The Whore and the Beast of Babylon

[StPJane]

I have been obsessed for a long time with a line from "Is this what you
wanted," in "New Skin for an Old Ceremony:" "You were the Whore and the Beast
of Babylon, and I was Rin Tin Tin."
Who or what is/are/was/were this Whore and this Beast in Mr. Cohen's
metaphorical context? In Revelations, the Whore is Rome. A theologian and
scripturist tells me that the Beast is Nero. I tell him that his duty as a
theologian is to justify the actions of God, and as a scripturist it is to keep
the words of Scripture in context. He will not consider the qadishtu, the
Sacred Women of the temple of Babylon, who, during their tenure in the temple,
made love to many men. Theologians and historians have for centuries referred
to these women as "temple prostitutes" or "the Whores of Babylon," an
interpretation which is astronomically far out of the context of ancient
Babylonian times. But then, most members of our species refuse to acknowledge
any context, or cultural or religious implication, that does not coincide with
those with which they are comfortable.
I am a visual artist, and my work deals with the clash of religion and
culture, and the various iconographies that this has generated throughout the
history of humankind. So, I am not merely an effete intellectual or feminist
who is pondering this as a mental exercise. I really need to know. I think of
this while I am painting; I listen to "Is this what you wanted" over and over
again. The "repeat" button on my CD player in the studio is encrusted with
paint and will soon no longer function if I don't find the answer. I wake up
in the morning wondering, it swims around in my head while I teach my classes,
I try to conjure mental pictures of the Whore and the Beast while driving home
on the freeway, and upon arrival home, I grab my sketchbook and try to draw
those images. What I draw is not right. So I turn on "New Skin," take my
paintbrush, and incubate my magnificent obsession as I paint.
I have a one-woman exhibition coming up shortly, and after I finish
these currrent works for that show, I need to paint this Whore and this Beast
(are they different beings or are they one and the same...He says "*the* Whore
and *the* Beast), but I have to know who/what they are/were in order to make
the image.
My lack of understanding of Mr. Cohen's metaphor will explode my soul.
Who can help me?
In gratitude,
Jane

[StPJane]

I have been obsessed for a long time with a line from "Is this what you
wanted," in "New Skin for an Old Ceremony:" "You were the Whore and the Beast
of Babylon, and I was Rin Tin Tin."
Who or what is/are/was/were this Whore and this Beast in Mr. Cohen's
metaphorical context? In Revelations, the Whore is Rome. A theologian and
scripturist tells me that the Beast is Nero. I tell him that his duty as a
theologian is to justify the actions of God, and as a scripturist it is to keep

the words of Scripture in context. He will not consider the Qadishtu, the

Sacred Women of the temple of Babylon, who, during their tenure in the temple,
made love to many men. Theologians and historians have for centuries referred
to these women as "temple prostitutes" or "the Whores of Babylon," an
interpretation which is astronomically far out of the context of ancient

Babylonian times. But then, most members of our society refuse to acknowledge

any context, or cultural or religious implication, that does not coincide with

those with which they are comfortable. Since Mr. Cohen not only acknowledges
those, but also has a deep reverence for them, I cannot understand his meaning
in this song.

I am a visual artist, and my work deals with the clash of religion and
culture, and the various iconographies that this has generated throughout the

history of humankind. So, I am not merely an effete intellectual or a feminist

who is pondering this as a mental exercise. I really need to know. I think of
this while I am painting; I listen to "Is this what you wanted" over and over
again. The "repeat" button on my CD player in the studio is encrusted with
paint and will soon no longer function if I don't find the answer. I wake up
in the morning wondering, it swims around in my head while I teach my classes,

I try to conjure up mental pictures of the Whore and the Beast while driving

home on the freeway, and upon arrival home, I grab my sketchbook and try to
draw those images. What I draw is not right. So I turn on "New Skin," take my
paintbrush, and incubate my magnificent obsession as I paint.
I have a one-woman exhibition coming up shortly, and after I finish

these current works for that show, I need to paint this Whore and this Beast
(are they different beings or are they one and the same....He says *the* Whore

[Gus]

[Jane's post snipped}

Heya Jane,
Well, this may not help much, but I look at it like this. Often in
analytic culture, the myth of 'understanding' is connected in ways that
may not be immediately apparent to the myth of 'conquest'. Sometimes we
try to understand things because it gives us power over
them - once you completely understand me you can completely control me.
Even knowing some of my little secrets will give you considerable power
over me.
But woe to the person who would conquer a poem! In trying to
understand a poem, people frequently refer to "the poet's intention"
because it gives them a handle on what the poem "really means". But
this is a blind alley - you may conquer what is "the poet's intention"
because intentions can be described, labelled, categorized and
systematized and wrapped in language. But the poem itself will
stubbornly refuse to be wrapped in language because it is itself made of
language. Poems stretch the boundary of what language is, while
analysis tries to lay down firm borders around the relationship between
reality and language.
Here's a metaphor that might illustrate a little of what I mean: A
riddle exists because it has a hidden answer. Once the answer is
uncovered then the riddle is no longer a riddle; it is nothing. So too
with poetry - it has to be written as poetry because it cannot be
written as a computer program; once you find the computer program which
perfectly explains the poem then it is no longer a poem, it is a
system-schematic for a computer program.
So, I exhort you, obsess, listen, enjoy, focus on one line if you will,
but do not try to perfectly pin down an exact meaning or you face
certain doom!

Gus.

"He who binds himself to joy
Doth the winged life destroy
He who kisses it as it flies
Doth bask in eternity's sunrise"
-W.Blake (I think? Help?)

[Tom D]

"Ah sweet mystery of life, I hope I don't find thee?"

hmm..
Tom.

Gus <z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

>
>SNIPPED

[Geoff Gompers]

StPJane wrote:
>
> I have been obsessed for a long time with a line from "Is this what you
> wanted," in "New Skin for an Old Ceremony:" "You were the Whore and the Beast
> of Babylon, and I was Rin Tin Tin."
> Who or what is/are/was/were this Whore and this Beast in Mr. Cohen's
> metaphorical context?

Dear StPJane
Cohen uses certain words frequently in his songs and poetry. I've
always been interested in the words "Beast" and "Dove" which have often
evoked images of the male and female genitalia, or at least references
imo male and female lovers. But then again, on nights when the "beast
won't go to sleep", I often am overtaken with thoughts of when the "holy
dove was moving too, and every breath we drew was halaluja!"
I've always viewed the phrase "whore and beast of babylon" as greed (ie
money for sex) and lust (pay for sex), and Rin Tin Tin, as the pathetic,
almost comic, outsider who gets no love.
Then again Babylon was a wild place. All the more reason to think of
the Narator as being pathetic, kind of like a shy one at the orgy.
Geoff no rey

[sandym]

This is an expression of how I feel about Leonards' music. I love to listen to it
for what is does to me, but can't see any reason to pin down exact meaning. It is
a spiritual and personal experience and one that I don't need to explain to myself.

Sandy

[sandym]

In my naive mind, The whores of Babylon referred to the obvious, those who were
called "the whores of Babylon" because that's what they were, and Rin Tin Tin was
the dog in heat, as in "I'm Your Man"

StPJane wrote:

> the
> Sacred Women of the temple of Babylon, who, during their tenure in the temple,
> made love to many men. Theologians and historians have for centuries referred
> to these women as "temple prostitutes" or "the Whores of Babylon,"

> Babylonian times.
> .

> The "repeat" button on my CD player in the studio is encrusted with
> paint and will soon no longer function if I don't find the answer.

I also paint, turpentine works wonders

[StPJane]

Yes, it is very true that, if all mysteries of poetry and life were
to be solved, we would become stagnant and lifeless. Nonetheless, it haunts me
exceedingly. Perhaps it is my nature as an artist; I am destined to be the
soothsayer for the future, the reflector of my time. And, I have a very
personal reason for this and all obsession: should I meet the Hero, I must be
the knower, or at least the one who reaches for the promise of the mystical
unknown:

>So, I exhort you, obsess, listen, enjoy, focus.....

" Woman, in the picture language of mythology, represents the totality of
what can be known. The hero is the one who comes to know. As he progresses in
the slow initiation which is life, the form of the goddess undergoes for him a
series of transfigurations: she can never be greater than himself, though she
can always promise more than he is yet capable of comprehending. She lures,
she guides, she bids him burst his fetters. And if he can match her import,
the two, the knower and the known, will be released from every limitation.
Woman is the guide to the sublime acme of sensuous adventure. By deficient eyes
she is reduced to inferior states; by the evil eye of ignorance she is
spellbound to banality and ugliness. But she is redeemed by the eyes of
understanding. The hero who can take her as she is, without undue commotion
but with the kindness and assurance she requires, is potentialy the king, the
incarnate god, of her created world."
----Joseph Campbell, The Hero with a Thousand Faces

I am unfettered in this obsession. I need to paint this Whore and this
Beast. Can you imagine what it is like for an artist to have these shadowy
images swimming inside, constantly eluding, teasing, beckoning?
And then again, perhaps I am masochist:
"If I were Queen of Pleasure,
And you were King of Pain,
We'd hunt down love together,
Pluck out his flying-feather,
And teach his feet a measure,
And find his mouth a rein;
If I were Queen of Pleasure,
And you were King of Pain.
----Algernon Charles Swinburne
(paraphrased)

Perhaps I revel too much in my obsession. But, can one revel too
much in these mysteries? Sometimes a banana is just a banana.
Still, I want and need your thoughts on this Whore and this Beast. A
reply to my personal email said that perhaps these images evoke genitalia, and

<I've always viewed the phrase "whore and beast of babylon" as greed (ie money
for sex)
and lust (pay for sex), and Rin Tin Tin, as the pathetic, almost comic,
outsider who gets no love.>

Could this be what Leonard Cohen means?
In gratitude,
Jane

[Barbara]

Very erudite opinion, Gus. And, like BoHo, I applaud your memory.
Sandy put beautifully my own sentiments. Thanks
Barbara

sandym <san...@wt.net> wrote in article <35E044B2...@wt.net>...

[Tom D]

The 'beast' iMo, has always mwant to me the 'urge', the "thinking a
man does with the little head, not the big head" D.Sorensen - a good
friend of mine and first-rate bush philosopher.

So we do what we ought not cos we're driven by lust - the beast.

RinTinTin, being a dog, is of course an animal, a beast, and hence
bestiality...?...though I don't quite think it works in the context it
is used in the song....wait...lemme go listen to it again!..

TomD(for late for work!!, damn!!) :o)

"BodaciousHowler" <bodacio...@hotmail.com> wrote:

stuff i had to snip...but it was good stuff.

[JB181159]

Im Artikel <35E109...@student.unsw.edu.au>, Gus
<z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> schreibt:

>But woe to the person who would conquer a poem! In trying to
>understand a poem, people frequently refer to "the poet's intention"
>because it gives them a handle on what the poem "really means". But
>this is a blind alley - you may conquer what is "the poet's intention"
>because intentions can be described, labelled, categorized and
>systematized and wrapped in language. But the poem itself will
>stubbornly refuse to be wrapped in language because it is itself made of
>language. Poems stretch the boundary of what language is, while
>analysis tries to lay down firm borders around the relationship between
>reality and language.

*** Dear Gus,
your beautiful posting may not be too useful support to Jane´s question, but
she´ll most likely receive plenty of interpretations anyway. As far as I´m
concerned however your contribution was a shining light, because it perfectly
nails, what I myself feel while reading poems. I have been trying to word my
troubles with interpretation of poetry often, but never was capable. Of course
I value the richness of spirits around, who so generously invite me to listen
to their takes. But my mind regularly refuses to spit out whatever analysis,
rather adopts the "picture in question" and (ab?)-uses it to transport my own
efforts of communication.
Both Cohen´s "beast" and "Rin Tin Tin" are such "pictures", that mean very much
to me, that nourish my own phantasy deeply, that provide my own helplessness to
express these convoluted, interlocking and often incompatible parts of my own
inextricable Self perfectly.
Therefore - although I´m aware enough, that my own take might be light-years
remote from what Cohen "really meant", I´m down on my knees with gratitude for
the candles, his methaphors happen to light in my own darkness.
I promised to this group, to go easy on my "poetry", but today I dare to attach
2 pieces, because they will display, what I´m talking about, so please don´t
anybody feel too disgusted:

Go Apply To Lassie

Faithful Old Rin Tin Tin
finally grew tired of
sitting up and begging

Long enough he leaped at the dry bones dropped,
licked the carelessly patting hands
and wagged his tail in naive gratitude

Now he´s gone stray
and hides before your whistles and commands:
free at last, the leach is bitten in two

May them rivers go on teeming with
drowning people waving
Rin Tin Tin couldn´t care less

So what...

the swan hankers
and sends out
the beast
a hunting to go
the beast would proudly
retreive the as instructed cought prey
and a neverending love-affair
is given birth

one decisive timeslot later
the merry triumvirate
of swan, prey and beast
seems strained
the prey gleefully bullies the swan
the swan buttonholes the beast
to go easy on
the innocent prey
guilty conscience - you know
and reasons of love
the beast at loss
cowers in the hindmost nook of the den
rumbling in a huff
how to complete such a poem
without losing your pride
without lying
without murder nor suicide
or - more important question
how to truncate
a fucking quandary like this
in real life
?

you can make problems
why not enrol the swan to be the victim
while the beast can anger the prey from behind
auxiliary smile is to be cancelled
and voluptuousness
is to be replaced by
completing one´s marital duties
at the latest within some nerve-racking infinities
the prey will first two-time
and then quit the job
thank G-d
...

another decisive timeslot later
the swan hankers
and sends out the beast
a hunting to go

[Valerie Shertzman]

JB181159 wrote:

> Im Artikel <35E109...@student.unsw.edu.au>, Gus
> <z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> schreibt:
>
> >But woe to the person who would conquer a poem! In trying to
> >understand a poem, people frequently refer to "the poet's intention"
> >because it gives them a handle on what the poem "really means". But
> >this is a blind alley - you may conquer what is "the poet's intention"
> >because intentions can be described, labelled, categorized and
> >systematized and wrapped in language. But the poem itself will
> >stubbornly refuse to be wrapped in language because it is itself made of
> >language. Poems stretch the boundary of what language is, while
> >analysis tries to lay down firm borders around the relationship between
> >reality and language.
> *** Dear Gus,

> As far as I´m concerned however your contribution was a shining light, because
> it perfectly nails, what I myself feel while reading poems.

> <snipped seriously for space not as a condemnation of JB's poetry. Please see
> previous post>

> Therefore - although I´m aware enough, that my own take might be light-years
> remote from what Cohen "really meant", I´m down on my knees with gratitude for
> the candles, his methaphors happen to light in my own darkness.

One of my biggest arguments with the way language and art were taught to me is just
what JB and Gus are referring to here. To read or hear a beautiful poem and to see
an awe inspiring painting is, to me, a gift to the spirit. To then have to dissect
it and analyze it to death has a way of destroying it for me. Especially poetry,
for a professor, who has no more of a clue than I, as to what the author meant.
With art there are things that make a painting beautiful the play of light on dark,
the way the objects are laid out, these contribute to its effect on the viewer.
When you start dissecting the the painting and analyzing this you cease to see the
painting as a unit but as a group of sections and it loses something. That is not
to say that trying to understand why it effects you the way it does isn't valid but
for each of us this might be different. Bob Dylan, when asked what one of his
songs meant, once said something like, I just write the words it's up to the
listener to figure out what they mean.

V

[Bill Van Dyk]

That happens to be one of my favourite LC songs.

I agree with those who object to an overly analytical approach to poetry or music,
but I don't buy a radical subjective approach either-- "the songs means whatever
you think it means". This is Dylan trying to have it both ways: I can shock you
with outrageous assertions, but I don't have to be consistent or intellectually
accountable.

Anyway, my point: I am satisfied with the power of the images without necessarily
looking further for allegorical or hidden meanings. The Whore and Beast of Babylon
suggest a powerful, sensual, mysterious, corrupt monstrosity. Rin Tin Tin suggests
a shallow, trivial, ... well, dog. It is a wonderfully rich, interesting
contrast. What is this woman doing to the singer? Where's the joke in this line
(there's almost always a joke in a Cohen song, somewhere)?

[Bill Van Dyk]

> When you start dissecting the the painting and analyzing this you cease to see the
> painting as a unit but as a group of sections and it loses something. That is not
> to say that trying to understand why it effects you the way it does isn't valid but
> for each of us this might be different. Bob Dylan, when asked what one of his
> songs meant, once said something like, I just write the words it's up to the
> listener to figure out what they mean.

Yeah... but, I don't care for that kind of comment by Dylan. When someone says, "what
a great song," Dylan bows and takes credit. When someone starts to question whether a
particular song makes sense, Dylan says,-- "hey, it means whatever you think it means".

I resist this view of art or literature because it suggests to me that we can't really
communicate very well. You write something about the agony of your soul and no one
will get it because it will mean something totally different to them, like, feed your
dog on monday.

Either language communicates or it doesn't. If it communicates, it's logical to
believe that it should be understood and analyzed to some degree. The fact that so
many people do it so badly should stop us from making the attempt.

[sandym]

I agree with Judith and Valerie, and Bills' first letter. Beauty is in the eye of the
beholder, and to me so is art of any kind. The beauty of a poem, painting, prose, art in
any form is what it means to the person experiencing it, and this is not the same for
everyone. It is personal and spiritual and is rarely exactly the same for any two people,
because of personal differences. Usually, however, I think the experience is generally
common, but defies analysis. Detailed dissection, to me, is useless, because of the
personal differences of the beholders, making meaning of an artwork slightly different for
most people. It is true that two people can agree that their interpretations are exactly
the same, but to me, this is chance, and they are probably coming to the same place by
different paths.

I loved Judiths' poems - More, Judith, More!

Sandy

[Gus]

JB181159 wrote:

> *** Dear Gus,
> your beautiful posting may not be too useful support to Jane´s question, but

> she´ll most likely receive plenty of interpretations anyway. As far as I´m

> concerned however your contribution was a shining light, because it perfectly
> nails, what I myself feel while reading poems.

Heya Judith, Thankyou for saying my post was a shining light, although
I expect you're absolutely right, in that it probably wasn't as helpful
as Jane might have liked.

> I have been trying to word my
> troubles with interpretation of poetry often, but never was capable. Of course
> I value the richness of spirits around, who so generously invite me to listen
> to their takes. But my mind regularly refuses to spit out whatever analysis,
> rather adopts the "picture in question" and (ab?)-uses it to transport my own
> efforts of communication.

Yes, this is very similair to my own feelings about poetry. I am glad
to read other's interpretations of lyrics, because it is nice to either
witness new perspectives, or be reaffirmed in my own ideas. But in the
end I do not want to know exactly what is meant; then I am free to
decide what it means to me now, today.

> Both Cohen´s "beast" and "Rin Tin Tin" are such "pictures", that mean very much
> to me, that nourish my own phantasy deeply, that provide my own helplessness to
> express these convoluted, interlocking and often incompatible parts of my own
> inextricable Self perfectly.

> Therefore - although I´m aware enough, that my own take might be light-years
> remote from what Cohen "really meant", I´m down on my knees with gratitude for
> the candles, his methaphors happen to light in my own darkness.

> I promised to this group, to go easy on my "poetry", but today I dare to attach
> 2 pieces, because they will display, what I´m talking about, so please don´t
> anybody feel too disgusted:

Well, I for one am not disgusted, although I have snipped your poems to
reduce reposting. Have you written these today, or are they older
poems? They seem quite connected to this theme, albeit in their own
disconnected way...

Gus.

[Gus]

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> I resist this view of art or literature because it suggests to me that we can't really
> communicate very well. You write something about the agony of your soul and no one
> will get it because it will mean something totally different to them, like, feed your
> dog on monday.

Well, I disagree. If Bob has only ever seen photographs of snow, and
Benny saw snow only once in his life on a particularly happy day, and
Bill lives in a part of the world where it snows almost every day and is
frequently trapped in his house because of it, then Bob and Bill and
Benny will all have different feelings aroused in them when they read
the lines:

"Over the harvest-fields forsaken,
Silent and soft, and slow
Descends the snow"
(HWLongfellow)

Which doesn't mean any of them will be so ignorant as to think it is
advice on petcare; it just means that while each may be able to
accurately give a dictionary definition of snow, none of them will have
the same feeling about it as the others.

> Either language communicates or it doesn't.

Cval for L = 0 or 1?

But I bet you could give me plenty of examples where 0 < Cval for L < 1

Frigsampl, if a sign says "back in five minutes", you don't know exactly
when the person will be back, but you do know that it is reasonably
likely that it will be in less than five minutes from when you read the
sign. Language communicates; but it needn't communicate everything.

> If it communicates, it's logical to
> believe that it should be understood and analyzed to some degree.

: ) Well, I actually do agree with you here! I have nothing against
analysis per se (well, I would be a bit of a hypocrite if I did,
considering that everything I have written in this post so far is
analysis of one sort or another) but... It's "final analysis" that gets
me. It's the pronouncement from on high that someone else, older and
wiser than poor little me, has discovered the real meaning of a poem,
and I had better agree, or I will not be a member of the true poetical
cognoscenti, that has me thinking that the spirit of the poem is somehow
being transgressed.
A metaphor for analysing poetry of which I am particularly fond
(although I'm not sure I'd agree it's a true paralell) is vivisection;
cut a dog open and you'll understand much better what was making it run
around so much. But it won't run at all, once you've found out by this
method.

Gus.

[Tom D]

See, Laura?
If you've read Gus's post you'll know exactly what I was trying to say
elsewhere.

Well put Gus. Carn the Aussies.

I particularly agree with your statement about the spirit of the poem
being transgressed through over analysis and/or some final conclusion
being derived at.

The 'problem', if it be your will, is that as with so many things,
once we see something we like, say the ideal partner, we can't leave
well enough alone but are overtaken by a need, a greed?, to find out
more about this person, to delve ever deeper, to understand to the
point that we learn too much...how often have I been guilty of this?
Too often. Why it it that we eventually need to try and destroy that
which we once held as almost perfect? I don't know, but I believe it
*is* a part of our 'human nature'. Is it because we can't stand seeing
beauty and perfection greater than ourselves so we act to reduce it's
splendour to the mere normal, fallible level at which we are trapped?

Yet, as Leonard so often sings, there is an everpresent admiration for
the perceived outcast, failure, the one that is different, the one
that dares to be different (in particular, in this sense, the woman of
'loose morals' - something I seem to be mentioning perhaps far too
often of late - e.g., Nancy, The Gypsy Wife, The Master Song, etc).

Ultimately, I believe it is all to do with wanting to mould whatever
it is we admire to that which suits our own desires. We pull apart,
and analyse and strip until we find what we want to find. For who
searches beyond that which he finds, after a prolonged effort, to be
what is to his liking? And that all amounts to selfishness. In
essence. And, in essence, it is wrong. But, since we all do it, it is
classed as normal, so is, therefore, not wrong, but the correct
approach. Aarrgghhh....what hole is this that I have dug?

TomD (for Digger)
"The first rule of holes: When you're in a hole, stop digging" Anon.

[Bill Van Dyk]

> Well, I disagree. If Bob has only ever seen photographs of snow, and
> Benny saw snow only once in his life on a particularly happy day, and
> Bill lives in a part of the world where it snows almost every day and is
> frequently trapped in his house because of it, then Bob and Bill and
> Benny will all have different feelings aroused in them when they read
> the lines:

But that's why art is so bound up with a particular culture. It makes sense that there
could be a Canadian or a Swedish or a German "style", that means more to natives of these
cultures than to, say, someone from Japan. For example, all Canadians understand the
mixture of beauty and terror that a powerful snowstorm evokes. And actually, I don't think
it is that great of a leap for someone from South Africa to begin to sense the meaning of
the image of a blizzard. Think of the shoot-out at the conclusion of the movie "McCabe and
Mrs. Miller" (dare I assume most people here are familiar with it?). Sure, Canadians will
understand that scene better than South Africans, but that snowstorm will have a similar
meaning for most Canadians. At least, similar enough to make a discussion of the subject
worthwhile.

What I'm saying is, when I write something, I have a reasonable expectation that there will
be some connection between what I am thinking or feeling when I write it, and what someone
else will be feeling and thinking when they read it. After all, isn't that what romance is?

Here's a better example: years ago, before Cohen was as (relatively) well-known as he is
now, I very rarely ran into anyone else who really liked his music. But when I did, I knew
I'd get along with him or her. No doubt about it.

But, as I said earlier, there is so much stinkingly bad analysis out there that I can
appreciate someone saying, hey, let's just not analyze.

[Bill Van Dyk]

> Well, I disagree. If Bob has only ever seen photographs of snow, and
> Benny saw snow only once in his life on a particularly happy day, and
> Bill lives in a part of the world where it snows almost every day and is
> frequently trapped in his house because of it, then Bob and Bill and
> Benny will all have different feelings aroused in them when they read
> the lines:
>

As an afterthought, I find it interesting to consider that if these views arerepresentative
of a majority of people out there then we'd have to say
that most high school literature courses have been a colossal failure. Well,
maybe they have been.

On a more prosaic level, how different from "analysis", really, is a comment
like "what a powerful image" or "great line"? Again, there is so much bad
analysis out there, I see your point. I just don't want to give up on the idea
that "Jesus was a sailor/when he walked upon the water" means something
similar to most people who read it.

Just for fun... want to try a real life experiment? (Hey, gang, I know an
old barn where we can put on a show!!) How about we all write a brief
paragraph describing what we think those lines mean and post them at
roughly the same time (possible?) without reading each other's submissions.

You know, I don't think the results would support my position, but it
would be interesting. Any takers?

[Tom D]

Hey, I agree with that, too. And you're therefore clearly correct,
Bill, when you say LC fans get along. :o)

Re McCabe and Mrs Miller: though I've seen it several times it has
been many years since my last viewing so it is high time (yippeeee) to
see the lovely Julie Christie once again.... :o)

Tom.

[Tom D]

An interesting idea, though I feel that one a bit obvious. Lateness of
time and sogginess of brain preclude me from suggesting an alternative
"those lines" at this stage, but shyure, we nominate a GMT and we
post, in 50 words, or less, with subsequent correspondence welcomed,
our views.

Some few weeks back I suggested we write, on LC's birthday, about our
thoughts on the LC song on that day that was in our minds and what it
meant to us. Perhaps this could be an alternative. It is always easier
to have direction...

Let's, then, put forward some "lines" about which to write, and we do
it at, say, noon GMT 23rd Sep....and you, Bill, decide (after due and
fair consideration of the proposals thus put) which lines we wite
about.

Since this is a big ask, a 'dry run' on your suggested lines may not
be a bad idea prior to the big one on the 23rd?

Bill Van Dyk <bva...@christian-horizons.org> wrote:

[JB181159]

Im Artikel <35E37D...@student.unsw.edu.au>, Gus
<z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> schreibt:

>Well, I for one am not disgusted, although I have snipped your poems to
>reduce reposting. Have you written these today, or are they older
>poems? They seem quite connected to this theme, albeit in their own
>disconnected way...

*** Yeah, connected in my own disconnected way, guess this is the briefest and
most precise deffinition, I扉e ever heard about myself and whatever I happen to

produce ;-)))
These texts are older however, just fit in to illustrate, what I was trying to
explain.
The "So What" in which I "abused" Cohen愀 Swan and Beast so brazenly was
written 10 years ago, kind of an obituary to a once so promising love, that I
managed to ruin thoroughly.
And "Go Apply To Lassie" was given birth in July this year, when my own
built-in mangy Rin Tin Tin decided to get rid of his "rescue-dog collar" for
some sulky reasons ;-))).
I惴 grateful to you and the other merciful friends, who granted friendly
comments to my weird "kids", because they so clearly show the value, Cohen
provides my own twisted emotions with. I guess, most of you will agree, if I
dare to state, that its hard eough to be entrapped into the prison of the own
complicated Self beyond any rescue, decades in, decades out...
So I惴 down on my knees in gratitude to Cohen, who at least provides my own
mute confusion with one or the other tool every once in a while, to somehow
communicate via tapping code from my prison cell to those of the others ;-)
Judith (tapping diligently and curiously eavesdropping for each faint signal,
too)

[Bill Van Dyk]

I just realized that the following sentence can be taken two ways.  Allow me to clarity:

As an afterthought, I find it interesting to consider that if these views arerepresentative
of a majority of people out there then we'd have to say
that most high school literature courses have been a colossal failure.  Well,
maybe they have been.

I do NOT mean that high school literature classes have failed to teach people thatpoetry can be analyzed in a positive way, or that they should have.  I mean that they have utterly failed to convince anyone that this (analysis) is the way to read poetry.  Yet they continue to break down poems, line by line, word by word....  why?  For the same reason that churches continue to send missionaries to Africa long after the number of  Christians in Africa has exceeded the number of Christians in North America:  because the paradigm of mission activity works in Africa but doesn't work in North America.  I think a lot of teachers know that students hate seeing a poem "etherized upon the table", but don't know what else to do with the darn things.

For the record, I taught some Leonard Cohen to a high school literature class in the mid-1980's.  I refused to analyze meter or structure despite the opposition of the other English teachers, who believed the children were being cheated out of some kind of sublime pleasure-- which I likened to Catharine Tekakwitha's thorns.  I tried to put my theory into practise, and I think it worked pretty well.  (I came into class once with my trousers rolled up to my knees, wearing nerd glasses and a pocket protector, before introducing T.S. Eliot's "The Love Song of J. Alfred Prufrock".)   You do want to avoid implying that there is a "correct" meaning.  At the same time, you want them to notice, for example, that "wooden tower" (Suzanne)  could be a ship's mast, or a cross, or both, or that Adolph Eichmann was being tried in Jerusalem at the time Cohen wrote "All There is to Know About Adolph Eichmann".    That's all.  That's enough.

I was, by the way, utterly flabbergasted by how many of  the kids, who hated poetry, hated folk music, hated Bob Dylan, hated foreign movies... but loved Leonard Cohen's songs. I am still, to this day, a little bewildered by it.  I'm thinking of them, one by one... none of them had ever heard of him before that class...
 

[StPJane]

Do the approaching of poetry, or painting, on the intuitive level, and the
approaching of them on the intellectual level, have to be mutually exclusive?
I would hope that those who see my work can do both, for that would be the
seeing of it...to me...most sublimely.
I am very, very grateful for some of the comments I have read...right now, the
depiction of the Rin Tin Tin metaphor as saying, "I'm your man" stands out in
my mind.
Thanks. Sometimes I suffer from a severely handicapped comprehension of the
obvious.
Many images have come into my mind, images that will be in paintings, because
of this correspondence. I would love to sit here and write to you all, but my
show is in less than a month. I have a need to do the most beautiful pieces I
have ever done, well, I always have that need, but especially now. My work was
agregiously thrown out of a restaurant in June as being both blasphemous and
pornographic...and that was just drawings and etchings of rope. Do you want to
talk about interpretation? The art curator who talked me into hanging my work
in a restaurant looked at the pieces and said, "These are works that have an
inner glow, they luminesce in the way that only graphite on paper can." The
restaurant owner looked at them and said, "These are symbols of eternity, of
sublimity, of humanity's highest striving." The clientele in the restaurant
looked at them the first night they were up and a riot broke out. They said
(so I heard), "These are pictures of penises, vaginas, and assholes. The
picture of the rope binding the Sacred Heart is the most blasphemous thing we
have ever seen."
So, I know all about interpretations. A critic once wrote of a show of mine,
"I don't know whether her work belongs in a museum, a church, or a brothel...."
Interpretations........
So, I never meant to say that we should not approach any work of art, be it
written or a painted image, without letting it bathe, nay, cascade over us so
that we might feel it, intuite it, experience it on that sensuous, instinctive,
nebulous level which provides the sacred space forclairvoyance and true
insight. Nonetheless, I want to communicate with people at the same time. I
want them to know what I am saying in these works....which is never any
intention toward pornography and certainly none of blasphemy. Yet time and time
again, I hear these words applied to what I do.
The qadishtu, or Sacred Women, or temple prostitutes, or whatever one wishes to
call them, did what they did because they believed that it would bring
fertility to the land. Most Indoeuropean languages have a real or slang word
for the sexual act that comes from ancient words meaning "to plow." Cite the
Latin, "foccere," meaning "to plow." We get our word fuck there, also from old
English, almost the same word. Why do we get the word for sexual intercourse
from words meaning "to plow?" Because ancient peoples connected the two forms
of fertility.
If I had been a Babylonian woman, and I had believed that I could help my
people by increasing the fertility of the land with my tenure in the temple, I
would have served it happily. The qadishtu took no money personally for their
services. It all went to maintain the temple. But then, they had to take all
comers. Whoops, no pun intended.....
Off to the studio. So, I ended up writing "more" anyway. I'm loving this.
Jane

[sandym]

Tom D wrote:

> See, Laura?
> If you've read Gus's post you'll know exactly what I was trying to say
> elsewhere.
>
> Well put Gus. Carn the Aussies.
>
> I particularly agree with your statement about the spirit of the poem
> being transgressed through over analysis and/or some final conclusion
> being derived at.
>
> The 'problem', if it be your will, is that as with so many things,
> once we see something we like, say the ideal partner, we can't leave
> well enough alone but are overtaken by a need, a greed?, to find out
> more about this person, to delve ever deeper, to understand to the
> point that we learn too much...how often have I been guilty of this?
> Too often. Why it it that we eventually need to try and destroy that
> which we once held as almost perfect? I don't know, but I believe it
> *is* a part of our 'human nature'

Sorry Tom, I don't think so. Many of us don't do this, and the recipient
of our deepest love may find fault in our "disinterest" because they do.
I tend to feel about people I love as I do about the arts - take them at
face value for the joy they bring. I have never had the desire to know
every detail about anyone or anything, except perhaps, Leonard Cohen, and
that will never happen, and he is not a lover, but an idol, a symbol of
the joy of music and the written word. Even though I want to know more
about him than I would someone close to me, I have no desire to come to an
EXACT understanding of the meaning of his work. I know that it would be
impossible to do so, and I accept his work for its' power and the joy and
peace it brings me.. Certainly, I know what it means to me, but I would
never expect a group of people who listen to and read his work to agree on
exact meanings, nor would I expect the opinions of his fans (including
myself) to coincide with his exact meaning.

> Is it because we can't stand seeing
> beauty and perfection greater than ourselves so we act to reduce it's
> splendour to the mere normal, fallible level at which we are trapped?

> I can. I know many things and people are more beautiful than I, and
> want to appreciate them for it.

> Yet, as Leonard so often sings, there is an everpresent admiration for
> the perceived outcast, failure, the one that is different, the one
> that dares to be different (in particular, in this sense, the woman of
> 'loose morals' - something I seem to be mentioning perhaps far too
> often of late - e.g., Nancy, The Gypsy Wife, The Master Song, etc).

I also appreciate these people - as a symbol of the strength to be
different, also more beautiful than I, since I have been known to stive to
hide my differences from those I think would see them as faults.

> Ultimately, I believe it is all to do with wanting to mould whatever
> it is we admire to that which suits our own desires. We pull apart,
> and analyse and strip until we find what we want to find. For who
> searches beyond that which he finds, after a prolonged effort, to be
> what is to his liking? And that all amounts to selfishness. In
> essence. And, in essence, it is wrong. But, since we all do it, it is
> classed as normal, so is, therefore, not wrong, but the correct
> approach. Aarrgghhh....what hole is this that I have dug?

The hole of trying to see people as more alike than they really are. We
are all the same in many ways, but I don't believe this is one of them.

> TomD (for Digger)
> "The first rule of holes: When you're in a hole, stop digging" Anon.

Unless the gold is futher down!

Sandy

[sandym]

StPJane wrote:

> Do the approaching of poetry, or painting, on the intuitive level, and the
> approaching of them on the intellectual level, have to be mutually exclusive?
> I would hope that those who see my work can do both, for that would be the
> seeing of it...to me...most sublimely.
> I am very, very grateful for some of the comments I have read...right now, the
> depiction of the Rin Tin Tin metaphor as saying, "I'm your man" stands out in
> my mind.
> Thanks. Sometimes I suffer from a severely handicapped comprehension of the
> obvious.

You're welcome, I can always come up with the simple stuff.
I also paint, and I think it would be impossible for anyone to look at a painting
and see only form, or feel emotion without seeing composition and color. No matter
how intense the emotion a painting arouses, the viewer is always aware of the
colors, and even if totally ignorant of composition; balance , imbalance and form
will be noted, even if not labeled as such. Representational realistic painting
has meaning that is usually agreed on by viewers, although it will never be total
agreement. One could say that is a man sitting under a tree. And he is, but
individual interpretation will vary on why the man might be sitting under the tree,
or his mood, or state of mind, but there is no doubt in anyones' mind that a man is
sitting under a tree. Some one who has recently been in a thunderstorm might think
immediately of rain, and the feelings they feel about getting wet. Another who
also thinks of rain may feel totally different about getting wet, while others may
be thinking of hot days and the shade trees afford, and feeling how they feel about
getting hot, ie the sunbather vs. the menopausal woman.

The more abstract the painting, the more variance there will be in interpretation
and feeling about it. Titles are really the best clues to meaning, but the artist
has very little influence other than that, since her feelings about the various
devices (color, etc.) she uses may be completely different from the viewers.
Colors make different people feel different ways, forms may be interpreted as
whatever a persons' background and emotional state lead them to see, and because of
this, feelings about an abstract painting may even be completely opposite. It is
no wonder that people with a background in art criticism would see and feel
completely differently about abstracted painting than the general public., as in
your example about showing your paintings in a resaurant. My guess is that the
owner who wanted to show the paintings is an art lover and knowledgeable about
todays' art, or he might have been hanging commercially available decorative
pictures.
And the clientel of restaurants are usually similar in background, and these diners
were obviously uptight and would object to sexual innuendo in everything whether
it is there or not. Probably very middle class, steeped in the version of
Christianity that feels sex is not something to be discussed or exhibited, and
perhaps even in this time, feel that sex is dirty. And you were unfortunate to be
the artist whose paintings they saw sexual content in - right there where they were
eating. Another type of clientel could have been open to the beauty displayed
without the judgemental view of the imaginary content. Too Bad For You! That must
have been a very discouraging experience. Much better to hang your paintings where
the people who see them have come with the intention of viewing art, not dining.

I am honored for the newsgroup that we inspire you to paint from ideas you've been
exposed to here. I also feel inspired by the discussions.

I wish you great success with your upcoming show.

Sandy

[sandym]

Hooray for you for teaching Leonard!  Hooray for you for sounding like an excellent teacher!

The only reason I can think of for the way poetry is usually taught is that maybe these teachers think they can teach someone to write it.  That is what high school is about, learning how things are done,  regardless of the effect that approach could have on the minds of those who merely want to appreciate it and are bored stiff by the devices that make up a poem.

Sandy

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

 we'd have to say

that most high school literature courses have been a colossal failure. I do NOT mean that high school literature classes have failed to teach people thatpoetry can be analyzed in a positive way, or that they should have.  I mean that they have utterly failed to convince anyone that this (analysis) is the way to read poetry

(Snippety snip) (too much origional text - Ick!)

Sandy

[Tom D]

Thanks, Sandy.

I think I needed that. :o)

Tom.
*shakes head*...brrrbrrrrrr....slap me, quick. ;-)

[Gus]

Tom D wrote:
>
> See, Laura?
> If you've read Gus's post you'll know exactly what I was trying to say
> elsewhere.
>
> Well put Gus. Carn the Aussies.

"Carn Ozzi Carn (Carn)
Carn Ozzi Carn (Carn)
Carn Ozzi Ozzi Carn"
-anonymous poet from the Channel 9 stable, about 10(?) yrs ago.

(You remember this sublime piece of television, I hope?)

Gus.

[Gus]

Bill Van Dyk wrote:

> But that's why art is so bound up with a particular culture. It makes sense that there
> could be a Canadian or a Swedish or a German "style", that means more to natives of these
> cultures than to, say, someone from Japan. For example, all Canadians understand the
> mixture of beauty and terror that a powerful snowstorm evokes. And actually, I don't think
> it is that great of a leap for someone from South Africa to begin to sense the meaning of
> the image of a blizzard. Think of the shoot-out at the conclusion of the movie "McCabe and
> Mrs. Miller" (dare I assume most people here are familiar with it?). Sure, Canadians will
> understand that scene better than South Africans, but that snowstorm will have a similar
> meaning for most Canadians. At least, similar enough to make a discussion of the subject
> worthwhile.

Again I find I agree in part, and disagree in part. Because, where do
you draw the dividing lines twixt cultures? Even in the case where two
people have huge commonalities of experience, there will still be
distinctions between their "cultures" because they will have had
different appreciations of those same experiences. OTOH, clearly you
are going to find things that are common to Canadians that are not
common to Chilenos; so I take your point, part way.
I think it is interesting to note that some of the greatest cultural
leaps have been a consequence of alien cultures meeting; eg the
"meeting" of Medieval Europe w/ ancient Greece and Rome through newly
available translations was (IMO) the most important spur to the
Renaissance. To use again the example of snow - a photograph of snow
may be more coprehensible to the Canadian, but it will be a fantastic
and mysterious article to the Moroccan who has never seen the like
before. Apparently (well, I've heard, I may be wrong) the English
translation of The Rubaiyat of Omar Khayyam is far more popular than the
original Persian version ever was.

> What I'm saying is, when I write something, I have a reasonable expectation that there will
> be some connection between what I am thinking or feeling when I write it, and what someone
> else will be feeling and thinking when they read it. After all, isn't that what romance is?
>
> Here's a better example: years ago, before Cohen was as (relatively) well-known as he is
> now, I very rarely ran into anyone else who really liked his music. But when I did, I knew
> I'd get along with him or her. No doubt about it.
>
> But, as I said earlier, there is so much stinkingly bad analysis out there that I can
> appreciate someone saying, hey, let's just not analyze.

Well, I feel I have exhausted my little reservoir of ideas on this
subject, so I'll stop analyzing right here. But, I hope you feel we
have been sharing and not sparring; I look forward to reading your posts
in future.

Gus.

[Gus]

JB181159 wrote:

> *** Yeah, connected in my own disconnected way, guess this is the briefest and

> most precise deffinition, I´ve ever heard about myself and whatever I happen to produce ;-)))

: ) I'm glad you like it.

[snip]
> So I´m down on my knees in gratitude to Cohen, who at least provides my own

> mute confusion with one or the other tool every once in a while, to somehow
> communicate via tapping code from my prison cell to those of the others ;-)
> Judith (tapping diligently and curiously eavesdropping for each faint signal,
> too)

Tap tap

Gus.

[Tom D]

Gus <z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote:

>
>"Carn Ozzi Carn (Carn)
> Carn Ozzi Carn (Carn)
> Carn Ozzi Ozzi Carn"
> -anonymous poet from the Channel 9 stable, about 10(?) yrs ago.
>
>(You remember this sublime piece of television, I hope?)
>
>Gus.

Yup, shure do, Bay 13 and all. :o)

Tom. (Up there Cazaly, ya li'l bewdy!)

[Barbara]

Gus,
I've really enjoyed the discussion and this is neither an attempt to
prolong it nor end it. Just responding to your saying you'd
exhausted your reservoir of ideas on this. <smile>
But I so loved your observation on Jane's experience
with her work that I hoped to highlight it with a new Subject line.
You have an exciting and unique perspective. And you are gracious.
Thank you for sharing with us.
Sincerely, Barbara

Gus <z221...@student.unsw.edu.au> wrote in article
<35E504...@student.unsw.edu.au>...
<snip>
Also, I thought I might add a little note to your story about
interpretation. Just to say, the redeeming point of it is that it
need
never end. You drew pictures of rope; where two critics saw beauty,
a
host saw vileness. But, in telling this story to us, you have remade
the whole incident, sopped up the hatred and bitterness and made
something beautiful again, that we can share in. Interpretation.

Regards, Gus.

[Bill Van Dyk]

Thank you, and the others who have made me feel welcome during my first little incursion into this
newsgroup. The quality of writing here is superb; the quality of imagination, sensitivity, and
insight even higher. I look forward to many, many more intriguing, imploring, and gracious words.

[melia]

I am so impressed by the quality of the posts!!
A joy that feeds the heart of the mind.
High ground stuff.
Thank you everyone, especially to Jane for setting the stage,
masterfully.

Melia

[bar...@worldpath.net]

Bill, Your contributions have significantly upped the quality, imagination
and sensitivity. What's the next topic? Are you still teaching? Is that
going to be an excuse? Barbara

In article <35E4303C...@christian-horizons.org>,

Bill Van Dyk <bva...@christian-horizons.org> wrote:

> Thank you, and the others who have made me feel welcome during my first > little incursion into this
> newsgroup. The quality of writing here is superb; the quality of imagination, > sensitivity, and
> insight even higher. I look forward to many, many more intriguing, imploring, > and gracious words.
>

>G us wrote:
>
>>> I feel I have exhausted my little reservoir of ideas on this
> >> subject, so I'll stop analyzing right here. But, I hope you feel we
> > >have been sharing and not sparring; I look forward to reading your posts
> > >in future.

-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/rg_mkgrp.xp Create Your Own Free Member Forum

[melia]

After sending my previous post, I began to :
1) hope that this thread will continue to reveal itself.................
2) remember that I had written a something , years ago, maybe 1984 ?,
with the word Babylon in it. I'd like to share it here.

MY REBBE

My rebbe, s/he will play
and s/he will love
and s/he will smile
( from the eyes and not only the mouth )
and s/he will say :

How nice to see you! Thanks so much for coming,
let us hang out together a little while.
No... no... do not worry for I am never too busy
now that I take life moment by moment,
moments to taste and savor,
moments of beingness and communion.
For sure, let us invite each other
and make some sparks together;
let us jive and sing the echoes
of the Chorus on High

and after that we will sit by the rivers of Babylon
( where we know that the trees of life also grow )
we will have a cup of special Shabbos-tasting tea
and contended souls,
we will smile
( from the heart and not only the mouth )
and chant/dance/drum

Ha
le
lu

Yah

.

[Gus]

StPJane wrote:
>
> Do the approaching of poetry, or painting, on the intuitive level, and the
> approaching of them on the intellectual level, have to be mutually exclusive?
> I would hope that those who see my work can do both, for that would be the
> seeing of it...to me...most sublimely.

[much snip]

I just wanted to say, I hope you haven't thought me hostile. I felt
your postings very beautiful and thoughtful and perhaps I was naive to
warn you against obsession... You seem to know the currents you are
swimming in well...

[bar...@worldpath.net]

Oh Melia
What a joyous poem.
I just finished watching a wonderful documentary on PBS: A World Apart:
Hasidism in America filled with music and dancing and beingness and
communion. (I won't say I don't have problems with the patriarchal aspects,
but it made a joyful noise.
Warm wishes,
Barbara

In article <melia-26089...@pm4-11.ilhawaii.net>,

--
Barbara
"Search your heart and see
the way to do is to be." Lao-Tzu

[Bill Van Dyk]

bar...@worldpath.net wrote:

> What's the next topic? Are you still teaching? Is that
> going to be an excuse? Barbara

I quit teaching because it was becoming all consuming-- I taught four, sometimes five different
English courses each year, music, mass media, and typing (my one easy class) and the evening work was
monumental. I also occasionally found myself feeling like an outlaw working for the sheriff.
I was not able to find the time for my own work, so I moved on to something more 9 to 5ish,
dusted off my guitar and my quill, and got back to work.

Next topic? How about irony? I'm sure I'm not the only person who not only appreciates Cohen's brilliant
songs and poems, but his jokes. Like:

"I'll even wear these laurel leaves/he's shaken from his hair"...

Or the passage describing F.'s meeting with Charles Atlas in "Beautiful Losers".

"Jokes" may not be rich enough a word for what he does, but I often find myself laughing aloud at his
quiet subversiveness.

[StPJane]

Gus, don't be silly. I absolutely LOVE this. It's in the top three:
good art, good loving, and good polemic.
A note: I will be returning to the scene of the crime. The owner of
the restaurant has been inviting me to come for dinner, his treat. He says he
will make special calimari for me and whomever I bring, and that he has a new
Chilean wine that is superb. (He knows that I lived in Chile for many years.)
I think he feels guilty. Also, more than one person has told him that he has
no cajones.....

[BHoover247]

>> the image of a blizzard. Think of the shoot-out at the conclusion of the
>movie "McCabe and
>> Mrs. Miller" (dare I assume most people here are familiar with it?).
>Sure, Canadians will
>> understand that scene better than South Africans, but that snowstorm will
>have a similar
>> meaning for most Canadians.

Thank you so much for explaining to me why I hate the film "McCabe and Mrs.
Miller. I know that I am probably the only person on this group that feels that
way. I found it gloomy, dark, depressing and most of all boring. I live in the
southern United States and we very rarely have snow. Thus the symbolism of the
snow or blizzard is lost on me. The most snow I've ever seen is about three
inches every five years or so.

[melia]

In article <35E56E39...@christian-horizons.org>, Bill Van Dyk
<bva...@christian-horizons.org> wrote:

>
>Next topic? How about irony? I'm sure I'm not the only person who not
only appreciates Cohen's brilliant
>songs and poems, but his jokes. Like:
>
> "I'll even wear these laurel leaves/he's shaken from his hair"...
>
>Or the passage describing F.'s meeting with Charles Atlas in "Beautiful
Losers".
>
>"Jokes" may not be rich enough a word for what he does, but I often find
myself laughing aloud at his
>quiet subversiveness.

When it comes to understanding Cohen's style, irony and sarcasm are
indeed far more accurate words to describe countless passages in his
work. He delivers irony in such a way that a bite may at first feel like
a kiss. When the words do linger, 'for a while', one begins to feel the
full impact of a tongue he "polished against the pumice moon" . . . until
it was sore.

" Brown petals wind like fire around my poems
I aimed them at the stars but
like rainbows they were bent
before they sawed the world in half "

LC , one of the few who can make me smile warmly and also grieve,
within the same fraction of time.

Melia

[Tom D]

In response to melia's post (which I had to snip by immutable order of
the effing puter - my master and saviour):

Irony is the underlying ?theme (?method) in many of his songs. Take,
as a perfect example, "Everybody Knows":

"Everybody knows the war is over
everybody knows that the good guys lost..."

"..a meter on your bed
that will disclose what eveybody knows"

As for sarcasm? hehe..try "I'm your Man" !!

"Et cetera, et cetera, et cetera" (Yul Bryner)

Being a sarcastic bastard myself, this aspect of his music has been a
fundamental reason for my liking his work from an early age...

Tom.

[Bill Van Dyk]

I've always been very fond of:

You're faithful to the better man
I'm afraid that he left.

and
Your faith was strong but you needed proof
You saw her bathing on the roof

Tom D wrote:

> "Everybody knows the war is over
> everybody knows that the good guys lost..."
>

[melia]

In article <35e7033b...@news.vianet.net.au>, tena...@hotmail.com
(Tom D) wrote:

>
>As for sarcasm? hehe..try "I'm your Man" !!

yes, " Always "

[Jennifer]

Tom D wrote in message <35e7033b...@news.vianet.net.au>...

>
>As for sarcasm? hehe..try "I'm your Man" !!
>

>Being a sarcastic bastard myself, this aspect of his music has been a
>fundamental reason for my liking his work from an early age...
>
>Tom.

I don't take I'm Your Man as sarcastic. This is pining, longing, aching;
sincerely. Whatever it is she'll ask of him or let him give her, he'll do;
I'm your man, meaning "I'm the man for the job" and also, I'm your man as
in, "I *wish* I could be *your* man," wish-fulfillment phrase.

They've been together and broken up, the narrator and who he sings this song
to - "a man never got a woman back... by begging...'" and now he "runs
through the promises he made to her and didn't keep," his relationship
regrets. He wants her back, bad. The beast won't go to sleep.

[Snow]

Jennifer wrote:
>He wants her back, bad. The beast won't go to sleep.

Sometimes, when I need to buy specific groceries, it is necessary for me to
use a certain shop in town. There is a large dominant-looking woman who
works in there, and I can feel myself going limp just at the sight of her.
All of my friends have experienced the same phenomenon.
If Leonard shopped there, I'm sure his "beast" would go to sleep as well.

GeoffREY, the virile little sex-machine

[Bill Van Dyk]

> >> understand that scene better than South Africans, but that snowstorm will
> >have a similar
> >> meaning for most Canadians.
>
> Thank you so much for explaining to me why I hate the film "McCabe and Mrs.
> Miller. I know that I am probably the only person on this group that feels that
> way.

I loved the film, but not many people in general did. My question: how can
anyonewho likes Leonard Cohen's music not like a film that is gloomy, dark, and
depressing?

[Snow]

>I loved the film, but not many people in general did. My question: how can
>anyonewho likes Leonard Cohen's music not like a film that is gloomy, dark,
and
>depressing?

Well, it wasn't any of that - it was just boring. I tried several times to
like it, but without success. The last time I watched it I had to
continually set my alarm-clock for 10 minutes ahead because I kept falling
asleep.
But for anyone who likes "gloomy, dark and depressing" films, I suggest
anything by director David Lynch (except "Dune") - now there's a guy worth
his salt.

GeoffREY, the little film critic

[sandym]

"G" the dreamer!

[sandym]

Yes Jennifer, I like your idea better. I always took it as sincere and self
mocking for being the fool who got left. Humerous, but not sarcastic.

Sandy

Jennifer wrote:

> regrets. He wants her back, bad. The beast won't go to sleep.

[sandym]

"G" the cute little guy with delusions of grandeur

[Bill Van Dyk]

Well, there you go. I find Lynch boring because I think he
tosses in a lot of brutal images for shock value but doesn't
really have anything interesting to say, about violence, or
domination, or what have you. It's one thing to shocked
into a realization of something you weren't aware of (the
way, say, "Olivier, Olivier" makes you realize how specific
emotions between family members can deceive you), and
another to get clobbered over and over again with some
graphic brutality that doesn't really illuminate anything.

Anyway, like I said, yours is the prevailing opinion on that
film. How'd you like Nashville or M*A*S*H?

[Bill Van Dyk]

Altman's style, more European than American. Pauline Kael, by the way,
thought McCabe and Mrs. Miller was wonderful. But then, not everyone
likes Pauline Kael. Actually, I don't always like Pauline Kael..

BHoover247 wrote:

> Well for starters, I thought McCabe and Mrs. Miller was boring and tried to be
> shocking, but just turned out kind of vulgar. Leonard is certainly not boring
> or vulgar. Also half the time Warren Beatty mumbled, which I've never heard
> Leonard do either.

The sound problems are due to Altman's technique -- he likes to take the
sound on the set, live, rather than in a sound studio afterwards, as most
Hollywood productions do.

I still think most Cohen fans should not miss the last shot, of McCabe in
the blizzard. It's a wonderful, mysterious, depressing, yet beautiful image.

[BHoover247]

>>I loved the film, but not many people in general did. My question: how can
>>anyonewho likes Leonard Cohen's music not like a film that is gloomy, dark,
>and
>>depressing?

Well for starters, I thought McCabe and Mrs. Miller was boring and tried to be