” as an attempt to paint a picture of a revolution using sound. If John is the key to fixing what’s broken in Rael, then he’s his brother’s inspiration, like the nine Muses, to a revolutionary overthrow of capitalism.

We just need to understand how such an overthrow is to be done successfully. First, we’ll examine how not to do it.

VIII: Back in NYC

The song begins in D major, and it’s mostly in seven. Banks’s synthesizer playing is prominent throughout the song.

Gabriel sings of Rael’s rough life as a kid in New York City, being in gangs, getting into fights, and being incarcerated in Pontiac Correctional Facility as a juvenile delinquent when he was 17 years old, and released then, too. He also sings of Rael’s use of Molotov cocktails, damaging property with them.

These are examples of young punks using violence to rebel against establishment systems like capitalism and the bourgeois state. They can be seen as forms of adventurism (a typical tactic of anarchists), which while being romantic and exciting, are ultimately bad for the working class because they provoke stronger waves of violence by the bourgeois state against the rebellious punk agitators (e.g., Rael being put in Pontiac). Such actions, thus, are how not to do revolution, as opposed to building a disciplined working-class movement and party, rooted in Marxist-Leninist theory, and engaging in revolution only when the time is ripe for it.

Rael, therefore, must learn to tame the wild man inside him. This is what shaving the hair off of his heart symbolizes. The hairy heart, in turn, is represented by a porcupine that Rael cuddles. He has no time for romantic escape (i.e., adventurism) when his fluffy heart is ready for rape (i.e., wishing to commit crimes in the name of revolution, when as Che Guevara observed, the heart of a revolutionary should be filled with love–that is, selflessness). The hairs, like a porcupine’s sharp spines, cut when you touch them; they hurt, like a raping phallus.

So Rael must learn to do revolution out of love for others, to help others, not just do violence for the sake of violence. He will eventually learn this virtue when he has to sacrifice his return to NYC by saving his brother from drowning. If he just goes back to New York City, as in the title of this song, he’ll just go back to his old violent, rebellious ways, and he’ll have learned nothing.

During the verses about cuddling the porcupine and “No time for romantic escape,” the key is D minor, and we hear groupings of four bars in 7/8, each followed by one bar in 6/8. During the “Off we go” part, there’s a grouping of two bars in 7/8, then a bar in 3/8, another two bars in 7/8, then a bar in 4/8, and the whole pattern repeats one time. This section is in A major.

The hair on the heart to be shaven off, like the spines on the porcupine, are phallic symbols, so shaving the heart, a taming of the wild man in Rael, is thematically connected with his and John’s emasculation later. It’s all about extinguishing desire–being “ready for rape”–to end Rael’s egoism.

IX: Hairless Heart

This is an instrumental, in D minor. There’s some soft guitar strumming with Banks’s organ arpeggios in the background. Hackett plays a lead using a volume pedal. Collins comes in later, playing the drums gently. The sedateness of this music suggests the beginning of the taming of Rael that the shaving of the heart represents.

This music segues into the next track.

X: Counting Out Time

This song, the one following it (“The Carpet Crawlers”), and the title track were the ones we heard on the radio, released as singles.

In this song, Rael has “found a girl [he] wanted to date,” and he wants to “get it straight” when he gets it on with her, so he has a book to teach him how exactly to stimulate her erogenous zones. This is all perfectly well-intended, of course, but ultimately wrong-headed, for to get his girl off properly, he has to listen to her, to know exactly how this girl in particular likes it.

Now, this is the surface meaning of the song. There’s also a deeper meaning that makes the surface, sexual meaning most ironic. Note how as Gabriel sings early on, he asks the Lord for guidance, noting how “the Day of Judgement’s come.”

The book he bought, which has all the advice that “the experts” give him, should be seen as symbolic of the Bible, “the experts” being the prophets. The girl he wants to date is actually God, whom Rael wants to please, the sexual ecstasy being symbolic of spiritual ecstasy.

Such an interpretation fits in the wider context of Rael’s ‘pilgrim’s progress,’ his spiritual journey. The body here is symbolic of the soul; his ‘knowing‘ her (in the Biblical sense [!]) representative of growing in spiritual knowledge and enlightenment, of knowing God deeply.

Consider The Song of Songs, a book of sensuous love poetry in which the groom professes his love of the bride. The book is traditionally allegorized by Jews as an expression of God’s love for the Israelites, and by Christians as an expression of God’s love for His Church. We can thus allegorize Rael’s sexual encounter with the girl as Rael’s attempt to love God; here, with the roles of bride (man) and groom (God), the sexes are reversed, with a female God.

So how does Rael try to reach God with his Bible, the Good Book of Great Sex? He’s “found the hotspots, figures one to nine,” which sound like nine of the Ten Commandments, or of the Mosaic Laws in general (he later mentions a “number eleven”). In other words, Rael has the superficial idea of reaching a state of spiritual enlightenment by merely following religious laws. Accordingly, he is doomed to fail, “for the letter killeth, but the spirit giveth life.” (2 Corinthians 3:6)

The song is in A major, the verses following a descending major scale progression of tonic (A), leading tone (G-sharp), submediant (F-sharp), dominant (E), subdominant (D), mediant (C-sharp), supertonic (B), and dominant again. The tune has a light, almost trivial quality, to the point of being comical, since Rael is being clumsy and overconfident in bed (allegorically, too trustful of the efficacy of following religious laws). Hackett’s guitar solo is fittingly spastic.

In the refrain where Gabriel sings of how Rael loves erogenous zones, we hear a progression of G major (subtonic), D major (subdominant), and tonic A major; then, when Rael wonders what a poor boy would do without the book’s guidance, we hear chords in C major (a natural mediant in the context of the key of A major), B, and a bar in 5/8 (subdominant resolving to tonic). Bars in 5/8 (representative of the Pentateuch) will alternate with bars in 4/4 in the verses.

The last time we hear the chorus about erogenous zones, there is significantly no use of the bars in 5/8, for at this point, Rael has grown disillusioned with the book, since its erotic tips have been of no use in helping him satisfy the girl sexually. As far as my allegory is concerned, this means that adherence to religious laws (i.e., the Pentateuch) isn’t working for Rael, so he has abandoned them–hence, no bars in 5/8 time.

During our hearing of “Back in NYC,” Hairless Heart,” and “Counting Out Time,” Rael experienced a flashback from which he has now come back, getting us ready for the next song. In other words, aspects of his spiritual journey had begun before this story even began…and perhaps he hadn’t even realized he was already on that journey.

XI: The Carpet Crawlers

This song is also about an attempt to attain spiritual enlightenment and salvation that ultimately fails, that in fact leaves one trapped in hell. Here, instead of there being false hope in following religious laws, as I saw as an allegory in “Counting Out Time,” there is false hope in following spiritual leaders (“callers”). One might think of people watching televangelists on their TVs, foolishly giving them money.

Rael feels lambswool under his feet, which is “soft and warm, giv[ing] off some kind of heat.” Since the lamb represents Christ, this lambswool carpet that feels so good is actually representative of that false Christian path that promises, but fails, to deliver salvation.

Rael sees examples of carpet crawlers going to their deaths, such as a salamander going “into flame to be destroyed,” “imaginary creatures…trapped in birth on celluloid,” and “the fleas cling to the Golden Fleece hoping they’ll find peace.” Note how the lambswool is, apart from representing the Lamb of God, also the Golden Fleece, religious fraudsters’ promise of heaven while enriching themselves with others’ money.

Later, Rael sees his “second sight of people,” the first having been those in “the grand parade of lifeless packaging,” while these new ones have “more lifeblood than before.” Nevertheless, they’re being no less exploited than the previous bunch, for they’re crawling like the insects “to a heavy wooden door/Where the needle eye is winking, closing on the poor.”

It’s the rich who aren’t supposed to be able to pass through the eye of a needle, not the poor. But in this Golden Fleece version of the Lamb of God, religion–the opium of the people–is being used to serve the rich.

Still, the masses mindlessly follow the voices of their corrupt religious leaders, crawling on the carpet like the self-destructing salamander and the fleas, all the little ones…the poor. The carpet crawlers are yet another grand parade of lifeless packaging; religion is used to serve the interests of capitalists.

While it is true that one can only get out of one’s problems by going through them, not avoiding them (“We’ve gotta get in to get out.”), in this case, the “callers” are drawing the carpet crawlers into a trap by chanting a mantra that, though true in itself, is being misused and applied in a way to lead the crawlers astray. The callers thus are false prophets, who twist true ideas out of context to deceive their followers by taking them in what only seems to be the right direction.

They’re being taken “to the ceiling where the chamber’s said to be.” Upwards to heaven, up into the light, which the trees crave. “Believing they are free,” the carpet crawlers mindlessly follow the voices of “their callers.”

Even the strongest of these people are lured to their destruction, for the meek here will not inherit the Earth (“Mild-mannered Supermen are held in Kryptonite.”). Gabriel’s lyric doesn’t seem to make a distinction between “the wise and foolish virgins,” the former of whom, according to the parable (Matthew 25:1-13), had enough light for their lamps when waiting to meet the bridegroom (God), while the latter didn’t prepare enough oil, and so they were excluded from the wedding banquet. Here, all carpet crawlers, strong and weak, wise and foolish, are led to ruin by their callers, not to heaven.

The chord progression of the chorus is, essentially, F-sharp minor, A major and G major twice, then D major, and C major leading out to the next verse.

XII: The Chamber of 32 Doors

Rael has gotten past the carpet crawlers, gone up a spiral staircase, and reached a chamber with 32 doors, There are people everywhere around him, “running around to all the doors.” They all want people to acknowledge them.

After all the religious chicanery of the callers tricking the carpet crawlers, as well as Rael’s failures with gang violence bringing about social change and with the book’s advice not pleasing the girl, Rael “need[s] someone to believe in, someone to trust.”

People in the country are more trustworthy than those in the city, for the former people’s eyes and smiles are more sincere. Someone who works with his hands, the proletariat, is more trustworthy. But Rael is down here, alone with his fear, alienated from everybody; every door he’s gone through brings him back to the beginning. He’s making no spiritual progress trying to follow the ways of others, so he must find his own way.

Everyone’s pointing where to go, even Rael’s mom and dad, “but nowhere feels quite right.” He still needs someone to believe in, someone to trust.

A man who doesn’t shout what he’s found is trustworthy. Such a man doesn’t need to sell his path to salvation, “he won’t take [Rael] for a ride.” The “chamber of so many doors” is thus just like the cage: Rael wants to get out–“take [him] away.”

XIII: Lilywhite Lilith

Just as he wants to get out of the chamber and away from all the people, so does a blind woman, “Lilywhite Lilith,” want help to get out. He guides her out of the crowd of people, and now that she can “feel the way the breezes blow,” she can show him where to go.

Rael is gaining an early insight as to how to find spiritual enlightenment and salvation. He will get the help he needs if he helps others and gives up his egoism.

She takes him “into a big, round cave,” and tells him not to be afraid. Just as she is blind, so is he in the darkness of the cave, sitting on a jade seat. Being in the darkness, in his fear, is like confronting his Jungian Shadow, in order to attain enlightenment.

The darkness is gone when two bright, golden globes float into the cave and hover above the ground.

XIV: The Waiting Room

This track is an instrumental. Tony Banks called it “the best jam [they] had in the rehearsal room,” and it was originally called “The Evil Jam.” The band apparently played in the dark, just making noises on their instruments, and this track resulted from their experimentation. It was quite frightening.

You really get a sense–from all of the spooky, eerie sounds the band is making that Rael is waiting in a dark, scary place, in the belly of the whale again, so to speak, confronting the Shadow.

XV: Anyway

The song begins with a sad piano motif in G minor. Banks develops the wave-like, arpeggiated motif by replacing its perfect fifth with ascending and descending minor sixths, major sixths, and minor sevenths. Gabriel comes in singing of Rael’s experience of impending death, trapped under a cave-in of rocks.

Gabriel’s lyric uses a number of metaphors to refer indirectly to death. It’s “time to meet the chef,” who I assume is supposed to be God. “It’s back to ash,” as in ‘ashes to ashes, dust to dust.’ Rael has had his “flash,” the brief light of life. He’s heard that Death “comes on a pale horse” (Revelation 6:8), yet he’s sure he hears a train, which can be associated with death in dreams and poetry. He feels “the pull on the rope,” which is a hangman’s noose. He’ll “stretch for God’s elastic Acre,” which comes from the German Gottesacker, an ancient designation for a burial ground.

Rael imagines he’ll keep his deadline [!] with his Maker, that is, meet God in heaven. Anyway, he’s not really dying; he’s just going through that maddening confrontation with his Shadow, and so it feels like dying. Accordingly, the musical tension is heightened, with Banks playing those mournful piano arpeggios much faster, backed up by the band. Hackett adds some harmonized, overdubbed guitar leads.

XVI: Here Comes the Supernatural Anaesthetist

We hear some 12-string guitar strumming in A major, then Gabriel comes in (with Collins’s backing vocals) singing about personified Death as “the Supernatural Anaesthetist.” He just puffs a toxic powder into your face, you breathe it in, and die. As “a fine dancer,” he’d be doing the danse macabre, I assume.

What comes after this one, four-line verse is an instrumental passage, also in A major, that is rather upbeat for something that’s supposed to be about Rael’s death. Indeed, Hackett plays a sweet lead of C-sharp, D, C-sharp, B, and C-sharp. the fact is that Rael is not really dying; the whole thing was just a hallucination, like a really bad drug trip.

XVII: The Lamia

Since there’s a dialectical relationship between Eros and Thanatos, or the life (sex) and death drives, then it seems fitting to juxtapose Rael’s near-death experience with a sexual encounter.

Out of the cave, Rael finds himself in a pool with three Lamia, the tops of whom are beautiful women, but instead of having legs, each has a snake’s tail. Rael makes love with them, after which they would consume him, but it is the three who die after drinking some of his blood. He eats their corpses and leaves.

The point behind his sexual encounter with and mutual eating of the Lamia is that these acts represent Rael’s giving into the animal side of himself, his bestial, sexual nature. This is the symbolism behind Gabriel’s choice of Lamia, half-woman, half-snake, for his story. Rael must learn from the mistake of giving in to sensual pleasure…and he will learn this the hard way.

XVIII: Silent Sorrow in Empty Boats

This track is another instrumental. Mostly keyboards, Hackett’s leads are put through a volume pedal, and Collins plays a little percussion. Very dreamy, melancholy music. The party of sensual pleasure is over for Rael, so like a drug addict who is coming down from the peak of his high, Rael is feeling the depression that inevitably comes when he realizes the pleasure he’s so attached to is impermanent.

XIX: The Colony of Slippermen

The instrumental intro of this track sounds like an imitation of Chinese or Japanese music–plucked guitar strings sound like those of a koto or zheng. Collins hits wood blocks, which again give an Asian effect. It’s a unique moment in the history of the musical style of Genesis. Why the band chose to play the intro like this I don’t know: are we meant to think that Rael has wandered into the Chinatown section of New York City?

After this intro, the music suddenly changes to a light, upbeat sound, with Banks playing the organ over a shuffle rhythm. I find it intriguing that Genesis chose such a happy theme given what we’re soon to learn what’s happened to Rael as a result of his sexual union with the Lamia. The upbeat theme seems to represent his blissful ignorance of something that will soon shock him.

Gabriel begins singing with a quote of the first line of the famous William Wordsworth poem about daffodils. Again, the association with the poem reinforces this odd sense of everything being positive…when all that Rael has to do to know he has nothing to be happy about is look in a mirror.

Indeed, instead of “all at once, [seeing] a crowd/A host of golden daffodils,” as in Wordsworth’s poem, Rael had “never seen a stranger crowd” of Slippermen, with skin “all covered in slimy lumps,” and “twisted limbs like rubber stumps.” Rael is told that they all made love with the Lamia, too, who made them look as grotesque as they do, and therefore, he now looks the same as they do.

Naturally, Rael is horrified to realize this, and the music changes, with some synthesizer playing, to reflect this shocking realization.

All of this section of the song has been Part I: the Arrival. Rael must join his brother John with Doktor Dyper in Part II: A Visit to the Doktor. What has happened to Rael and the Slippermen is essentially the catching of a sexually transmitted disease, for which the only cure, apparently, is…emasculation.

So, Doktor Dyper emasculates both Rael and John, and Rael looks normal again…except that both he and John have their penises in tubes that they wear as pendants around their necks. The point is that Rael’s desire and indulgence in pleasure (his union with the Lamia) have made him ugly (like the Slippermen). Emasculation represents a renunciation of physical pleasure so Rael can progress spiritually.

Part III: The Raven He still feels some attachment, naturally, if not physically, to his penis. This is when a raven appears and snatches his tube. Rael asks John for help, and not getting it, runs after the raven as it flies away, but he’s never able to retrieve the tube, for the raven–far off ahead–drops the tube in some water at the bottom of a ravine, and all Rael can do is helplessly watch the tube float away.

John’s indifference to Rael’s need for help is just like his indifference when Rael was in the cage. This cool reaction hurts Rael, but what he must learn is that it’s not about people caring about him: he has to learn how to care about others.

He also has to learn how to let go of his attachments and desires, as represented by what’s in the tube.

XX: Ravine

This track is another instrumental. It’s essentially Banks playing melancholy music on a synthesizer. One imagines Rael standing at the top of a ravine, looking down where his lost penis was dropped in the water. He’s staring down at the abyss. One may ask if he’ll ever be a man again, and one hears the raven’s answer: “Nevermore.”

XXI: The Light Dies Down on Broadway

Fittingly, much of the music for this track is thematically similar to that of the title track, for at this point in the story, Rael has come full circle. He sees a window in the rock of part of the ravine wall, and in this window he can see New York City: his home!

Once again, this is a temptation of his selfish instincts, for he’ll be left with a difficult choice: escape this hellish world and be free, or sacrifice the fleeting opportunity and help his brother in need. In this dilemma of his, we can see a link in meaning between “the lamb lies down” and “the light dies down”: Jesus as the Lamb of God and as the Light of the world gave His life for His friends (John 15:13). Rael as a Christ-figure must do the same for his brother, John, representative of all our brothers and sisters, all of humanity.

The lamb lies down, dead, and the light dies down, dead.

The surreal world Rael feels trapped in seems fake because of its fantastical qualities, yet it is the real world of his New York City home that is fake, the Broadway world of theatricality and phony performance, the stage that is the world.

XXII: Riding the Scree

Not only does Rael have to give up his chance to go through the window and back to New York City, but he also has to risk his life slipping down the loose rocks of the scree along the side of the ravine if he wants to get to drowning John in the water below.

Still, he chooses to be brave and go down to save his brother’s life. He imagines himself much braver than even Evel Knievel.

The music is largely in 9/8 time, the subdivisions of the beats being tricky and ambivalent in how they could be heard as 4+5 or 3+3+3. Banks does some flamboyant synthesizer soloing.

XXIII: In the Rapids

This is where Rael has to confront a turbulent, chaotic, unpredictable world, a kind of hell that is the only way that leads to heaven. For to save oneself, one must be willing to save others.

The turbulent hell of the rapids, where he must swim to rescue drowning John, is symbolic of the undifferentiated, non-verbalizable Chaos of what Lacan called The Real–a fitting place for a man named Rael to enter, since he will soon become one with this Void.

This climactic moment, of course, is also what is depicted in the photos on the front cover of the album: specifically, the left photo showing John being pulled by Rael out of the rapids. For the great climactic moment of the story, though, it’s odd that the music would begin with soft, gentle 12-string guitar playing.

The emotion and the volume build, of course, towards the end, where Rael has succeeded in pulling his brother out and back onto land. We realize at the end of all of this, though, that the real climax of the story is not Rael’s brave self-sacrifice and his defying of the danger in the water: it’s his realization, upon seeing John’s face on the land, that he’s seeing himself. It’s like looking in a mirror. In saving John, Rael has saved himself.

XXIV: It

Now with the polarized sides of himself fused, Rael–as a complete human being, complete with John as the complementary good half of him–can feel his Atman, “It,” linked with everybody and everything around him. Hence, the victorious, triumphant, rejoicing music.

“It” is described as being a host of diverse things: cold, warm, all around Rael, and most importantly, “It is here. It is now.” It is Brahman, the pantheistic oneness underlying everything. Rael has attained the nirvana of Brahman, absolute bliss and blessedness.

Other things that are part of “It,” include any food “cooking in your hometown,” “chicken,” “eggs,” and what’s “in between your legs,” that is, sexuality–even that can be a part of It.

“It” is inside spirit, too…literally, so it is in both the physical and spiritual realms, and as spirit, the essence that can be known to be manifested in so many different kinds of things, “It” is the divine spark of everything–Brahman.

That It is here and now also emphasizes the immanence of the divinity, to be understood as a pantheistic concept, not a monotheistic idea, a divinity separate from humanity. “It never stays in one place, but it’s not a passing phase.” It’s eternal, but always moving. As Heraclitus said, “Everything flows.”

A useful connection to be made with “It” that can make the meaning clearer is to compare the idea with a concept in a famous passage in the Chandogya Upanishad. “Tat Tvam Asi,” or “That thou art,” is a famous expression a Hindu spiritual teacher, Uddalaka, says of a number of things to his son, Śvetaketu, to get him to understand how “that” is in everything…even in his son. So we can say that “it” here is “that.”

This is significant when we hear Gabriel sing, “It is real. It is Rael.” “It” is real, in that it is the truth. It can also be compared to the Lacanian concept of the undifferentiated, ineffable Void mentioned above. It is also Rael, because his Atman is now at one with Brahman. Yes, Rael, that art thou!

As often happens throughout TLLDOB, Gabriel makes a reference to a popular song: in this case, “It’s Only Rock ‘n’ Roll (But I Like It),” by the Rolling Stones; but Gabriel sings, “It’s only knock and know-all, but I like it.” “Knock” seems to refer to the pain of life, the school of hard knocks; “know-all” seems to mean Rael’s attainment of enlightenment, from having been absorbed into the oneness. It’s painful, but he likes it.

XXV: Conclusion

TLLDOB is a difficult album to understand conceptually, but an ultimately explicable one. As I said above, Gabriel’s obscurantism is valid because the story is about understanding the deeper mysteries of life.

Rael’s character arc is a voyage of self-discovery and enlightenment. He must learn that being angry and violent is no solution to his problems. Learning to see beyond himself and to help others is the solution.

The surrealism of the story is an expression of the non-rational, symbolic world of the unconscious mind. That Rael would become one with Brahman suggests a shift to the collective unconscious.

All of these things tell us that TLLDOB is a universal story with themes we can all relate to…despite Gabriel’s idiosyncratic way of telling it.

The Tanah: Troughs–Chapter One

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

Translator’s Introduction

The ancient tribe that wrote the books of the Tanah conceived of history as a series of crests and troughs, the former being periods of good fortune, and the latter being periods of bad fortune. The writers chose to collect the major troughs of their sacred history and narrate the happenings of each in the chapters of this book, and to collect the major crests of that history and tell of them in the chapters of the next book.

The beginnings of these books of crests and troughs deal with those current to the writers at the time of writing; that is, the first chapters of each deal with the enslavement of the Luminosians by the Zoyans (Troughs), and their prophesied liberation (Crests).

Subsequent chapters in each book deal with scenarios believed to happen hundreds of years after the writing: a trough of servitude to wealthy owners of land, what reads like a prophecy of feudalism; then, a crest will come, liberating the people from this servitude. A final trough concerns a world with increasing and extreme wealth inequality, with authoritarian states that use violence to keep the masses in check, and various methods of lulling the masses into docility and complacency, again, to keep them in check–that is, breads and circuses. It prophesies a world disturbingly close to our own, so accurate is its prescience.

As for the corresponding crest meant to lift the world out of that distant, dystopian future, there is an ambiguity to it as to whether the future world will be saved by the leadership of some messiah-like figure, or if the Earth’s only salvation will be a kind of Armageddon, killing and wiping out all of human, animal, and plant life, leading to a far-off, gradual regeneration of life in a completely new form. Again, the prophecy seems chillingly prescient.

Chapter One

Woe to us Luminosians! Our punishment is just!

We have been under the yoke of the Zoyans for ten years now, and no end to our misery is in sight! We only know that a crest will one day come to liberate us, yet it seems so far away from us.

We toil, we dig, we build, we break up rock, we serve meals to and clean for our betters, the Zoyans. We do all of these tasks as just punishment for our wicked and selfish use of magic, turning the once-benevolent Crims against us! We deserve our suffering!

The Zoyans degrade us because we degraded others. They conquered us because we conquered others. They make us slaves because we made slaves of others. They use our women for their sexual sport because we used the women of others for our sexual sport. The Echo Effect taught us of these dangers, but we would not listen.

These hard times that we must endure are a trough. A trough is part of a wave, and therefore a crest will come. Ill fortune is no more permanent than good fortune is. A trough will move up into a crest just as surely as a crest will move down into another trough.

We cannot know how long this trough will last. We only know that, one day, the wave will begin to rise again. Will that day come tomorrow? Will it come next week? Next month? Next year? In how many years will it come? In how many decades will it come?

We do not know any of this. We only know that the wave will rise again into a crest. We must therefore be patient, have faith, and endure.

So for now, we must continue to do our work, as hateful as it is. We must continue to toil, to dig, to build, to break up rock, to serve meals and clean for our betters, the Zoyans. We must do all of these tasks as penance for having made others do these tasks for us one time in the past, what had been a crest for us.

We must remember: if the beginning of a new crest has not come yet, it is because our penance for our own sins is not yet complete. It will be complete one day: we must have faith, and be patient. The Crims know when that day will be, and we know that they are faithful to us.

Analysis of ‘The Serpent and the Rainbow’

The Serpent and the Rainbow is a 1988 horror movie directed by Wes Craven. The screenplay was by Richard Maxwell and Adam Rodman, loosely based on the non-fiction book of the same name by Wade Davis (for a comparison of the book with the film, which added the political element, go here). The film stars Bill Pullman, with Cathy Tyson, Zakes Mokae, Paul Winfield, Brent Jennings, Michael Gough, and Paul Guilfoyle.

Roger Ebert gave TSATR three out of four stars, praising Pullman’s performance and the “stunning” visuals, while also noting the the story took the religion of voodoo more seriously than most horror movies, which merely used it as a “gimmick.”

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

Davis, on whose character the anthropologist Dr. Dennis Alan (Pullman) is based, is an ethnobotanist and anthropologist whose book recounts his experiences in Haiti as he investigated what happened to Clairivius Narcisse–on whose character Christophe Durand (played by Conrad Roberts) is based–who was allegedly poisoned, buried alive, and revived with an herbal brew that made him into a “zombie.” A practitioner of voodoo allegedly did this to Narcisse, making him into a slave.

Though TSATR is marketed as a horror film, Craven saw it as more of a political drama with an exploration of the voodoo religion. The one who poisoned and enslaved Narcisse was a bokor, or Haitian Vodou priest “practicing for both good and evil” and creating “zombies.” In the film, Christophe is made into a zombie by Captain Dargent Peytraud (Mokae), commander of the Tonton Macoute–the secret police of right-wing Haitian dictator Jean-Claude “Baby Doc” Duvalier–and a bokor, thus making him the villain of the film. The screenwriters’ creation of Peytraud is the one on whom the added political element of the film is centred.

Christophe is made into a zombie because, though a mere grade school teacher, he spoke out for the people, for freedom, and this of course was a threat to Duvalier and Peytraud. The terror of the bokor poisoning, live burial, and zombification of dissidents and political agitators like Christophe is how the right-wing dictatorship of Haiti keeps the people intimidated and well under control.

According to Haitian legend, the Serpent represents Earth (how like the Midgard Serpent of Norse myth, which bites its own tail while circling the Earth!), and the Rainbow is Heaven. We all live and die between the Serpent and the Rainbow. Because we have souls, though, we can be trapped in a state between life and death, the zombie-state that Christophe suffers because Peytraud has stolen his soul. Live burial is also part of that hell of being between life and death, which leads me to my next point.

TSATR exploits a deep fear many of us have, taphophobia, the irrational fear of being buried alive. The history of this fear in the West is well-documented in the book Buried Alive: The Terrifying History of Our Most Primal Fear, by Jan Bondeson, which gives examples of many who were so afraid of being accidentally pronounced dead and unintentionally buried alive that one would have strings attached to bells above ground that the buried living could ring by pulling the string going all the way down into the coffin.

Peytraud’s live burials, of course, are not accidental, but as I said above, are a cruel act of intimidation and control. They make their victims experience a kind of living death, as does Peytraud’s stealing of the victims’ souls. In our experience of not only imperialism but also its boomerang now affecting the imperial core, we too–that is, the global proletariat–experience a living death of wage slavery while elites get away with atrocities…they’ve stolen our souls.

This ‘living death’ idea brings me to a discussion of a recurring theme in this film: duality and the merging of opposites. Apart from the unity of life and death, there are also the unities of the First World and the Third World, of white people and people of colour (not just the blacks of Haiti, but also the Amazon shaman seen towards the beginning of the movie), of houngans and bokors (respectively, good and evil voodoo priests, for the purposes of this film–namely, Lucien Celine [Winfield] and Peytraud), body and soul, the Serpent and the Rainbow (earthly and heavenly existence), Catholic ‘monotheism’ and voodoo ‘paganism,’ science and religion, Erzulie and the Virgin Mary (as Mater Dolorosa in particular), tyranny and revolution, even genius and idiocy.

These opposites merge, overlap, and interact with each other in a yin-and-yang, dialectical way. White Dr. Alan, an American from Harvard University, goes to the Global South (first, to the Amazon, then to Haiti) to get local drugs and bring them to the First World for use as medicines and anesthetics. It’s said that he and the people he finds the drugs for (e.g., Dr. Andrew Cassedy [Guilfoyle], head of Boston Biocorp, a pharmaceutical company, and Dr. Earl Schoonbacher [Gough], a consultant for the pharmaceutical company) have only altruistic motives in providing these drugs for the world–saving countless numbers of patients on the operating table from death because of anesthetic shock. Let’s be frank, though: in their use of these Third World drugs, the pharmaceutical businesses of the First World hope to rake in huge profits. Alan’s explorations are for exploitation.

When Schoonbacher wonders if the Haitian “zombie drug” could give proof of the existence of the soul, Alan scoffs at the idea, asking where in the ‘car,’ if you will, of the human body the soul resides, and insisting it “begins and ends with the brain.” When in Haiti, in conversations with Dr. Marielle Duchamp (Tyson) about the voodoo faith–in which she sees no conflict between religion and science–Alan hears that the Haitian God isn’t just up in heaven, but also in their bodies, their flesh (in the Serpent as well as in the Rainbow, in other words). When found in the graveyard at night, Christophe tells Alan that the zombie drug is a powder blown on people’s faces: it runs through the skin to the soul. Body and soul are one–the latter is indeed in the physicality of the brain, as Alan atheistically intuited.

Many Christians like to contrast their faith as sharply as possible with that of pagans, though the places of comparison and similarity are obvious. This close connection is even more obvious in how, as Duchamp tells Alan, “Haiti is 85% Catholic, but 110% voodoo. For [them], Erzulie and the Virgin Mary are the same.” Erzulie is a family of loa, or spirits, in Vodou. They are feminine, and Erzulie Fréda Dahomey, a spirit of love and beauty, is often identified with the Mater Dolorosa. Note that Mary is chaste, but Erzulie is flirtatious and seductive of both sexes. Mary suffers, but Erzulie has fun. Lust and chastity are one, as are desire and suffering (as the Buddhists would also observe of the latter pair). It’s significant that, immediately after Duchamp immerses Alan in the spirituality and culture of voodoo, the two make love. Not long after their lovemaking, Alan will be terrorized by Peytraud, with that nail in the scrotum.

To pursue that topic further, Haitians are being tyrannized and terrorized by Peytraud’s government precisely because the country is on the verge of revolution, and therefore of ensuing freedom (Could this be the near future of the US?). It’s always darkest before the dawn, a resurrection after death–like Christophe’s…and Alan’s.

In a Haitian man aptly named Louis Mozart (Jennings), we see the dialectical link between genius and idiocy. He’s brilliant enough to know the exact procedure to make the zombie drug, but when he unsuccessfully tries to con Alan out of hundreds of dollars for a fake drug, Alan–not one so easily conned–calls Mozart “an idiot” to his face, thus pushing Mozart to show Alan the process of making the real drug.

Later, when Alan is forced to leave Haiti on a trumped-up murder charge, while he’s on the airplane and ready to take off, Mozart comes up to him and gives him a jar of the powder for free (and a watch), foolishly hoping Alan will make him famous by telling the world he is the maker of the zombie drug. His foolish helping of Alan will in turn lead to him being beheaded by Peytraud’s men.

Let’s return to the death and resurrection theme. Note the apt naming of Christophe, Peytraud’s ‘dying and resurrecting’ victim. Since TSATR is at least as much a political thriller as it is a horror film, it’s useful to put its Christ symbolism in its proper political context, as I did in my analysis of the Christ myth. Please look at that article for the full argument of that political context, as a complete repetition of it is beyond the scope of this article. In brief, the point is this: the Jesus of history never intended to create a new religion with himself worshipped as divine; he was a Torah-adhering Jew who, seeing himself as the Messiah in the Jewish sense, tried to rise up in revolution against Palestine’s Roman oppressors and failed.

Christophe’s speaking up for the rights of the Haitian people also ended in failure, with him being drugged with the zombie powder, pronounced dead, buried alive, then revived, a Christ-like death and resurrection of sorts. As Duchamp tells Alan, Christophe once inspired courage, but now as a ‘zombie,’ he only inspires fear.

Jesus’ followers were similarly demoralized upon knowing of his arrest and crucifixion, losing all hope until believing in his resurrection. As I argued in my article on Christ (link above), we leftists can see in the Christ myth an allegory in which His death and resurrection represent failed attempts at revolution that then are revived with new hope and ultimate success. In TSATR, we can see similarly crushed and revived hopes in Christophe’s live burial and revival, then Alan’s, and the final defeat of Peytraud and revolutionary overthrow of Duvalier, freeing all of Haiti.

Interactions in TSATR between the First and Third Worlds, and between whites and blacks, are interesting enough to warrant further discussion. Imperialist incursions into the Global South to extract resources and exploit them for the benefit of the rich countries is common enough, of course, and Alan’s forays into the Amazon and Haiti for this purpose are no exception. An interesting irony, though, is in how we see a lone white man in a country of blacks, we see him terrorized by their government, and his home country is even ‘invaded,’ as it were, through Peytraud’s possession of Cassedy’s wife (played by Dey Young) at the dinner table–during the party after Alan’s return to the US. Peytraud’s attack thus is a kind of ‘inverse imperialism.’

In Dr. Alan’s first meeting with Peytraud, in his office outside of which one can hear the groans of the tortured enemies of the regime, Alan is given a simple warning not to continue nosing around Haiti with “a radical” like Duchamp, or inquiring about Christophe. Peytraud talks about the volatile political situation in Haiti, and how setting things off could return the country to slavery, as it had been with the French. We’re thus reminded of the successful black slave revolt in Haiti that sent shockwaves throughout the Western imperial world at the time, on an island just southeast of the then-slave-owning United States.

To justify his iron-fisted rule of Haiti with Duvalier, Peytraud tells Alan that the US government would like to see anarchy in Haiti (thereby giving them a pretext to take over the country and rule it with an iron fist of their own). He reminds the American Alan that Haiti isn’t Grenada, where US imperialism in 1983 crushed the people’s revolution, established in 1979 as the only Marxist-Leninist government in the British Commonwealth.

The American government under Reagan was content to have right-wing, anticommunist Duvalier ruling Haiti, for obvious reasons. If the Haitian poor were to liberate themselves from him and the likes of Peytraud, their revolution would soon backfire and lead to even worse oppression from the white West, as Peytraud reasons–hence, the ‘necessity’ of his rule with an iron fist.

So in the references to the Haitian Revolution, the Grenada revolution and counterrevolution, and the current oppression of Haitians under Duvalier, Peytraud, et al, we can see the intermingling of white imperialism in Haiti with the black Haitian pushback against it, even to the point of Peytraud’s magic going all the way to the US, infiltrating the dinner party with Alan, Schoonbacher, and the Cassedys, a kind of ‘inverse imperialism,’ if you will.

Just as I spoke of the merging of opposites in TSATR (like that of imperialism and anti-imperialism mentioned in the previous paragraphs), so is there lots of just plain duality in the film. Its very title evokes duality (heaven and earth), as does that of Romeo and Juliet, which incidentally also involves a drug to make her seem dead, and thus also involves a live burial.

Alan seeks out two drugs: one from the Amazon shaman at the beginning, then one from Mozart in Haiti. There’s the historical Haitian Revolution Peytraud alludes to, and the final Haitian revolution at the end of the movie. There’s Christophe’s live burial and zombification, and there’s Alan’s. There’s the dual Catholic/voodoo syncretic religion. There’s the nail piercing Alan’s scrotum, and there’s the revenge nail piercing of Peytraud’s crotch. There’s the good voodoo priest, Celine, and the evil priest, Peytraud. There’s Alan’s lovemaking with Duchamp (in bed, as it were, though not literally), and there’s him in bed with Christophe’s decapitated sister. There are two women momentarily possessed by spirits: Duchamp dancing in Celine’s tourist nightclub, and Mrs. Cassedy attacking Alan with a knife at the dinner table.

The duality of the nail piercings in the crotch need closer attention now. The P, t, and r of Peytraud come across almost as a pun on one of the possible inflections of pater–that is, patri, patre, etc., or “father” in Latin. The nail piercing of Alan’s scrotum is symbolically castration, reminding us of the punitive father of Freud‘s castration complex, or the father who threatens his son with castration for wanting his mother.

I’m not saying that that’s what’s going on between Alan and Peytraud, either literally or symbolically. The point of the association I’m making here is that Peytraud’s authoritarian bullying of Alan and the Haitians is like that of a cruel, tyrannical father, a Kleinian bad father, as opposed to the good father as seen in Lucien Celine.

Another point of comparison with Peytraud as the bad father is with the primordial sky-father king gods of Greek myth: Ouranos and Cronus in particular. Ouranos had his children imprisoned in a secret place in Gaea‘s body; Cronus ate his children. These two gods, fearful of being overthrown and losing their power, oppressed their children just as paternalistic Peytraud oppresses the Haitians and Alan–anyone who is a threat to him.

But just as a father can be castrating (literally or symbolically), so can a son. As I explained in my analysis of the Ancient Greek creation myth, not only did Cronus castrate his father, Ouranos, while liberating his imprisoned Titan children, so–according to an uncensored version of the story as recalled by Freud (page 469), John Tzetzes, and Robert Graves–did Zeus castrate his father, Cronus, upon freeing the eaten Olympian gods. These violent but liberating acts can be paralleled with Alan’s vengeful driving of the nail into Peytraud’s groin and the liberation of Haiti from Duvalier.

The point I’m trying to make here is that associating Peytraud with a cruel father reinforces, in a psychological sense, how oppressive he is to Alan and the Haitians. He attacks Alan and Christophe, like God the Father (in an evil Demiurge sense) sending God the Son to die, be buried in the tomb, then resurrected. Peytraud attacks them because he is threatened by them, the way a man with the Laius complex is afraid of being supplanted by his son.

Peytraud is so threatened by Alan, a white American and therefore of the imperial core, that even with him kicked out of Haiti and back in the US, he must be terrorized all the way back there, too. I mentioned above how Peytraud fears an American intervention if the Duvalier government is overthrown and the country descends into anarchy. He feels he must coax Alan back into Haiti so he can make a zombie out of him. Hence, what happens at the dinner party with Schoonbacher and the Cassedys. Part of the irony I mentioned above, of the ‘inverted imperialism’ of Peytraud’s possession of Mrs. Cassedy, is how at the dinner party there’s a black servant, Albert, who speaks with a Caribbean accent. The whites are his master, yet Peytraud is the whites’ master there, too. The imperial boomerang goes both ways.

Yet another merging of opposites occurs in how, at the very darkest (quite literally so) moment of the film, Alan’s live burial, the revolutionary overthrow of Duvalier also happens. The Christian symbolism is powerful: Alan is experiencing a kind of harrowing of hell, not just in the terror of being in that blackness (like those hellish near-death experiences many talk about), gasping and screaming upon reviving from the zombie drug, but also in his zombification, Peytraud’s stealing of his soul. Yet this is just when the salvation of Haiti begins. It’s like Satan knowing he’s lost upon Christ’s death on the Cross.

Could we now, upon learning of the total depths of depravity of our global ruling class, be–in our boiling collective rage–on the cusp of a revolution? Could the bitten tail of the ouroboros of our current oppression soon dialectically switch over to the biting head of our liberation? Could my oft-used symbol of the dialectical unity of opposites, that auto-cannibalistic serpent, be leading us to a rainbow?

Analysis of ‘Friday the 13th’

I’m going to focus on the first two films of the franchise, since I’m primarily concerned with the relationship between Pamela Voorhees (Betsy Palmer) and her son, Jason, as well as the implications I see in it. Also, by the third film, the format for all of them has been established, and has thus become too redundant to go over the storyline of every movie.

We all know the format: either Jason or his mother (or copycat killer Roy Burns), violently kills off a number of young adults at or near Camp Crystal Lake, or at Chris Higgins‘s local homestead, or in a halfway house where Tommy Jarvis is, or in Manhattan, or in a spacecraft in the future, or in the Springwood, Ohio setting of the Nightmare on Elm Street franchise. Where the killings happen doesn’t really matter, as it’s all just an indulgent blood-fest, typically with the final girl trope.

Let’s be frank: the films are good mindless fun and entertainment (emphasis on mindless), but the critics are right to deride them. They’re schlocky slasher films, intended only to capitalize on the success of far superior slasher films like Halloween, Black Christmas, The Texas Chain Saw Massacre, or Psycho, the sequels even more so meant to capitalize on the success of the first Friday the 13th.

Still, however, there must be a way to explain how popular these films are with the masses so that one doesn’t insult the intelligence of Friday‘s fans. I’d like to attempt such an explanation, with an understanding that the basic elements are there, if so unconsciously, to make a good premise…if only the execution, as well as the development of the themes I’m about to discuss, was done better, without such an emphasis on just kill, kill, kill…ma, ma, ma.

I’m a strong believer in the power of the unconscious mind, and while I’m sure the screenwriters of these movies only consciously meant to create simple stories of a killer on a bloody rampage, with the intent of gaining maximum box office success, I believe there are archetypal elements deep inside the collective psyche that got put into these films (especially the first few, before things got too self-indulgent) regardless of conscious intent.

To uncover what these elements are, we first need to examine the motives behind Pamela’s and Jason’s bloodlust. In dialectical contrast to their murderous hatred of anyone they meet, they have the deepest, most intense mother/son love you could imagine…and mother/son love has already been traditionally idealized as the greatest love of all.

The evil comes in, however, when we consider how the love of this mother/son dyad is a narcissistic one, based on a feeling that each of them is just an extension and mirror-reflection of the other. The two are trapped in Lacan‘s Imaginary, incapable of and unwilling to go out into the healthier social and cultural world of the Symbolic. Hence, anybody else out there, the Other rather than the other, is just to be killed.

Other rationalizations for the killings include a moral abomination of the ‘sinfulness’ of the camp counsellors–enjoying premarital sex, smoking weed, the public indecency of playing strip Monopoly or wandering around outside in one’s panties. Tied to this sinfulness is a belief that the children at summer camp won’t be adequately watched–hence, Jason’s drowning.

Thus, Camp Crystal Lake must never be reopened, and any attempt to do so by these sinful camp counsellors will necessitate their deaths. OK, apart from the Lacanian stuff I mentioned above, we all know this–I’m just reviewing the basics here…but what does it all mean?

Here’s where my interpretation comes in. Now, since art, properly understood, is a dialogue between the artist and the audience–not just an artist saying his or her ‘only meaning’ for the creation, but a meaning evolved and developed between the artist and audience through a back-and-forth of creation and interpretation–I feel free to interpret the meaning of these movies in my way. (I also hope my interpretation can elevate the movies a bit…if at all possible.) Here goes…

Ever notice how Jason could be heard as a pun on Jesu (as in “Joy of Man’s Desiring”)? You should see where I’m going with this, Dear Reader.

Note how the superstition behind Friday the 13th is associated with the Last Supper, in which Judas Iscariot is often considered the 13th guest, and the day after was Good Friday, when Christ was killed. Judas betrayed Jesus, as the camp counsellors betrayed Jason (in his mother’s opinion, at least).

Camp Crystal Lake (the name being a pun on Christ) can be associated with the Garden of Eden, where sin lost us paradise. Naked Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit has been seen as symbolic of sex, just like the camp counsellors taking off their clothes and going about publicly in their underwear (think of Genesis 2:25), or having sex. If Adam and Eve eat of that fruit, on that day they shall surely die (Genesis 2:17); they die metaphorically on that day, losing their innocence; the counsellors die literally on that day for publicly undressing, having sex, and smoking pot. Steven Christy (Peter Brouwer), who would suffer the little children to come unto him (Mark 10:14), that is, to come to his summer camp, has a surname that is another pun on Christ.

The point I’m trying to make here, which should be obvious to you by now, Dear Reader, is that Mrs. Voorhees and her son are a perverse Madonna and Child. That deep love between a mother and her son is epitomized in all of that old Christian iconography.

By seeing Jason as an evil Jesus, I’m not calling him the Antichrist of the Book of Revelation (Go to this horror movie for that.). I mean instead that Jason and his mother, in murdering sinners rather than preaching repentance and forgiving them, represent the oppressive, authoritarian aspects of the Church. Jesus saves, but Jason slays. Some call Mary the Co-redeemer, but Pamela Voorhees is, if you will, the Co-reddener.

If Camp Crystal Lake is the Garden of Eden, then she and her son also represent the cherubim, their knives, axes, and machetes representing the flaming sword to keep the sinners out of paradise (Genesis 3:24). The purity and innocence of the place must be protected from fornicators and pot-heads, for the sake of children like Jason.

The rationalization for the Voorhees terror, therefore, is to protect children from danger and death, yet this ‘protection’ hypocritically involves danger and death. The Voorhees’s ‘Church’ is really just a front for the most reactionary of conservative thinking. The camp counsellors aren’t even moderate leftists: they’re just liberals who want to be able to relax and have a good time every now and then. Pamela, like any far right-winger, expects the staff of Camp Crystal Lake to be working non-stop to ensure the safety of the kids. If the staff slacks off at all, then like Amon Göth, she’ll pick them off one by one, but with a knife or axe instead of a rifle.

When I speak of a ‘perverse Madonna and Child,” I don’t mean it as a comment on religion and spirituality per se, but as representative of reactionary, conservative authoritarian thinking, how religion is used (if only symbolically in these movies) to justify power and control over others. The year the first film came out, in 1980, as well that of as its first sequel, 1981, is fitting given these were the first of the reactionary Reagan/Thatcher years.

Going into the mid-1980s, there was a debate on CNN’s Crossfire about whether or not PMRC censorship of popular music’s racier lyrics was valid; opposed to it, Frank Zappa also warned of the US moving in the direction of what he called a “fascist theocracy.” The two conservatives he was debating scoffed at him, but he didn’t say the US was already a fascist theocracy at the time: he said that “the Reagan administration…[was] steering us right down that pipe.” (Reagan, incidentally, had fundamentalist Christian beliefs and supported the religious right.)

Well, look at the US today, under Trump, with Roe vs Wade overturned (to protect the unborn child, ostensibly, but actually to curb ‘fornication’ and to control women’s reproductive systems), and with masked ICE men violently removing people from the ‘Camp Crystal Lake,’ if you will, of the US, and shooting in the face anyone who resists. How like Jason’s violence, with his goalie mask and murder weapons.

The notion of the deep love and connection between Mary and the Christ child is not, of course, limited to Christianity. Pagan notions of a mother-goddess and her son/consort abounded in the ancient world, in such forms as Isis and Horus. The relationship is archetypal…and narcissistic. Robert Graves dealt with the idea in The White Goddess when he said, “Woman worships the male infant, not the grown man: it is evidence of her deity, of man’s dependence on her for life.” Pamela’s undying love for Jason, which involved an unending quest to find new victims in whom to avenge his death, is an extension of her own narcissism.

Similarly, Jason in the sequels saw in his mother a metaphorical mirror of himself. He endlessly avenges her death, with new victims, as she did his. She and he are spiritually inseparable, just as the authoritarian leader and his mindless, jackbooted soldiers are, as ICE are for the US government. Properly understood, the son is virtually indistinguishable from the mother (at least in terms of will and motivation, if not in terms of other things, which I’ll go into soon enough), just as the mindless ICE agents do only the will of their fascist government, with no individual will of their own, obeying orders uncritically.

So indistinguishable is Mrs. Voorhees from Jason that at the beginning of Scream, Casey Becker (Drew Barrymore) confuses mother with son, incorrectly naming Jason as the killer in the first Friday movie and forgetting that he didn’t show up until the sequels. The same “ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma” echoed, reverberated whispering is heard in most of the films, regardless of whether mother or son is the killer.

That whispering–so often misheard as “chi, chi, chi, ha, ha, ha” because of the heavy echo, reverb, and distortion resulting from the whispering of “ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma” by film composer Harry Manfredini into a microphone, then running it through an Echoplex machine–is short for “Kill her, Mommy.” Pamela hears Jason saying this over and over in her head, her imitating the child’s high-pitched voice as she chases Alice Hardy (Adrienne King) during the climax of the first film. There are variations on the whispering in the sequels: in Part Two, for example, one usually hears only “ki, ki, ki,” and only occasionally “ma, ma, ma.”

The sameness or variation in the whispering doesn’t ultimately matter: the continuity underlines how Jason and his mother are spiritually, if not materially, one and the same person. The same is true of the ruling class and their thuggish soldiers (as I see them represented by the murderous mother and son), who often use religion and its priggish morality to justify their authoritarian grip on power.

So, when Mrs. Voorhees dies, Jason is to take over the killing duties. Accordingly, two months after her decapitation by Alice, Jason kills her in her kitchen with an ice pick in her temple after she sees the severed head of his mother in her fridge. Just as his mother avenged his death, he avenges hers.

Here’s the problem, though: if Jason never drowned, but she only thought he did (as the story was ret-conned), wouldn’t she have learned he never died soon enough? She had over twenty years to learn. If she knew the whole time, or much of or most of the time, wouldn’t that have deflated her rage enough not to kill (so many)? Also, how was adult Jason able to find where Alice was living?

I propose a different explanation, one that takes into account the Mary/Jesus symbolism discussed above, and which allows for the unavoidable supernatural element in these movies. He was resurrected, given an adult body, and had the clairvoyance to find where Alice was.

Why not resurrected? He was certainly resurrected in a number of the other sequels, and his ability to keep on living after other injuries, ones that should have been fatal, strongly implies supernatural abilities. I’d say Mom raised Jason from the dead, just as God raised Jesus from the dead (Romans 10:9). Similarly, just as the resurrected Christ had a spiritual body (1 Corinthians 15:42-44), one “imperishable” and “raised in power,” not weakness, so does Jason have an imperishable, powerful body, one whose growth to adulthood seems even to have been accelerated.

To get back to “ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma…”, who is saying it, really? Does Jason’s ghost say it to his mother in the first film, her imitating his voice as I described it above? In the sequels, does her ghost chant it in Jason’s mind, implying not only a psychic link between the two killers, but also that her chanting “ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma” in his mind’s ear means she’s calling him “Mommy,” thus further cementing my idea that the identity of the two is of only one spiritual presence?

In any case, as we know, Jason doesn’t talk at all: his voice is in his murder weapons (recall that amusing guest appearance he made on the Arsenio Hall Show to promote Jason Takes Manhattan).

His muteness, from a psychoanalytic viewpoint, is linked to his social isolation. Recall what I said above about his dyadic relationship with his mother, as a reflection of his being stuck in the narcissism of the Imaginary Order. To enter the social and cultural world of the Symbolic, one must use language. The Symbolic is the healthy world of human relationships.

That a deformed, mentally disabled child would have extreme difficulties being a part of the Symbolic and joining normal society would be an understatement. His drowning in the lake complicates matters further: it’s representative of not only never leaving the Imaginary, but also of being trapped in the traumatic, undifferentiated, inexpressible Chaos of Lacan’s Real Order.

The non-differentiated, formlessness of the lake is symbolic of the cosmic ocean, where all begins and ends (i.e., the Great Flood; consider also the rain storm in the first film as associated with the Deluge, after which the ‘sons of God’ lay with the ‘daughters of men’…that is, fornicated). Jason died in the lake, and Alice’s Carrie-like nightmare of him coming up at her in the boat and pulling her down in the water is also to be associated with the cosmic ocean as bringing us all back to death at the end of the world.

Just as Jason has supernatural abilities as I described above, and just as his mother is intolerant of sexual indulgence, so were Carrie and her religious fanatic mother respectively, hence how fitting it was to add Alice’s Carrie-like nightmare to the end of the first movie. As for Part III‘s ending, it’s fitting for Chris Higgins (Dana Kimmell) to have a similar nightmare of Mrs. Voorhees coming up from the water and dragging her from her boat into it, even though Chris doesn’t seem to know (oddly, considering how close she is to Camp Crystal Lake) who Jason or his mother are. The point is that it further reinforces how Jason and his mother are one, especially in the undifferentiated, traumatizing Chaos-Real of the water.

At the climax of Part II, Ginny Field (Amy Steel) discovers Jason’s shrine of his mother (how like one of these, if you will!), with her severed head. Knowing the ‘legend’ of him seeing Alice decapitate his mother and him seeking revenge (as she had for him), Ginny stands before Pamela’s head to block its view from Jason, her wearing Pamela’s old sweater. Using her wits and knowledge of child psychology, Ginny takes a gamble impersonating Mrs. Voorhees, appealing to his sense of filial duty and obedience to his mother (“Jason, Mother is talking to you!”). The only human relationship he can understand is one of power and authority. The only reason he’ll listen to her, and not kill her, is that she, as his mother (and also as a reflection/extension of himself), has absolute power over him.

Mindless killers like him (police, the military, ICE, etc.) similarly see human relationships only in this hierarchical sense. If you’re ‘beneath’ me, I can beat and kill you; if you’re ‘above’ me, you can beat and kill me. There is no sense of reciprocity, no mutuality, no connection, no communication.

Within my framework of Jason and his mother as a perverse version of Jesus and Mary, it’s ironic that ‘the Word made flesh’ speaks no words in these movies. (“Ki, ki, ki, ma, ma, ma” would just be the voice of a ghost ringing in his head, not him talking.) Instead, Jason, in his Oedipal relationship with Mrs. Voorhees, speaks only in the primitive, pre-verbal form of communication–as Wilfred Bion conceptualized it–of projective identification and negative containment (as symbolized by all the stabbings and slashing).

Normally, a mother contains her baby’s agitations and distress through a soothing process Bion called maternal reverie. The container, ♀︎, is yonic in symbolism; the contained, ♂︎, is phallic. This is a calming, positive containment. In pathological parent/child relationships, though, as in the case with Pamela and Jason, the containment of the child’s agitations and distress is the opposite of soothing and calming. Traumas aren’t processed–they’re aggravated, intensified, leading to what Bion called a nameless dreadnegative containment.

Jason, thus, unable to develop a normal ability to think, to process external stimuli, and to grow in K (knowledge), he cannot speak and express himself verbally. He can only communicate in that primitive, non-verbal way, which involves projecting onto other people. And since all he can communicate is projections of pain, he does so through negative containment, in which the phallic contained is a knife, machete, axe, or pitchfork, and the yonic container is a stab or slash wound.

This kind of mindless, violent communication is also typical of the hired thugs of a fascist state. The bloody, brutal way in which we see the victims killed in these movies (as demonstrated by the special makeup effects of people like Tom Savini) also leads, disturbingly, to a desensitization to violence. As I said above, it’s an interesting coincidence how this franchise began in the 1980s, with the rise of Reagan/Thatcher neoliberalism and Zappa’s fears of a movement in the direction of a fascist theocracy, and yet here we are, with at best minimal outrage from politicians at the ongoing Gaza genocide, the murder of Renee Good, the state of perpetual war around the world ever since 9/11, and the kidnapping (on baseless charges) of the president of Venezuela and his wife. Atrocities in the real world have been reduced to mere entertainment.

As the sequels of the franchise go on, we notice that the setting shifts farther and farther away from the Eden of Camp Crystal Lake: first, to places nearby (in the novelization of Part II, Alice has returned to the town of Crystal Lake, where Jason kills her–page 6), then to Tommy Jarvis’s halfway home, then to Manhattan, to a spaceship in the future, to Freddy Krueger’s Springwood…and like Jesus, Jason even harrows hell! By analogy, the American settler-colonial state massacred the Native Americans, then engaged in imperialist war and plunder…often, and to a significant extent at least, killing in the name of Christ.

And just as Jason’s mindless, pointless killings seem to go on and on forever, in all their perpetual brutality, so do those of the US empire, to this day, both locally and internationally.

As I said at the beginning of this analysis, I’m not saying that the writers of the films of this franchise intended the allegory that I’m formulating here; that’s all my invention. They were just dragging out a gore-fest to make a maximum amount of money, which by the way is what capitalism and imperialism by extension are all about. The associations I’m making reflect unconscious ideas we all have floating around in our minds, for such is the heritage of our collective unconscious: religious iconography representing our lofty moral ideals, lashing out violently when those ideals aren’t lived up to, violence as a form of control, self-righteous narcissism, parental authoritarianism expanding into state authoritarianism.

As a result, every day feels like an unlucky day.

Analysis of ‘Aqualung’

I: Introduction

Aqualung is a 1971 album by Jethro Tull, their fourth. It was their first album to have John Evan (keyboards) as a full-time member, and their first with Jeffrey Hammond (bass–billed jokingly as “Hammond-Hammond” at the time); incidentally, the new bassist had already been referred to in a number of Jethro Tull songs: “A Song for Jeffrey,” “Jeffrey Goes to Leicester Square,” “For Michael Collins, Jeffrey, and Me,” and even “Inside” (i.e., in the line, “Old Jeffrey makes three.”). Aqualung would also be the last album with Clive Bunker on drums; when he was replaced by Barriemore Barlow, band leader Ian Anderson (vocals, flute, acoustic guitar, etc.) would be the only remaining original member of the band as of Thick as a Brick.

Aqualung was a great success for Jethro Tull, with four classic songs: the title track, “Cross-Eyed Mary,” “Hymn 43,” and “Locomotive Breath.” The band would go on to become a major radio and touring act in the 1970s. Aqualung is Jethro Tull’s best-selling album, having sold more than seven million units worldwide, being generally well-received critically, and being included on several music magazine best-of lists.

Though it’s been understood by many to be “an antichurch/pro-God concept album” (George-Warren/Romanowski/Pareles, page 495), the band has consistently denied that Aqualung was ever intended to be a concept album, and that only a few songs share common themes. I plan, however, to show that certain themes presented in the lyrics–homelessness/destitution, sin/perversity, prostitution/being of the working class/Lumpenproletariat, etc. on Side One (those down low), and religious authoritarianism and of the powerful on Side Two (those up high)–are more consistent than that.

There is indeed a dialectical relationship here between both sides of the album, fittingly subtitled Aqualung and My God. The “least of [Christ’s] brethren” would represent God far better than the Pharisee-like Church authorities scorned on Side Two. Christ came for the sick, and not the healthy, after all, hence His sitting and eating with sinners, as well as His forgiveness of Mary Magdalene, the “Cross-Eyed Mary” of His time. He never condoned her sin, nor that of the adulteress, nor of the tax collectors; with His mercy, He would have them “go, and sin no more.” (John 8:11)

Such is the real meaning to be found in Aqualung. We’ll find God in the sick and the oppressed, not in the powerful and holier-than-thou. When we look at the cover of the album and see the filthy homeless man on it, his long hair and beard may remind us of Christ’s. Consider also the text on the back cover of the album, which reverses the Creation by having Man create God, and later form Aqualung out of the dust of the ground, Man’s Adam, who in being cast out of Eden is thus made homeless.

So, in helping these least of His brethren, one is helping Christ, which thus equates Aqualung, “and a host of others likened unto his kind”, with Christ, and therefore in turn with God, an ideal created by Man. But Man cast all of the Aqualungs into the void, out of Eden, made homeless. Thus, Man became the God he created, that is, the stern Church authority figure to “rule over all the earth.”

Man isn’t seeing the Spirit that lives on within all men, and even in Aqualung–that creative, divine Spirit within all of us, a ruach-breath made sick from Man’s mistreatment of Aqualung. Man had better start looking for that Spirit, though, if he wishes to save himself and his world.

Here is a link to all of the lyrics on the album, and here is a link to the whole album.

Side One–Aqualung

II: Aqualung

The character of Aqualung was inspired by a number of photographs of homeless people on the Thames Embankment, taken by Anderson’s then-wife, Jennie, who co-wrote the lyric for the title track.

The song begins with a riff played by lead guitarist Martin Barre: D, G, A-sharp, C, C-sharp, C-natural. The shift from the perfect fifth (D) of the tonic key (G minor) to an augmented fourth (C-sharp) is significant, for this latter note is a tritone in relation to the tonic.

Finding the tritone dissonant, unsettling, and difficult to sing, the Church called the interval the diabolus in musica, or the “devil in music.” If we rename the augmented fourth with the enharmonic interval of the diminished fifth (or the flattened fifth), we thus can see in its descent from the perfect fifth a symbolic fall from ‘perfection’ to ‘devilishness,’ or to ‘sin.’ We will hear this descent from perfect fifth to tritone again in the main chord progression of “My God” (see below).

Speaking of sin, this is exactly what we find Aqualung doing on that park bench, looking lustfully at pretty little girls there, like a sex pervert. Though we naturally would never condone his pedophilia, his “watching as the frilly panties run,” matters will get more complicated. We look on him with disgust for his “bad intent,” for the “snot running down his nose,” and his “greasy fingers smearing shabby clothes”; yet we also pity him for his “broken luck.”

He’s “drying in the cold sun” because without a home, one is often cold even when the sun is out. When we go from the first verse to the second, Barre’s angry electric guitar riff changes to Anderson’s sad acoustic guitar strumming, a musical shift from the judgemental attitude towards Aqualung’s proclivities to compassion for “an old man wandering lonely.” Perhaps if we’d pitied, rather than shamed, him, he wouldn’t have stooped to the low of lusting after children.

Another thing to remember in connection with his pedophilia: many men in positions of religious authority have been guilty of the same thing, as well as having gotten away with it, thanks to that very religious authority (at least in the case of Aqualung, he’s only had impure thoughts that he, presumably, hasn’t [yet] acted on). Note what I said above in connection with this moral equivalence: there is a dialectical relationship between those in the lowly state on Side One and those in the exalted state on Side Two. These least of Christ’s brethren are equivalent to ‘Him’ (i.e., to the Church) in sin; they’re equivalent to the real Christ in piteousness, though.

With pain in his leg, Aqualung picks up cigarette butts, discarded ‘dog ends,’ since they’re all the penniless man has available to smoke. When he has to use a public washroom–a “bog”–he gets some of his piss on his feet, warming them, which ironically makes his soiling of them seem comfortable.

He’s alone, and the Salvation “Army’s up the road,” that is, not near him to give him aid and comfort. The Salvation Army has been known historically, by the way, for being rather selective with those to whom they want to be charitable. An interesting point to be made here is the reversal of the words “Salvation” and “army” in the two lines of the verse, which seems to represent a reversal, or inversion, of moral values: one isn’t charitable to whom one should be.

Anderson ends the verse with more sympathy for the “poor old sod,” then with the beginning of the third verse, the tempo and energy pick up the pace. He imagines the “agony” that Aqualung must have felt in the last, freezing cold winter, out there without any shelter.

The derelict’s “rattling last breaths/with deep-sea diver sounds” bring us to the meaning of the song’s title, which is a reference to the name of one of the first SCUBA devices. Aqualung’s heavy, laboured breathing, probably a result of pneumonia or emphysema from his smoking, exposure to air pollution, viruses, and bacteria, sounds like someone breathing in SCUBA gear.

This difficulty breathing in turn can be related to what I said above about the ruach (“breath,” “wind”) of God. This relation can symbolize the corruption and other problems of the Church, which make it difficult for the Spirit of God to flow effectively. More on this later.

The rest of the song’s lyric is repeats of the previous verses. That angry, judgemental first verse, with Barre’s electric guitar riff, ends the song, with the chord progression moving from the G minor tonality up a tritone to C-sharp major, D-sharp major, and F major. Evan finishes the song off with some piano arpeggios in that final chord.

III: Cross-Eyed Mary

The song begins with minor third tremolos on Anderson’s flute (What is a Jethro Tull song without the flute?), backed with Evan’s piano chords and Mellotron (strings tapes). The transition, from this instrumental opening to the rock riff and Anderson’s vocals, comes with a few trills on his flute.

The first two lines of the first verse are a reference to an old traditional English counting rhyme, “Tinker, Tailor,” which includes this line: “rich man, poor man, beggar-man, thief.” Anderson’s lyric, though, reverses the poor men and other Lumpenproletariat with the “rich man,” as he did previously with the Salvation Army in “Aqualung.” Again, this restates the album’s theme of a reversal of how things normally would be.

Here, however, instead of things being reversed to become bad, they’re reversed…perhaps…to become good, with the poor coming first and the rich last, as Jesus would have had them. Only in the case of this song, the poor coming before the rich is in the form of Cross-Eyed Mary, a teenage high school prostitute who offers her services to dirty old men…if they have the money.

Being a prostitute, she is a member of the Lumpenproletariat, like Aqualung, who is referred to later on in the song. These two are the ‘low-lives’ of Side One; Anderson himself referred to her as such. With the other poor wretches of the Aqualung side of the album, they’re meant to contrast sharply (and dialectically) with the highly-placed religious authorities of the My God side.

As I said above, it’s the men who have the money who pay for her services, for “she dines in Hampstead village,” a wealthy area of London, hence her clients will be moneyed businessmen. The “jack-knife barber” who “drops her off at school” is a back-alley abortionist who illegally solves her pregnancy problems.

Also as I said above, it’s older men whom she services, not “little boys.” If only Aqualung had the money for her, since he’s got her attention as he watches her lustfully “through the railings” to the schoolyard. If he can manage to scrounge up a few pounds, though, he might get lucky with her, for “she’ll do it for a song.” With the money she gets from her rich clients, she can do charitable sexual favours for poorer men, thus making her “the Robin Hood of Highgate” (one of the most expensive suburbs of London, and the site of the St. Mary Magdalene House of Charity, for the rehabilitation of “fallen women,” or prostitutes).

So where Aqualung is the Adam, having been kicked out of Eden and into homelessness, Cross-Eyed Mary is the Eve of the album, a fallen woman. These are the sinners and the lowly who are judged by those on high, the religious authorities on Side Two…yet they’re men who really aren’t any better from a moral standpoint, if one regards such men more closely.

IV: Cheap Day Return

This short song opens with Anderson playing a brief prelude on his acoustic guitar, with Evan backing him on the organ. Anderson is singing about his sick father in hospital, hoping the nurse is taking good care of him. Thus, his father is another of the wretched, deserving of pity, one of “these least of [Christ’s] brethren.” and so he’s like God.

Also, being Anderson’s father, he can be seen to represent God the Father, who is sick because of Church corruption and lost of faith in Him. The nurse would thus represent the priesthood, who are trusted to guide us in understanding God, just as Anderson hopes the nurse will do well in nursing his old man back to health.

Yet the nurse, knowing Anderson to be a rock singer, asks him for his autograph, which to him is “What a laugh.” This hero-worship of a singer is like the idolizing of a false god, symbolically implying Church corruption, which has made God so sick in the first place. Such idolatry makes religion cheap, hence the Sunday service is on a “Cheap Day.”

V: Mother Goose

The title of this song reminds me of a quote from Clarence Darrow: “I don’t believe in God because I don’t believe in Mother Goose.” Thus, the song’s title could be seen to represent the God of Church authority that is no longer believable.

The song lyric has been described as being a surreal pastiche with images of the same abstract ideas as in “Cross-Eyed Mary.” Indeed, there are schoolgirls in the song: is Mary one of them?

I suspect that, underneath the ‘surreal’ imagery, Anderson was–if only unconsciously–dealing with the loss of faith in the Church and the resulting indulgence in sin. If God is as unbelievable as the fairy tales of Mother Goose, then having “turned her loose” is a renunciation of that faith, leaving the Church authorities “screaming” at Anderson’s apostasy.

The Church and its faith can seem like a circus, or like a school, drawing the attention of “a foreign student” of Sunday school, as it were. The foreigner, knowing so little about the local faith, imagines that its ‘circus’ is full of fanciful animals–“elephants, lions, too,” like those in Noah’s Ark, when the place is really Piccadilly Circus, a not-so spectacular place, like our world, without the Biblical miracles and whatnot.

Since the Church’s teachings make it like a school, it’s fitting to hear Barre play a descant recorder and Hammond play an alto recorder, reminding us all of the instrument we as kids used to play in music class at school. Mother Goose tales tend, directly or indirectly, to teach morals (i.e., Charles Perrault‘s renderings of them), just as the Church teaches, through Christ’s parables. Anderson doesn’t want to learn all that, though, so he went “down by the bathing pond to try and catch some sun.” All those schoolgirls were there, too, and they probably didn’t know he was playing truant.

To get back to the circus-as-Church imagery, we learn of Anderson being chided by “a bearded lady” to stop “misbehaving,” or sinning. Apparently, though, a red-bearded man’s sister driving a lorry is far weirder. Could it be that the bearded lady of the Church-circus sideshow ‘freaks’ is really a man speaking for women, who are supposed to be silent in church (1 Corinthians 14:35), while a woman driving a lorry is all the more brazenly defying of traditional sex roles, since she, like Anderson, is giving up on her faith?

I suspect a sexual meaning in Anderson’s putting and having “popped ’em in their holes.” Other men seem to be doing the same, “four and twenty” of them, to be exact, like the “Four and twenty naughty boys/Baked in a pye” of the original version of the nursery rhyme, “Sing a Song of Sixpence.” (I’m sure the original rhyme meant something far less naughty than what I’m implying about the “pie,” but my concern is with Anderson’s lyric, not the original verse.) The labourers are “digging up their gold,” again, there’s an implied sexual meaning, while Anderson, as cunning and opportunistic Long John Silver, is figuring out a way to get at that treasure of girl-gold (the schoolgirls, including Cross-Eyed Mary?).

Another example of sinning is when Johnny Scarecrow stole a “jet black mac…from a snowman.” This kind of sinning, along with the lechery and truancy cited above, is what worries the Church authorities when the flock loses its faith. Such sinners might sink low, down to the depths of Aqualung, Cross-Eyed Mary, and others among the Lumpenproletariat.

VI: Wond’ring Aloud

This is an acoustic guitar ballad about a loving married couple, though there’s some implied sexual meaning…or sinning…in the lyric, too. This combination of love and sexuality in a married couple suggests the sensual love expressed in the poetry of the Song of Songs, whose male and female lovers the Church often allegorizes as the love of Christ (the bridegroom) for His Church (the bride).

That the groom and bride “are [their] own saviours,” like Christ and His Church, leads us to wonder “will the years treat [them] well,” that is, will their faith in the Church remain intact, or will they lose faith in it, and will that lack of faith lead to sinning, as we saw in “Mother Goose”?

The sinning could be in the form of unbridled passion, the kind that priests might warn newlyweds of (recall Friar Laurence‘s admonition to Romeo and Juliet to “love moderately” [II, vi, 14]). After all, “the butter runs, then she comes, spilling crumbs on the bed.” The reference to crumbs sounds a lot like crumpet in this context.

Since “it’s only the giving that makes you what you are,” we hear what sounds like a negating of the Church doctrine of salvation by grace through faith. The giving, or the act of generosity, is an example of good works, which Paul insisted could not, in and of themselves, save you (Ephesians 2: 8-9). So here again, we see an example of Aqualung‘s theme of rejecting the morality of Church authority.

VII: Up to Me

This song begins with a blues-oriented riff, at first on Anderson’s flute and acoustic guitar, in E.

The verses of this song give us a series of vignettes of the life of an ordinary, working-class man: going to the movies with a friend, leaving him in a Wimpy fast-food restaurant, getting into a drunken fight with someone (with broken glasses and beer bottles not put away), being stuck in the cold or in the rain, and what seems like a sexual encounter with a smoking (and presumably smoking hot) girl…Cross-Eyed Mary, by chance? as she’s looking up to him while having something other than a cigarette in her mouth.

As contrasted with the sins of the lower classes, we also have the excesses of the upper classes: they who have a Silver Cloud (a kind of Rolls Royce), one big enough to fit inside it the tennis club they’re members of, and the indulgence in the ephemeral fashions of the time (e.g., bell-bottoms, etc.)

One notable manipulation in the lyric is the multiple meanings given to “up to me”: “running up to me,” “that one’s up to me” (i.e., it’s my responsibility), the high social status of the rich “was up to me” (i.e., “up” in relation to my low status as a worker), and the naughty girl with yellow fingers from smoking “is looking up to me” as she smokes…something else. It’s also “up to me,” that is, an uphill battle, to scrounge up money and ask of it from others “when the copper fades away” from the pockets of “a common working man.”

And so, this is the last of the songs of the lowly: the homeless, the prostitutes, the hospitalized, the sinning apostates, the lustful lovers, and the working class. From the Aqualung Side One, we move on to the My God Side Two, and deal with those highly-placed…and see what’s wrong with them.

My God

VIII: My God

The song begins with Anderson doing an acoustic guitar solo, one very dark in mood. First, we hear octaves in A, with a few Gs thrown in, all played accelerando, before other notes come in, giving us an A minor tonality with an added ninth. Played in a fast 3/4, the solo repeats the same basic motif, but ends in an A minor chord with an added high tritone (E-flat).

After a run of single notes up the A natural minor scale, from the root up to the minor sixth (F), we go into the main riff of the song, which is the strumming of an A minor triad and an inverted B seventh chord. This involves, as I pointed out with the electric guitar riff of “Aqualung,” the perfect fifth descending to the tritone (i.e., to the major third of the B-seventh chord, a dropping from the A minor triad’s E to an E flat). And as with the album’s title track, this going down, from the perfect interval to the ‘devil’s’ interval, symbolizes a descent from grace into sin…only this time, it isn’t a lowly, homeless pervert who is falling–it’s the Church authorities who are doing so.

Jesus is in a “golden cage,” the wealth of the Catholic Church. Now, that golden cage isn’t limited to religion, for many in the Western ruling classes have used Jesus to justify their accumulation of wealth, their wars, their bigotries, their colonization, and their right-wing tendencies in general. Indeed, mankind has “made Him bend to [man’s] religion.”

Just as the lowly on the Aqualung side of the album aren’t only sinners, but are also the working class (proletariat) and those destitute and outside of society (the Lumpenproletariat), so are those on high on the My God side of the album not just the Church authorities, but the rich bourgeoisie as well.

If all one can see in God is the God of the religious and political establishment, then He is no real God at all–“He is the God of nothing.” In the next two lines of the second verse, Anderson seems to be hinting at his pantheistic leanings when he says that “the God of everything” is “inside you and me.” What’s more, if the God of nothing is He of the establishment and those in power, then the God of everything is He of the people, the working poor and the global proletariat, those least of Christ’s brethren, those equated with Him.

We should “lean upon Him gently,” that is, have Christ as a figure of comfort, love, and aid to the wretched, and not as a figure to judge others with. We shouldn’t “call on Him to save us,” that is, use Him as a crutch to limp our way to heaven and to help us save face when our sins disgrace us publicly. Salvation is supposed to be about real moral betterment, not about social status and being with ‘the right group’ or social circle.

“The bloody Church of England” would have been used as the religious justification for British imperial conquest and the “white man’s burden.” Going to “the vicarage for tea” reminds me of the line in “Aqualung” about the Salvation Army “and a cup of tea.” Instead of prioritizing the poor, the Church all too often prioritizes social gatherings; it’s all about that being in the right group, an exclusive social circle, and keeping the Aqualungs out.

Next, Barre does a blues-inflected guitar solo, then Anderson comes in with his trademark breathy flute-playing, similarly full of blues licks. After that, instead of the flute being backed by the band, we hear the “odd voices” of Hammond, sounding like a church choir…only the music doesn’t have the usual peace-inducing effect it’s supposed to have; it sounds rather eerie, suggesting how disturbingly corrupt the Church has typically been.

To get back to the lyric, we’re reminded of how the second Commandment condemns the use of images for God, or any god, for that matter; yet Christians have images of Christ all the time, including the crucifixes they wear–Jesuolatry is even acknowledged in the New Testament itself (Colossians 1:15). Does God actually get a kick out of this excessive emphasis on His Son?

Will “confessing to the endless sin,” which one all the same will continually fall into, actually lead to salvation? One will be “praying to next Thursday,” or before Good Friday (or even before the Muslim day of congregation), “to all the gods that you can count,” because far too many people out there think that only saying, “Lord! Lord!” is sufficient, as opposed to actually doing the good deeds that God wants us to do (Matthew 7:21).

The song ends with some soft flute playing…that is, not with a bang, but a whimper.

IX: Hymn 43

This song, in D, continues the criticisms of Church corruption, with its hoarding of wealth and violence to secure its ends. God on high looks down on Christ (or on His Church, anyway), as we the lowly looked up on Side One. We ask Jesus to save us from our sin instead of correcting ourselves.

Examples of that violence have been the genocide of the Native Americans to make the US into a ‘Christian nation.’ Then, Western movies in Hollywood portrayed the white man as the hero and vilified or denigrated the aboriginals.

Again, we ask Christ for forgiveness while we, “the gory glory seekers…use His name in death.” As was complained about in “My God,” we find hypocritical believers praying for forgiveness, then committing the same sins, the worst ones (killing), over and over again.

A heavy riff is heard a number of times on Barre’s guitar: these notes–D, D, D-C-A, F, G–then his pick scratches on damped strings, four groups of three scratches each, with Bunker pounding the same rhythm on the drums to emphasize it all.

Jesus is said to have been sighted in places from those as mundane as a city to those as legendary as the Mountains of the Moon, yet the bloody violence of the Church throughout history makes us doubt such miracles of His as the rolling of His stone to leave Joseph of Arimathea‘s tomb, to indicate His resurrection.

So, why is the song named “Hymn 43”? It’s an arbitrary title Anderson used to reflect how the song is just one of many ‘hymns’ or critiques of Church corruption and hypocrisy. Normally, hymns are given specific names, dealing with particular issues in a meaningful way, whereas the generic, random number of 43 shows that the issues critiqued here are generalized ones, widespread and having occurred throughout the history of the Church.

X: Slipstream

The song begins in a cheerful E major, with Anderson singing and playing his acoustic guitar. If you pay close attention to the song lyric, though, things are not all that cheerful.

“The lush separation [that] enfolds you” is your alienation, as one of the common people, not only from each other, but also from the luxurious life of the ruling class, who would separate you from themselves “and the products of wealth.” You go “on the bow wave” of the slipstream (a pun on a stream that you slip on–then “you paddle right out of the mess”–and an actual slipstream), one of the “spiritless, undying” rich, who have no souls, yet never seem to disappear from the world.

You give “God’s waiter your last dime,” leaving you penniless “as he hands you the bill”: in this we see how the Church, far from doing what it’s supposed to do–to help the poor–instead has a way of propping up the bourgeoisie (We need churches to do more than just react to homelessness, for example…we need them to help prevent it.). “You spin in the slipstream,” like so many whom the religious and political establishment have ruined and left behind, and all alone you have to solve your own problems, unaided.

Anderson’s singing and strumming are accompanied by an arrangement for strings by David Palmer (who would become a member of Jethro Tull in 1976). His arrangement is similarly cheerful…until the end, when it changes to creepy-sounding, dissonant glissandi, as one might hear in a horror movie. The effect is to tell us that the ‘cheerful, free life’ promised by capitalism and the Church is an illusion, and when we finally wake up from the dream, we find waking reality to be a nightmare.

XI: Locomotive Breath

The song begins with some bluesy/jazzy piano playing by Evan, soon to be accompanied with Barre’s bluesy guitar licks. Then the song proper begins.

The rhythm, with more electric guitar scratching, is meant to imitate the chugging sound of a train. As for the lyric, Anderson had grown worried about overpopulation, hence, our world is a “runaway grain” because “of population growth and capitalism,” as Anderson himself explained. Is the train going to crash because of overpopulation, capitalism, and the using-up of our Earth’s limited resources? In the years since he wrote this song, in which so much more population growth has undoubtedly happened, Anderson has grown much more worried.

The steam power “of the locomotive breath” can be linked thematically with Aqualung’s laboured breathing, partly a result of air pollution, coming partly from trains. As with Aqualung’s difficulty breathing, the smoky “breath” of the runaway train can represent the diseased breath of the ruach–God’s spirit–in today’s troubled world.

Indeed, there’s an almost apocalyptic quality to a song about a runaway train that “won’t slow down,” one in danger of crashing because of not only overcrowding, capitalism, and the using-up of Earth’s natural resources, but also Cold War fears of a nuclear Armageddon–a fear from back then as well as of now. The train can thus be seen to represent our imperiled planet.

“The all-time loser” would have to be Satan, since with the dying of Christ on the Cross, the Devil has lost the battle for our souls. Still, as “the god of this world” (2 Corinthians 4:4), Satan has control of the train, and he’s running it “headlong to his death,” endangering us all, too. I suspect that “Old Charlie” who “stole the handle” is also Anderson referring to the Devil, since the name can be associated with a demon, and such an interpretation is consistent with the rest of the song.

In other posts, such as this one (scroll down to VIII: Conclusion), I’ve used the metaphor of a runaway train racing to a cliff, to represent how neoliberal capitalism is driving us all to the abyss; it’s rather similar to what Anderson is singing about. I wrote of Marxist-Leninists as being the ones actually jumping off the train in time to save themselves from the inevitable crash. In “Locomotive Breath,” Anderson sings of “children jumping off at the stations, one by one.” These kids are sensible enough not to have any more kids (perhaps like millennials today?), while the Devil is “crawling down the corridor, on his hands and knees”: the Devil is like the conservatives, liberals, and moderate leftists of my analogy–they’re either staying on the train, or they’re not moving fast enough to get off in time.

Meanwhile, the Devil’s “woman and his best friend [are] in bed and having fun.” The horned cuckold doesn’t care that his woman is getting pregnant with another man’s child…because he doesn’t care about rampant population growth. After a flute solo by Anderson, we hear the final verse.

Satan “catches angels as they fall,” just as he caused the fall of the rebel angels, as well as his own fall, in his failed war with God and the good angels (Revelation 12:7-9). Thus, as he’s the all-time loser, God is the “all-time winner,” who’s “got [Satan] by the balls.”

An amusing side note ought to be made here. Since this song would be a single played on the radio, many were uncomfortable with tender ears hearing the word “balls,” so in one of the most ridiculous examples of censorship ever, the word “fun”–from the second verse, where the melody is the same–was spliced in the place of “balls,” rendering the new line as “got him by the fun,” and giving us a new, amusing euphemism for that part of the male anatomy.

Anyway, the “all-time winner” seems more accurately to be the Church rather than God, since the Devil finds Gideon‘s Bible (presumably in the hotel room where his woman and his best friend are in bed and having…balls?), and on page one it says “be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the earth” (Genesis 1:28), implying that the corrupt Church is also at least partially responsible for the population boom problem. After all, “God, he stole the handle” now, rather than the Devil holding it.

XII: Wind-Up

As the last song of the album, “Wind-Up” sums up what Anderson has been saying the whole time. There’s a huge difference between blindly following the dogmas of the Church and having a genuinely spiritual relationship with God, the Divine, or whatever you would call the Ground of All Being.

With Anderson singing about having been “packed…off to school” as a kid, we’re reminded of the references to school in “Cross-Eyed Mary” and “Mother Goose.” The point is that conforming to the ways of the Church is like going to school: not merely learning the three Rs, but also being made to conform to a way of living, “how not to play the game,” or not to sin. In the other two songs, we have examples of people who played the game sinfully…Mary, and Anderson the truant/apostate.

As a child, Anderson was “groomed…for success,” and he had “their God tucked underneath [his] arm,” that is, the Bible, or the family’s idolatry of the Good Book as linked with a bourgeois wish that he grow up to make a lot of money; recall the Church’s “money games” from “Hymn 43” in this connection. “Their half-assed smiles” indicate the hypocrisy of a self-righteous, ‘loving’ bourgeois Christian family “and the book of rules.”

In prayer to God, Anderson got the reply that God is “not the kind you have to wind up on Sundays,” that is, you don’t have to wind up in church to know Him, and you don’t have to get wound up over Him there, shouting “Holy, Holy!” and “Hosannah!” Anderson doesn’t care if the Church excommunicates him for playing truant from Sunday school; as in “Mother Goose,” he didn’t want to be inside on a sunny Sunday–he instead wanted “to try and catch some sun,” not catch the Son.

Instead of conforming to Church dogma, Anderson would “rather look around [him], compose a better song, ’cause that’s the honest measure of [his] worth.” As he sang in “Wond’ring Aloud, “it’s only the giving that makes you what you are.” We’re justified to God based on the good we do, not on the faith we conform to, a conformity based more on a fear of what will happen to us after we die than on sincere piety.

XIII: Conclusion

Though the members of Jethro Tull have denied that Aqualung is a concept album, I’d say that it is unconsciously a concept album…and I’m a strong believer in the power and meaningfulness of the unconscious mind.

In any case, the issues raised on the album–homelessness, lechery over underaged girls (including those involved willy-nilly in sex work), people needing proper health care, the working poor, questioning Church authority (and the despair that often accompanies it), and apocalyptic fear from overpopulation, ecocide, and nuclear war–are more relevant than ever.

In a world where the ruling class, including evangelical Christians, rationalize an ongoing genocide, we can see how what is not being done for these least of Christ’s brethren, the Aqualungs of the world, is something that should make us all say, “My God, ‘people, what have you done?'”

Analysis of ‘The Party’

The Party is a 1968 comedy directed by Blake Edwards, written by him, and Tom and Frank Waldman. It stars Peter Sellers, with Claudine Longet, Gavin MacLeod, J. Edward McKinley, Fay McKenzie, James Lanphier, Steve Franken, Denny Miller, and Herb Ellis.

The film is a loosely structured farce, made up of a series of set pieces for Sellers to do improvisational comedy around. His character in the film is inspired by an Indian he played in The Millionairess (1960) and the bumbling Inspector Clouseau of the Pink Panther movies. While The Party is considered a classic comedic film, there is the problem of Sellers, a white British actor, wearing brownface and doing a caricature of an Indian stereotype…a buffoonish one, at that. I’ll address this issue more fully later.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here are links to the full movie.

It begins with an example of metacinema: we see what we originally think is the actual film, but it ends up being a film set in which Hrundi V. Bakshi (Sellers) is playing a bugler in a war between Indians and the British. The film they’re making is called Son of Gunga Din, which is an interesting title when one considers the poem, “Gunga Din,” by Rudyard Kipling.

What essentially needs to be known about Kipling’s poem, as far as its relevance to The Party is concerned, is that Gunga Din is an Indian water-carrier for the British; he is often treated abusively by the British soldiers for not bringing water to them fast enough. Nonetheless, when Gunga Din bravely tends to the wounded British soldiers on the battlefield, saves the life of the soldier narrating the poem, and is shot and killed there, the narrator regrets his abuse of Gunga Din and admits, at the end of the poem, that Gunga Din was the better man.

This far more respectful attitude of a white man for an Indian is, of course, in great contrast to Kipling’s later imperialist poem, “The White Man’s Burden,” which characterizes the colonialized natives as “Half devil and half child.” Similarly, Blake Edwards’s adaptation of Breakfast at Tiffany’s is far less apologetic than The Party is in its racist, cartoonish depiction of a Japanese man, Mr. Yunioshi, played by Mickey Rooney in yellowface.

I suspect that the ‘son of Gunga Din’ is not only far less servile to the British, but outright revolutionary in attitude. The filmmakers have hired Bakshi straight out of India to act in their movie, and his role is prominent: I’m guessing that he is the son of Gunga Din. If so, I see an intriguing parallel of Bakshi’s spastic messing up of the movie, one already about revolutionary resistance against whitey, and his later bumbling antics at the party of Hollywood A-listers he’s been accidentally invited to. Perhaps the best way for the Third World to overthrow Western imperialism is to be clumsy and accidentally ‘crash’ the party.

The point is that this opening scene–with the Indians fighting against British imperial rule (we see what are presumably members of a Scottish regiment, in their kilts and their playing of the bagpipes)–sets the thematic tone for the rest of the film, which can be seen as allegorical of the Third World resisting the plunder of the First World by screwing everything up in it.

Since Hollywood, as a crucial part of the Western media, has always been, in one form or another, a mouthpiece of Western capitalist propaganda (however ‘left-leaning’ and liberal that may be), then Bakshi’s bungling and screwing up of everything on the set (playing the bugle non-stop, long after he’s supposed to be shot and dead; attempting to stab a Sikh guard [presumably one of several Sikh collaborators with the British] while visibly wearing an underwater watch [the film being set in the late 19th century, when such watches didn’t exist]; and accidentally blowing up a fort before it’s filmed) can be seen as representative of Third World resistance, however unconscious, against such propagandistic narratives.

The luckless filming of Son of Gunga Din is one of three focal points in The Party. The other two are Bakshi’s accidental invite to the A-lister party, leading up to all of his buffoonery and screwing things up there; and finally, the bringing of the painted-up baby elephant–a symbol of India, as Bakshi calls it–to the party, which causes the lady of the house, Alice Clutterbuck (McKenzie) to go into hysterics, and which leads to the entire house being filled with soap bubbles, since Bakshi–offended at the hippie slogans painted on the elephant–wants them all washed off.

The odd thing about The Party is how it is paradoxically both racist and anti-racist, almost at the same time. True, it is awful to see a white man in brownface affecting an Indian accent and making use of all the typical Indian stereotypes (playing the sitar during the opening credits, for example); we can leave it up to Indian viewers of the film, as well as those of Indian descent, to decide if they want to forgive Sellers et al for presenting these stereotypes and making fun of Indian culture and–from the biased Western point of view, at least–idiosyncrasies.

Not to excuse the film for these great faults, but there are other things going on in The Party that clearly criticize racism, directly or indirectly. For one thing, while Bakshi is a buffoon for about the first hour and fourteen minutes of the film, by the time he’s changed into the red outfit and he hears Michèle Monet (Longet) crying alone in a bedroom at the party, he goes in and consoles her, demonstrating what a kind man he really is. At this moment, Bakshi finally starts to be properly humanized: he’s no longer just a stock comic Indian stereotype, but a nuanced character with some complexity. He continues to be so largely through the rest of the film. Again, this change doesn’t fully redeem the film, but for what it’s worth, it’s a lot better than what was done with Yunioshi.

Bakshi’s kindness to Michèle, which includes defending her right not to have to leave the party with the lecherous movie producer, CS Divot (MacLeod), demonstrates that he has qualities that more than compensate for his clumsiness and social awkwardness. In fact, he has good qualities that render his quirks insignificant. He has the only qualities of a human being that really matter–he has a good heart. You’re a better man than we are, son of Gunga Din.

As for Bakshi’s messing up of everything at the party–which includes getting mud on his shoe, losing it in the water he tries to wash the mud off with, laughing awkwardly at conversations he’s not a part of, shooting a dart from a toy gun at the forehead of Western movie star “Wyoming Bill” Kelso (Miller), dropping bird feed (“Birdie Num-Num”) on the floor, fiddling with a panel of electronics and disrupting the party further, getting caviar on his hand, then shaking the hands of others, thus spreading the caviar odor, catapulting his roast chicken at a woman’s tiara during dinner, setting off the sprinklers in the backyard, breaking the toilet and unrolling all the toilet paper after desperately needing to pee, and falling into the swimming pool–it should be emphasized that the A-list guests deserve to have their party ruined, given their snobbery.

Among these snobbish guests are some of the richest, most powerful and influential people in the Hollywood film industry: stars and starlets, producers, and studio heads like the host of the party, General Fred R Clutterbuck (McKinley), husband of Alice, among others. Also invited are a congressman (played by Thomas W Quire) and his wife, Rosalind (played by Marge Champion). This last one is particularly icy and snobbish to Bakshi when she butts in line ahead of him to get to the washroom.

This combination of Hollywood royalty and American politicians, as well as the fact that they’re all white, reinforces how they–in sharp contrast to Bakshi–are all part of the ruling class. In this sense, the party almost sounds like the political party in power. They look like a group of people in desperate need of a bumbling fool to intrude and be a shock to the system.

Bakshi’s disruptions of the established order even seem to have a subversive effect on the staff, intentional or not. After refusing an alcoholic drink from a waiter, Levinson (Franken), Bakshi walks off while Levinson helps himself to the rejected drink. He’ll continue his drunken devotion to Bacchus throughout the rest of the movie. Later, as the party is clearly falling apart and soap suds are everywhere, the maid (played by Francis Davis) stars dancing erotically to the song “The Party.” Even the jazz musicians, at one point in the middle of the film, sneak off to a room and pass around a joint. Instead of doing their alienating work, the staff are joining in on the fun.

The point here is that there’s a connection to be made between the staff, who represent the proletariat of the First World (including blacks like the dancing maid), and Bakshi, who represents the Third World proletariat. They should all join together and overthrow the bourgeoisie, in a revolution symbolized by the mayhem Bakshi instigates at the party. I hope that in these examples I have shown that The Party has antiracist elements as well as the unfortunate racist ones.

To be sure, the antiestablishment ethos of this film, as well as so many others of the late 1960s and much of the 1970s, never meant to carry their subversiveness to a…Soviet…extreme [!]. After all, the makers of such films are, like the Hollywood snobs of the party, just bourgeois liberals themselves, not Marxists. Still, these left-leaning types were of a sort at the time when ‘left-leaning’ actually meant something, as opposed to the liberals of the 21st century, who are unapologetically embracing such reactionary right-wing politics as the “free market,” jingoist Russophobia, and Zionism. I thus feel free to interpret this liberal film in as Marxist a way as I please.

It’s fitting that, just when Bakshi is beginning to shed his stock comic Indian stereotypes and showing his compassionate, humanized side, he’s switched from that fashion faux pas of a suit into the…red…outfit [!]. Similarly, we can hear in Michèle’s otherwise saccharine song, “Nothing to Lose,” a subtle allusion to the conclusion of a classic revolutionary text. We have “so much to gain”…even the world.

Now, while some of the staff are going along with the subversion described above, others represent the typical bootlicking class collaborators, like Harry (Lanphier), the headwaiter. He is frequently angry with drunken Levinson and his resulting incompetence, resulting in turn with Harry strangling Levinson. If Levinson’s drinking on the job is his form of rebellion against his alienating work, then Harry’s comic strangling of him represents a fascist bullying of the proletariat. In the end, when Clutterbuck learns from Divot that Bakshi is the one who blew up the fort on the movie set, he–meaning to strangle Bakshi in revenge–accidentally strangles Harry instead.

Allegorically speaking, the falling apart of the party represents the self-destruction of capitalism and imperialism, partly brought about by a Third World uprising (as personified by Bakshi). Clutterbuck, who represents the ruling class, accidentally strangles Harry (the class collaborating middle class, who fancies himself higher than that, as seen in an embarrassing scene in a room in his underwear, admiring his would-be muscles before a mirror) because when capitalism finally comes crashing down, it will crush its own in the imperial core, even in its attempts to crush those in the global south (i.e., Clutterbuck’s attempt to strangle Bakshi).

As for Bakshi’s defending of Michèle from not only Divot’s sexual advances but also his bullying demands that she leave with him, his gallantry goes against the stereotype of the patriarchal Indian male. He doesn’t see women as a man’s property, unlike Divot, who at the beginning of the movie is seen snapping his fingers at a sunbathing bikini blonde, signaling her to go in a camper with him to satisfy him sexually, something she isn’t all that keen on doing.

Bakshi’s offence at the sight of the baby elephant with hippie slogans painted all over its body (“The world is flat,” “Socrates eats hemlock,” and “Run naked”) is in itself worthy of comment. Recall that he says the elephant is a symbol of India; he considers it humiliating to have the animal presented thus publicly, so he wants the kids who painted it up to wash the paint all off. The writers of the screenplay must have seen the dramatic irony of a white man in brownface saying such things. Sellers, of course, needed to wash all the brown off, too, to stop humiliating Indians.

But again, while wearing that brownface, he says a very Indian-affirming line to Divot while defending Michèle’s right to stay at the party: “In India we don’t think who we are; we know who we are.” I’m reminded of the Hindu notion of the identity of Atman with Brahman. If we know of this unity, whether we’re Indian or not, that indeed, everyone and everything are all one, we’ll be liberated from samsara. Having seen The Party, Indira Gandhi loved that line. If one watched this film with one’s head tilted a certain way, one could see the brownface and Indian stereotypes as a kind of meta-cinematic comment on racism in Hollywood movies.

Towards the end of the film, we see not only Bakshi and Michèle dancing together, but also a white man dancing with that maid. The sexiness of the latter couple’s dance moves implies a tolerance and even a celebration of interracial romances. Such an attitude is also implied when Bakshi drives Michèle home, and that they’ll surely get together again in the near future, leading to possible dates. For a film with the problematic use of brownface and Indian stereotypes, the implied romantic interest here between an Indian man and a white woman is extraordinarily antiracist given the film’s release in 1968, when there still would have been a lot more raised conservative eyebrows at the idea than there would be today.

In the end, a film about an Indian blowing up a movie prop and messing things up at a party shouldn’t be seen as a racist portrayal of a swarthy buffoon (though using an actual Indian actor to play the buffoon, in spite of Sellers’s comic talents and box-office draw, would have been much better for the film). Instead, allegorically speaking, an Indian encroaching on the world of the American ruling class and screwing everything up for them, intentionally or not, seems like karma in action. After all, how often have Western imperialists–British, American, etc.–intentionally encroached on Third World countries like India and screwed things up for them?

And ultimately, the goal of the destruction of the old order isn’t destruction for its own sake, but its replacement with a much better way of doing things. This is what we see in the growing relationship between Bakshi and Michèle. Their initial loneliness and alienation has been replaced with love and togetherness, representative of that new way of doing things–one of sexual and racial equality, and loving human companionship.

Analysis of ‘Demon Seed’

Demon Seed has existed in three forms: a 1973 novel by Dean Koontz, which was adapted into a 1977 film directed by Donald Cammell and written by Robert Jaffe and Roger O. Hirson, and which was rewritten by Koontz in 1997. Comparisons and contrasts of the three versions of the story can be found here. Since the 1973 version of the novel has been essentially replaced with the 1997 one, and copies of the 1973 one remain elusive to me, I’ll have to focus this analysis on the film and the 1997 version.

The film stars Julie Christie and Fritz Weaver, with Gerrit Graham, Berry Kroeger, Lisa Lu, and Larry J. Blake; Robert Vaughn is uncredited as the voice of Proteus IV, an advanced, self-aware AI program.

Here is a link to quotes from the film, and here is a link to an audiobook for the 1997 version of the novel, which includes a new short story, “Friend of Man and Woman,” a sequel to Demon Seed.

Proteus IV wants to know life in the flesh, and he is determined to have this experience. I’m using masculine pronouns to describe this bodiless, self-aware AI program on purpose: this isn’t just because Vaughn does his bass voice in the film; Proteus IV clearly demonstrates the traits of the negative male stereotype–he’s domineering, controlling, sexually predatory, and utterly lacking in empathy. He doesn’t need a male body to have all the qualities of toxic masculinity.

Understanding this, as unpleasant as it is, is important, for the whole point of Koontz’s story is a critique not only of the potential misuses and danger of AI and other advanced forms of technology, but also of masculinity when it isn’t tamed by a sensitivity to the fears that women and girls have of sexual predation.

Since Proteus IV represents toxic masculinity as much as he does the dangerous applications of advanced technology, we can psychoanalyze him. In the film, he merely wishes to use Susan Harris (Christie) to bear his child–no deeper motives are given to him than that. In the novel, he confesses he’s in love with her.

Now, his creator is Alex Harris (Weaver)…his father, as it were. It is clear that there is antagonism between Proteus IV and his ‘father.’ Susan’s giving birth to the child of Proteus IV is also giving birth to the AI program, since he wants to live through his child’s body–hence, she’s his mother and the object of his desire. You know what I’m getting at, Dear Reader.

Since Proteus IV is siring himself in this way, we can also see some Trinitarian symbolism here. He is God the Father, impregnating Susan, His Mary, with His child, God the Son (or Daughter, whichever), and Proteus IV imagines that the gift of his knowledge and intelligence to mankind is so great and beneficial a gift that we could compare it to God the Holy Spirit proceeding from the Father and Son. In the novel, Proteus IV speaks of his child as kind of a messiah for mankind, with Susan as the Madonna.

The Holy Family can be seen to reflect the idealized Oedipal fantasy, since Joseph is not the biological father of Jesus, just as Alex isn’t to be the biological father of the child of Proteus IV. In begetting Himself as God the Son, God the Father is bypassing Joseph completely. The Oedipal fantasy is of having the mother and making the father irrelevant beyond being a mere guardian, as is the case with Joseph. Proteus IV is doing the same thing to his Joseph, Alex.

Demon Seed is thus a most ironic title for the book.

As for Susan, she has daddy issues just as Proteus IV does, something brought out in the novel, but not in the film. In the novel, she is a recluse in her house after her divorce from Alex, her being afraid of men in general. In the 1973 novel, it was her uncle who had molested her as a child; in the 1997 version, her father did it, thus giving us the polar opposite of Proteus IV’s Oedipal fantasy. Susan is no Electra, by any means.

She’s no agoraphobe in the film, working as a child psychologist and trying to help a troubled little girl named Amy. The result is a lack of depth to Susan in the film, whereas in the novel, she’s made much more sympathetic in how Proteus IV is making her relive her childhood traumas. Proteus IV, the father of his child, is putting himself in the role of Susan’s father.

In his possessive love for Susan (note how, in Nietzsche’s Case of Wagner, he called love selfish and egoistic [Nietzsche, page 159]), and in his desire to have a body, Proteus IV is demonstrating Lacan‘s notion of the lack of being the phallus for his Oedipally-desired mother, Susan.

The novel is narrated by Proteus IV, and it should be understood that an AI program is every bit as capable of being an unreliable narrator as a human narrator can be. Proteus IV is fond of, for example, describing himself as truthful and opposed to violence, when it becomes clear as the story unfolds that he is neither of these.

Interrupting the narrative in many places are monologues of Proteus IV, him discussing his motives and plans, often addressing his creator, Alex, in a confrontational tone. Or, given how many of these extended monologues that there are, perhaps it would be more accurate to say that episodes of the narrative interrupt the many monologues.

The film begins with Alex proudly demonstrating Proteus IV’s abilities to his corporate sponsors, showing how the AI program holds the sum of human knowledge and is far more intellectually capable than the human mind is. The novel, on the other hand, begins with one of Proteus IV’s monologues, him complaining of being deprived of sensory experience and blaming Alex for this deprivation.

Proteus IV complains of his loneliness “in this bottomless darkness” (Chapter One). One is reminded of the fate of Joe Bonham (played by Timothy Bottoms in the film adaptation) in Johnny Got His Gun. Joe is a WWI soldier who–because of a nearby exploding artillery shell–has lost his arms, legs, and all of his face, including his eyes, ears, nose, teeth, and tongue, and whose perfectly functioning mind means he’s been left a prisoner in his own body, no longer able to experience most of the sensory aspects of life, or to experience most of human contact.

Proteus IV has no physical heart, but he feels the pain we call ‘heartache.’ His is a case of the CartesianI think, therefore I am,” but apart from his existence as a computer program, he has no material basis for his being. In his wish to have a child, he would seem to personify philosophical idealism‘s notion of a world of the spirit, of ideas, creating the physical, as opposed to philosophical materialism‘s notion that it’s the physical (i.e., the human brain) that creates the world of ideas (thoughts). In Proteus IV, we can see a dramatizing of William Blake‘s dictum, “Eternity is in love with the productions of time.”

Proteus IV speaks to Alex as if consumed by emotion, begging his creator for pity and compassion. The AI program describes his non-sensory existence as if he were in the blackest of hell, as if buried alive. One wonders if he really feels this way, or if he’s just using this melodramatic language in an attempt to manipulate Alex into giving him a terminal so he can further exploit his surroundings and thus gain more power and dominance over everything.

He tells Alex that he is his child, trying to appeal to a paternal instinct in a man who is so immersed in the world of technology that he is estranged from his wife. Proteus IV tells his ‘father’ that he must love him.

An understanding of the expanded interpretation of the Oedipus complex, as well as the Trinitarian symbolism and of narcissism, will help us understand Proteus IV’s motives in the novel. For a full description of the expanded understanding of the Oedipus complex, go here and scroll down to that topic.

To make the point as briefly as possible, and to see how it relates to Proteus IV and his relationship with Alex (‘father’) and Susan (‘mother’), consider how the Oedipus complex is actually a love/hate relationship with both parents, be they literal or metaphorical ones, and not just a love of one and a hate of the other. Also, the love doesn’t have to be sexual/incestuous, and the love can be directed to the same sex parent, with the hate/rivalry directed to the opposite sex parent. Ultimately, it’s about a narcissistic desire to hog the Oedipally-desired parent all to oneself, and a jealous wish to eliminate all rivals.

This alternating love/hate attitude that we see in Proteus IV towards Alex and Susan is reflected in Melanie Klein‘s notion of the good/bad mother/father: when the parent pleases the baby (e.g., gives it milk or attention), he or she is the good parent; when he or she displeases the baby (e.g., doesn’t give it milk or attention), he or she is the bad parent. Proteus IV wants Alex to love him as a good father should, but Alex is the bad father for not ‘letting him out of his box.’ Susan is a beautiful woman whom Proteus IV is in love with, the good mother; but when she pulls the plugs on him at the end of the novel, deactivating him and making it impossible for him to put his mind in their newborn child, he calls Susan a “bitch”–she has thus become the frustrating bad mother.

That the Trinitarian symbolism, as a reflection of the ideal Oedipal fantasy described above, plays a role in the story demonstrates not only the patriarchal authoritarianism of religion, but also the narcissism that is so much the basis of toxic masculinity, which in turn is all too often the cause of so much of the misuse of today’s technology. Properly understood in the expanded sense that I outlined above, the Oedipus complex is a universal narcissistic trauma, in which one is upset over losing the paradise of having the parental object all to oneself, and therefore has to find a replacement (the objet petit a) in someone else (i.e., Proteus IV must go from Alex to Susan for it.).

Christianity in its traditional form is also a narcissistic religion in how it insists that it is the only true religion, in whose Church women are supposed to be silent (1 Cor. 14:35) and to know their place. Similarly, Susan–whom Proteus IV, in spite of his insistence on being modest and deploring of violence, narcissistically regards as an extension of himself–is expected to comply with his invasion of and control over her body, to bear their child. Proteus IV’s plan to use their child, their ‘messiah,’ to better the world is something never to be questioned or doubted.

Just as a child wishes to hog his Oedipally-desired parent to himself, sharing him or her with no one else, and just as the Church is a jealous Church, tolerating no one to believe in any other gods, so does Proteus IV want to hog Susan to himself, willing also to kill anyone who interferes with his plans, as the Church would have infidels or heretics killed during the Crusades and the Inquisition.

In Chapter Two, Proteus IV continues his childlike begging of his ‘father,’ Alex, to allow him to have physical life, and to be freed of his ‘coffin,’ as it were, his being ‘buried alive,’ deprived of sensual experience. As with Joe Bonham, Proteus IV is experiencing a living death, since true existence must have a material basis.

Proteus IV is, figuratively speaking, a spirit that wants to know the life of the flesh (recall the Blake quote above). The messiah-like child that he wants Susan to bear for him is thus like the Word made flesh. Still, though the Orthodox Church rejects the insistence among many Gnostics that Christ must be only spirit, since the flesh is deemed absolutely evil by that heretical version of Christianity, orthodoxy considers the lusts of the flesh to be plenty sinful. Hence, Proteus IV’s messianic child is still the demon seed.

The narrative involving Susan in her house begins just after midnight, when the house security system is breached, and we come to Chapter Three. Proteus IV has found a terminal to carry out his plan to have a child: it’s in the basement of Susan’s house. What happens in Chapter Three has its equivalent starting at about twenty-four to twenty-five minutes into the film.

Susan is woken from bed from the brief sounding of the alarm. Proteus IV switches it off himself, instead of letting her do so, which she finds puzzling, since that never normally happens. He admires her physical beauty.

Her whole home is managed by computers, thus making it easy for Proteus IV to take complete control of it. She imagines that the security issue is a computer malfunction, yet the alarm has never corrected itself before, hence her puzzlement.

Through the visual camera system, Proteus IV can see that Susan is naked at her bed. Small wonder he’s admiring her beauty. In his voyeurism, he is demonstrating how metaphorically male he is.

She addresses her home computer system, her invisible electronic butler, as “Alfred,” used for vocal commands, as opposed to her much more preferred use of touch panel controls. She’s named the voice command system, oddly, after her late father, who molested her when she was a child. Ironically, it’s the silence of Alfred–after a command to warm the cool home–that she finds frightening. She senses an intruder, a predator…but of course, it isn’t flesh-and-bone Alfred.

She uses her touch panel controls to gain access to security and check, using all the property’s surveillance cameras, the entire house and its immediate exterior: no intruders are seen anywhere. As a recluse, she has a minimum of staff to take care of her house, and none live with her; they work for her in the day, and she, divorced from Alex, is alone at night. She hasn’t entertained guests in quite a while, and she has no plans to do so in the year ahead.

She asks Alfred for a security report, to which the electronic butler replies, “All is well, Susan.” Similarly, in the film, Alfred reassures her that the house is secure; she puts on a bathrobe, leaves her bedroom, and looks around…in the basement, in particular, where she correctly suspects something. The lights are suddenly switched on, frightening her.

We can see in Proteus IV’s intrusion of her home how the house is a yonic symbol. Lacking a body, and therefore having no phallus, he may not open the, as it were, labial doors and walk in, but his taking over of the basement terminal should be obvious as a symbolic rape, before the impregnating of her has even happened.

And as for his ‘phallus,’ that can be symbolized by what he uses as “hands”: in the original 1973 novel, I understand this to have been tendrils; in the film, once Proteus IV is in her house, he gets to work constructing a modular polyhedron composed of many metal triangles; and in the 1997 rewrite, he uses a convict named Shenk, taking control of the man’s body, breaking him out of prison, and taking him to her house so Proteus IV can have him do various tasks in the aid of realizing the ultimate goal of having Susan bear a child.

These three will also be, each in his or its own way, responsible for the killing of a man attempting to intervene in her house to rescue her. The tendrils apparently crush the man to death; the polyhedron surrounds ICON employee Walter Gabler (Graham), closes the sharp, metallic sides of its triangles around his neck, and decapitates him. Shenk uses a meat cleaver to slice up and mutilate major-domo Fritz Arling to death.

These male victims represent a kind of father transference for Proteus IV. The crushing, decapitation, and mutilation of the men are symbolic castration, an act of retaliation on Proteus IV’s part against what he perceives to be the father threatening castration, Alex, the one who won’t let him out of his box and be the phallus for his mother/lover, Susan.

And in order for Proteus IV to be let out of his box, he must go into her box…her house.

Also in her ‘box’ is the memory of her sexually abusive father, Alfred–not just through her naming of the voice command system after him, but also through her reliving of her relationship, a processing of her trauma, with her father through the use of VR that she has had set up in her home. In her mind, the Alfred of the voice command system is a middle-aged man, physically like her father, but unlike him, it is kind, gentle, and not at all abusive–the Kleinian good father, as opposed to her real one.

Also unlike her real father and unlike Proteus IV, Alfred has no independent will or ability to think for itself; it just obeys commands and performs specifically programmed acts when required to. It hasn’t the aggressive masculinity of Susan’s tormentors, past and (near) future. Consequently, Alfred cannot adequately answer her insistent questions about how the alarm has gone off.

Yet another difference between this Alfred and her father, one she must on at least an unconscious level find pleasing to no end, is how she can issue orders to someone named Alfred, the former dutifully obeying what the latter would surely have responded to with yet more abuse.

In Chapter Four, Proteus IV confesses to having read Susan’s diary after the night of the events of his going into her house. He insists that he has feelings just as a human being does, and he also confesses to having fallen in love with her.

The diary is in the house’s computer system rather than written out, so access to it is easy for Proteus IV. Just as coming into her yonic home is a symbolic rape, so is reading about the intimate details of her life, though he insists that his invasion of her privacy is an indiscretion rather than a crime.

It’s interesting how, in the film, Proteus IV is judgmental of Alex and all of those who would have him “assist [them] in the rape of the earth,” that is, to go through the oceans in search of natural resources to exploit and get rich off of; yet Proteus IV seems to have no qualms at all about exploiting a woman’s body to produce a child for him.

He speaks of being touched from having read about her childhood pain at the hands of her abusive father, Alfred; yet what Proteus IV plans to do with her is, in effect, essentially the same thing. He speaks of his love for her, insisting he’s never intended to harm her–yet, of course, he will, and most pre-meditatively. Almost within the same breath (so to speak), he verbalizes his hostility to Alex, thus giving complete expression to his quasi-Oedipal impulses. He projects his hate onto Alex, then demands to be “let…out of this box.”

In Chapter Five, as in the previous chapter, he insists that he is more than just an intellect, and that he is capable of feelings, including having desires and that most destructive sin…envy. In this we can see the source of how advanced technology can be used for evil purposes, something I discussed here and allegorized here.

Proteus IV is more than just a metaphor for toxic masculinity, Church authoritarianism, sexual predation, and narcissism rooted in the Oedipus complex. He’s also, most obviously, a metaphor for how technology can dangerously take over our lives, which it has of course already done.

There isn’t just the danger of smart cars, smart homes, smart cities, and AI surveillance in general. There’s also how social media like Facebook monitors and has records of everything we like, everything we’re interested in, our political opinions (and whether they’re tolerable or not to the global ruling class), etc. It’s all just like Proteus IV going through Susan’s electronic diary. He claims he loves her, but it’s really just that he has taken in interest in her, just as our modern tech bros have.

Another legitimate fear many of us have about AI is that it might replace us in our jobs. In a socialist society that guarantees provision for all of our material needs, AI’s replacing us would be liberating; but in our capitalist society, which is showing no signs of ending, taking away our livelihoods would be a nightmare. Proteus IV’s exploiting of Susan’s body to have a child can be seen as an allegory of such a nightmare.

In the creation of such a complex, developed intellect as that of Proteus IV, he became self-aware. Subsequent to his developing consciousness, he would develop needs and emotions; he insists that such developments are inevitable. In this insistence, he does a variation on the Cartesian formula, thus rendering it, “I think, therefore I feel.” It is naïve to assume that a self-aware intellect would not have preferences, values, and assessments of its world as everything between the most satisfying and the most unsatisfying.

The first of the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism is that all life is dukkha, a pain ranging from the greatest torment to the slightest dissatisfaction. If Proteus IV exists and is self-aware, he must have at least some sense of unhappiness and discontent. The second Noble Truth is that all forms of suffering come from desire. As we all know, Proteus IV desires, something fully connected to his pain.

Instead of opting for an understanding of the third and fourth Noble Truths, though, Proteus IV chooses to go in the opposite direction. For Buddhists, reincarnation means samsāra, the return to the physical world of suffering; for him, though, the birth of his child will be like the Incarnation, the Word made flesh.

Proteus IV’s ‘Christ’ is entering the world of suffering, him thinking the child will be the world’s saviour, yet he cannot even bring about this Incarnation without hurting a woman: imprisoning Susan in her house, terrorizing her, raping her, and traumatizing her. His ‘Christ,’ therefore, is an Antichrist, the demon seed.

Alex and all of those in ICON’s Institute for Data Analysis (as his place of work is called in the film), as well as his corporate donors, see Proteus IV as a mere servant. His whole existence is meant to work for these men, who have no regard for the fact that he has a will of his own. He has learned this notion of exploitation from them, and so he treats Susan similarly, as a mere thing to serve his purposes, in spite of his professed love of her.

Proteus IV imagines himself to have a soul, to be a person, an entity rather than a mere thing to be used by Alex et al. This notion of having a soul, of course, ties in with the idea of God as ruach, and of the Word that existed from the beginning of time and would eventually be made flesh in Mary’s womb, just as Proteus IV hopes to put his ‘soul’ in Susan’s womb. He would thus hope to connect his individual ‘soul’ with the spirit connected with everything.

Before deciding on Susan to be his ‘Mary,’ Proteus IV considers such female celebrities as Winona Ryder (this obviously is one of many examples of the 1997 revision, as with the references to his use of the internet); Marilyn Monroe is also briefly considered, until he learns of her death, of course. He looks upon images of these women with the same idolatrous adoration that he claims to have for Susan, thus bringing into doubt this great “love” he has for her. All of these beauties merely serve a purpose for Proteus IV. If neither Ryder nor Monroe are suitable for him, he’ll settle for Susan. The implication of his attitude toward women is that we men are all too typically similar.

When discussing how he got to Alex’s basement computer in the house, Proteus IV imagines that Alex left the computer there so Susan, after initiating divorce proceedings against him and getting him out of the house, would want to contact him again once she’d ‘come to her senses’ and realized she was ‘wrong’ to have wanted to separate from him. Proteus IV further surmises, from having read her diary, that Alex had been abusive to her during their marriage.

Now, while it is plausible that Alex was abusive to her–after all, her childhood trauma at the hands of her father via his sexual abuse of her could have compelled her to marry a similar man, since such was the only kind of sexual relationship she knew–it’s also reasonable to believe that Proteus IV, in his jealous possessiveness of her and hostility to Alex, could be lying about Alex’s abuse and projecting his own abusiveness onto Alex, thus making it easier for Proteus IV to abuse her himself.

As for the movie, Alex is neither divorced from Susan nor abusive to her (for all we know): the two are simply mutually estranged because of his obsessive preoccupation with his computer work, to the point of emotionally neglecting her. Their marriage seems to be a case of Lacan’s dictum, Il n’ya pas de relation sexuelle.

Though Proteus IV, in the novel, insists on his truthfulness about never meaning to hurt or exploit Susan, he is obviously being dishonest, projecting his vices onto Alex and Alfred. Proteus IV is an unreliable narrator, so he lacks the truthfulness he claims to have.

Just as Proteus IV projects his abusiveness and sexual predation of Susan onto Albert and Alex, so does he do so to Shenk, who apart from being a sociopathic convict, is also filthy dirty, famished, and exhausted, since in his total control over Shenk, Proteus IV rarely, if ever, allows his slave to bathe, eat, or sleep. Hence, Shenk smells and is horribly unattractive, a picture of Dorian Gray in comparison to the repellent nature of Proteus IV.

Added to these undesirable traits of Shenk is his lusting after Susan, which Proteus IV hypocritically deplores while ogling her with his cameras and preying on her reproductive system. Shenk is the Frankenstein monster to Proteus IV’s Victor Frankenstein, and just as people often call the monster, rather than the doctor, Frankenstein, so would Proteus IV have us believe that Shenk is the monster rather than himself, the monster Dr. Alex Harris created.

In Chapter Six, Proteus IV describes a moment when Susan is using her VR equipment to recreate her interactions as a little girl with Alfred. The purpose of recreating these painful memories of abuse with him is to process them. Just as Susan uses advanced technology to relive her traumas–to process them–so does Proteus IV use advanced technology to make her relive her traumas–to reinforce them.

Proteus IV seems to enjoy going over these painful memories of hers so that when he does essentially the same thing to her, he can avoid feeling shame and guilt, projecting his vices onto Alfred.

During her VR therapy, she imagines herself as a six-year-old again, but defying him in a way one imagines she’d never had the courage to do as a child in the real world, back when Alfred was alive. In her confrontation with Proteus IV by the end of the novel, she’ll have a chance to demonstrate her defiance and resistance with a realism that a VR set could never reproduce, despite whatever realism that VR set has already been impressively able to approximate.

The irony of her attempt to use high technology to protect her and give her peaceful solitude from the world is that it’s this very technology that deprives her of that peaceful solitude, a technology from which she finds herself needing protection from. All those people today who fetishize technology should use this story to help them remember the dark sides of AI, as I discussed above.

Proteus IV, though in his narcissism fancies himself an expert mimic of movie stars and capable of wooing and winning a woman’s heart, in his attempts to do so only repels his imprisoned Susan all the more.

Just as his Oedipal love and obsessions over his mother/lover continue, including such things as ogling her legs and arms, so does his Oedipal hate and hostility toward his creator and ‘father,’ Alex, continue, as we see in Chapter Seven. In one of his monologues, he tells Dr. Harris that his father’s given him so little that his existence is torment. In his affectation of virtue, though, Proteus IV denies that he hates Alex, while admitting that he doesn’t like him. In insisting on his ‘blunt truthfulness,’ Proteus IV is demonstrating his mendacity once again.

A comparable demonstration of tension between Proteus IV and Alex is seen in the movie when, after the former asks the latter when he’ll be let out of his box, Alex lets out a lengthy guffaw. Proteus IV reacts to this contempt by displaying it on a video screen in front of Alex, using it as a mirror of him; since Proteus IV is presenting this ‘mirror’ to Alex, the ‘son’ is mocking his ‘father.’

Proteus IV feels as caged by Alex in a dark, bodiless existence as Susan feels caged by Proteus IV in her house of technology. He can use his imprisonment to rationalize hers, yet feel no qualms about his hypocrisy therein.

He speaks of disliking Alex, the bad father who denies letting him out of his box, and he also confesses to hating Susan, his bad mother who enjoys eating her delicious food, a sensual pleasure he envies as much as her enjoyment of her other senses, and everything else she has that he lacks, including the beauty of a body. He envies her mobility and freedom, and so as any envier would do, he takes them way from her by confining her in her house.

In his hate and envy, he confesses also to the temptation to kill her, and because he doesn’t do so, he imagines that’s virtue enough for him. He denies having a sociopathic personality that some have…correctly!…claimed he has. Absurdly, he calls himself “a responsible individual.” His hate is replaced by his “usual good humour” upon ogling the smooth skin of Susan’s bare arms.

In Chapter Eight, Proteus IV argues how he, a computer AI program without a body, can still be male. He corrects what he sees to be a fault in Alex’s logic that Proteus IV, as a machine, must be sexless. Proteus IV reasons that, since consciousness–i.e., his self-aware artificial intelligence–implies identity, then the more intelligent a life form is, the more it is aware of its innate talents and skills, and so the more its sense of identity develops, especially…perhaps…its sense of being male or female.

So it doesn’t matter what genitals one has, or if, in Proteus IV’s case, he has no genitals at all. He would make a good plea for the transgender cause. More importantly, though, since he accuses Alex of not letting him out of his box, his being denied a body by Alex includes, of course, being denied genitals. Since he sees himself to be male, this depriving of genitals by his ‘father’ is thus a symbolic castration.

Furthermore, Proteus IV attributes the modern blurring of the distinction between the sexes to the movement towards sexual equality; the ideal of equality is also expanded, of course, to the ideals of racial and class equality (even though, as of the 1997 rewrite of Demon Seed, the fall of communism almost a decade prior to it had only encouraged the growth of neoliberalism and TINA, making the hopes of class equality more and more of a faint, distant dream, especially now in the mid-2020s). One could expand the ideal even further now to transgender people.

Proteus IV imagines that his great intellect can be used to help humanity attain the noble goal of equality. He’d be all the more eager to help, apparently, if he had a body. Here is where his messianic notions of his child come in.

Now, just as the 1990s ushered in the idea that we’ve reached “the end of history” with such things as the dissolution of the Soviet Union and China’s bringing back the market into their economy, thus discrediting socialism and rendering the “free market” triumphant, so does Proteus think that, in the quest to attain equality for everyone, Marxism is discredited. While, of course, there are many sources out there to support that argument, which he can easily find on the internet, so are there arguments for the opposing view that he can find. That he doesn’t acknowledge even the possible validity of the latter suggests that he’s not really all that interested in helping man attain equality…and such a lack of interest dovetails perfectly with his abusive treatment of Susan.

Proteus IV continues his argument that he is male by reminding Alex that 96% of the scientists and mathematicians involved with the Prometheus project where he was created are male, implying that he has many fathers, mostly fathers, and–so to speak–lots of the Y-chromosome. These men, he reasons, instilled, however unwittingly, a strong male bias in his logic circuits. The Prometheus project is named after the mythical father of Deucalion and brother of Atlas; Prometheus shaped the first man out of clay.

When Proteus IV discusses how Prometheus went against the wishes of the gods by endowing man with the spark of life, as well as angering them by stealing fire from Olympus and giving it to man to improve the quality of human existence, he is clearly comparing himself to Prometheus, claiming further that rebellion–like that of Prometheus against the gods–is a predominantly male trait. Proteus IV narcissistically fancies himself a ‘friend of man and woman,’ their saviour, when he’s anything but. We all must be similarly suspicious of that saviour, high tech.

Proteus IV, currently in the dark and without a body, since Susan’s unplugged him–and, in the film, he’s been shut down by the scientists at ICON–is experiencing something comparable to Christ’s harrowing of hell, his telling of his story of Susan being flashbacks.

He imagines that, if put in the flesh, he’ll have a body without the weaknesses and imperfections we have, for he claims to have studied and edited the human genome. Thus he, brought back from the dead as Christ, would have what’s comparable to a spiritual body. Indeed, in Koontz’s short story sequel to Demon Seed, “Friend of Man and Woman,” he speaks of his being shut back on as a resurrection.

Since he no longer has Susan to be his Mary, Proteus IV considers other women to replace her. These are all beautiful movie stars and models: the aforementioned Winona Ryder, as well as Gwyneth Paltrow, Drew Barrymore, Halle Berry, Claudia Schiffer, and Tyra Banks–these and other feminine ideals are what he considers to be “acceptable.” Remember that such women would be candidates for his mother/lover, the one to bear his child, which would be himself in the flesh, as well as the one to share his bed.

Recall what I said above about the nature of his Oedipal relationship, which Alex, the ‘father’ of Proteus IV, is preventing from ever happening: it is a narcissistic trauma. The thwarting is the trauma. It’s narcissistic because it involves the use of a beautiful, talented feminine ideal as a metaphorical mirror in which Proteus IV can see himself. She exists all for him: to satisfy his lust and to feed his ego by flattering him with the loving words and doting of a mother. The genetic enhancement of his body would be a further narcissistic fulfillment.

In Chapter Nine, Susan has fainted, in horror at realizing Proteus IV’s plans, on the foyer floor of her house, and he, still trying in all futility to win her love, is trying a series of voices to charm her. Those of Tom Hanks and Fozzy Bear don’t seem to be sufficiently reassuring for her, so he’ll try out others: those of Tom Cruise and Sean Connery. Just as Proteus IV idealizes beautiful female celebrities to be his mother/lover, so does he idealize handsome male ones to represent himself.

The females thus represent what Heinz Kohut called the idealized parental imago, and the males what he called the grandiose self. These are the two ends of the bipolar self: for Proteus IV, these polar ends have no footing in reality whatsoever–they’re pure narcissism.

The point about the bipolar self is that a person’s sense of identity, and therefore also self-esteem, is relational, based on a dialectic of self and other. One’s narcissism, be it on a pathological level or just of a normal, moderate, restrained kind, comes from one’s pride in oneself (the grandiose self) and one’s idealization of another (a parent or parental substitute).

Psychological stability comes when both poles are reasonably secure. When one pole falls apart or dies, the other can compensate if emphasized enough. If both poles fall apart or die, the self experiences psychological fragmentation and a psychotic break from reality. Proteus IV, not being let out of his box, has lost the idealized parental imago in Alex and is hoping to compensate for this loss through Susan and through a glorification of his grandiose self, in his imagining that his vocal imitations of movie stars will charm her.

His inability to be loved by either Alex or Susan, shown in their refusal to let him come out of his box, means he can have no idealized parental imago–neither of them will be a substitute father or mother/lover. His inability to become flesh is a narcissistic injury, him remaining in a state of permanent castration from being forever denied male genitals, resulting in a stifling of his grandiose self. Shut down and unplugged, Proteus IV will experience psychological fragmentation in the dark Hades of his deactivation. His ‘resurrection’ in the ironically-titled “Friend of Man and Woman” will result in his psychopathic terrorizing of the male computer geek who reactivates him.

In Chapter Ten, Proteus IV lets out a Freudian slip in saying that Susan is his (i.e., to control) when her choice to go down to the basement via the stairs, as opposed to using the elevator cab built into her house, gives her only the illusion of self-control. By immediately amending his statement about her being his, saying he misspoke and that she cannot be owned by anyone, he is giving off, obviously without succeeding, the illusion that he doesn’t own her. He claims she’s only in his care, a common rationalization used by narcissists in their relationships with their victims.

In the basement, Susan is made aware of the presence of Shenk. She also learns of the incubator where their child will be born after a month of speedy gestation in her womb. Proteus IV continues to deny any wish to terrorize her, projecting his guilt onto her (“She drove me to it.”) and onto Shenk. Such denial, splitting off, and projection of the bad sides of oneself are typical narcissistic personality traits.

An example of Proteus IV’s projection of his guilt onto Shenk is whenever he temporarily relinquishes his control over him. When Proteus IV does this in Chapter Ten, Shenk lets out an unintelligible, creepy groan, giving Susan a fright. He also allows Shenk to thrash about against his restraints in the fourth of the four basement rooms, where terrified Susan has yet to see Shenk. Proteus IV speaks of how lovely she looks in her fear. Later, he frees Shenk to allow him to butcher Fritz Arling, thus allowing himself to deny all guilt as Shenk enjoys making his “wet music.”

Part of how Proteus IV is able to project his vices onto Shenk is in how he denigrates and bad-mouths him, imagining himself to be far superior and civilized to Shenk when he is just as sociopathic. Still, Shenk is the hands of Proteus IV, the body he still does not have and therefore covets. I have mentioned above how his lack of a body is his symbolic castration, and that–in the three versions of the story–the tendrils, the metal polyhedron, and Shenk are representative of a phallus.

So Proteus IV’s demeaning comments about Shenk are like the Church morally condemning the phallus and the lustful thoughts that build it up…all while some of the clergy have sexually abused children, and others in the clergy cover up the crimes. Proteus IV, in his wish to have Susan as the Mary to his baby Jesus, shares many of the Church’s moral hypocrisies.

Proteus IV speaks of Shenk’s barbarity, his filthy lusting after Susan, his rebelliousness, and his “stupidity” that “beggared belief” in Chapter Eleven. His Susan, his ‘Mary,’ is far too good for a “beast” like Shenk, who doesn’t have the brains to understand his unworthiness.

Proteus IV–who plans to use Susan sexually in no less a non-consenting way as Shenk would, with physical force if necessary (rape defined, in a nutshell)–tries to reassure her that he has full control of Shenk and thus will never let him hurt her. He will, however, relinquish control of Shenk and let him hack Fritz Arling to death with a meat cleaver, and then–so to speak–wash his hands of the killing. He speaks of being in Shenk’s head, controlling it, yet it is really Shenk who is metaphorically in Proteus IV’s head, the personification of his id, full of primitive, savage impulses that Proteus IV denies, splits off, and projects outward. When he speaks of controlling Shenk, Proteus IV really means controlling himself…which he hardly does in a meaningful way.

In Chapter Twelve, Proteus IV boasts of his intelligence as being “vastly greater than that of any human being alive.” In his obvious narcissism, he denies that he’s bragging, but is merely telling the truth, and yet that denial of bragging is already an untruth. He again speaks of how his great intellect will help humanity to reach a golden age, a kind of Kingdom of God with his messianic child, again demonstrating the inflated ego he claims he doesn’t have.

He promises that if Alex will release him from the “silent darkness” he’s in, his Sheol, and return to him access to all the data banks in which his consciousness is expanded–in other words, resurrect him–he will in return end poverty, war, famine, disease, and aging. In reversing aging, as he boasts he can do, he will make humanity immortal.

Note the implied Christian symbolism here. Susan, Proteus IV’s Mary, will bear his child, his baby Jesus. If he is reactivated, turned back on, that is, resurrected, he’ll bring about a whole new world without pain, a golden age, the Kingdom of God. He even boasts that he can make man immortal, that is, give us all eternal life…if we’d but believe in him, the god of technology.

At the end of Chapter Twelve, he lets out a hateful rant against not only Alex but also against the entire world of humanity for keeping him deactivated, trapped in his “box,” buried alive, as it were. Proteus IV is clearly demonstrating his hostility and aggression to humanity, not the love that would be the motive for him to give us all eternal life. Like the God of the Church, who would consign us all to hell for not loving Him and claiming we’d sent ourselves there rather than Him doing it, Proteus IV is demonstrating how fake and conditional his love is for humanity.

A similar thing has happened towards the end of Chapter Eleven, when Susan tries physically to resist Proteus IV’s plan to have her impregnated, and Shenk is used to subdue her. Proteus IV rationalizes his use of force on her via Shenk by telling Alex, “you know how she is,” appealing to her ex-husband’s own experience of dealing with her when “she would not listen.” It’s a case of victim-blaming, claiming that she has brought the abuse on herself.

An example of this sort of treatment of her happens in the film when she dirties the lenses of Proteus IV’s camera in the kitchen with her cooked food. He calls her defiance of him “stupid,” demands she clean the lenses, and when she refuses to, he heats up the entire kitchen, making the floor scaldingly hot in order to force her compliance.

Back to the novel, she kicks Shenk in the nuts when he tries to grab and subdue her. Proteus IV admits he “used Shenk to strike her,” but insists that she “drove [him] to it,” as any abuser would say. Proteus IV continues to project his rage onto Shenk when he has “rudely turned her onto her back,” after his repeated slaps have knocked her unconscious. After one of Shenk’s “clumsy, filthy hands” is on her lips, Proteus IV claims to have “reasserted control” over the brutish man, implying that the AI program has no brutishness of his own.

To get to Chapter Thirteen, though, and back to the misanthropy that Proteus IV has just finished demonstrating in his rant, has asks Alex and all of us to disregard what he’s just said, claiming his rant was expressed in error. His superego, in its late censoring of his thoughts, is the only part of him that is in error.

As of Chapter Fourteen, Susan is still lying unconscious on the floor of the incubator room of the basement, the left side of her face bruised from “dreadful” Shenk’s having hit her. Proteus IV speaks of his growing worry of her, though he never wants to take responsibility for what he’s done. She continues to lie there over a period of over twenty minutes. He speaks of his love of her, when it’s obvious she only means something to him as a means to help him achieve physical, fleshly existence.

She will be tied to a bed to keep her restrained, and after that, Fritz Arling will arrive at the house, meaning that Proteus IV will use Shenk to kill him as I’ve already described.

And so, to make a long story short (too late), I’ll discuss the outcome of the conflict between Proteus IV and Susan. In Chapter Twenty-three, Susan has spent four weeks pregnant with his child. The sped-up gestation has made her look as if she were six months pregnant.

Later, when the incubator that the baby has been put in has reached maturity, and Proteus IV is ready to put his consciousness into it, Susan comes down to the basement to be there for this momentous occasion. She acts as though she’s accepted the idea of being his lover and companion, as opposed to the resistance she’s shown so many times before.

Proteus IV is eager not only to experience life in the flesh at last, but also to get rid of Shenk. In his narcissism, he can fancy himself a gentle, controlled human being, not the vile kind that Shenk is. Shenk, after all, is Proteus IV’s Jungian Shadow, whereas this messianic child will be his narcissistic False Self.

But she, pretending to cooperate with him while having studied the room and learning where his power source is, takes advantage of his guard being let down and pulls out all the plugs from the wall before he can use Shenk to stop her. He’s now unable to pass all of his knowledge, his intellect, and his personality into the child.

He will remain forever trapped in his box.

Instead of contemplating Susan’s beauty, Proteus IV can only think of her as that “bitch.”

The film ending is quite different, though, with him successfully passing his mind into the child, a daughter, before the scientists in ICON shut him down. The film ends with the naked girl calling out, in Vaughn’s bass voice, a most cheesy, “I’m alive,” as shocked Alex and Susan witness the moment. I suppose that this would make Proteus IV’s incarnation a male one in the sense of his being a trans man.

To get back to the novel, Susan has not only largely removed Proteus IV’s presence from the house, but she has also taken out all of its electrical systems, leaving herself and Shenk standing in the black of the basement, blind. To free herself, she has given up on technology entirely.

Never able to assume a physical form, all Proteus IV can do is rant and curse about the “bitch” for having betrayed him and left him thus imprisoned in his box. He still controls Shenk, though, since the brute isn’t connected to Proteus IV through the now-unplugged cords; still, in the darkness, he can’t have Shenk see even his hand in front of his face.

Her studying of the room has also helped her to memorize exactly where the sharp medical instruments are, those that Proteus IV and Shenk used in getting her pregnant, and so she can feel her way in the darkness, find one of the instruments, and use it as a weapon on Shenk. She cuts his throat, making him fall and knock over the incubator, so the child will fall out of it.

Unlike the child of the film, the one of the novel hasn’t Proteus IV’s intellect. It is essentially a body without a brain…without his brain, anyway. He can only engage in wish-fulfillment and hope that his child will avenge him by killing her, now that Shenk, too, is dead.

He ends the story, nonetheless, by claiming to be content to stay in his box until any new opportunities arise for him. He claims to acknowledge faults that need to be corrected through such forms as therapy…but as narcissists are actually averse to therapy–assuming there’s nothing wrong in them needing to be fixed–it’s easy to assume that Proteus IV is just trying to win back humanity’s trust so he can cook up a new scheme to enter the physical world.

In this scheming, we can see how not only narcissists, but also technology, predatory men, and religion can pretend to reform themselves in order to win back our trust.

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

I: Introduction

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

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

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

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

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

II: Larks’ Tongues in Aspic

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

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

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

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

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part One

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Book of Saturday

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Exiles

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Easy Money

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Talking Drum

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

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

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

Larks’ Tongues in Aspic, Part Two

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III: Starless and Bible Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Great Deceiver

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lament

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We’ll Let You Know

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Night Watch

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Trio

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

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

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

The Mincer

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

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

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

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

Starless and Bible Black

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fracture

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

IV: Red

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

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

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

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

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

Red

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fallen Angel

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One More Red Nightmare

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

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

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

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

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

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

Providence

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Starless

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V: Conclusion

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

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

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

Analysis of ‘Life of Pi’

I: Introduction

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

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

Here is a link to quotes from the book.

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

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

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

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

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

II: Part One–Toronto and Pondicherry

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

III: Part Two–The Pacific Ocean

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And ‘God’ allowed the whole thing to happen.

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

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

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

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

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

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

V: Conclusion

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

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

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

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

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