Perfect Circle (reply to C.S.P.)
Tad Schirz
Me: For example, with poetry I don't need as strong a
hook. With rock, I'm flipping the channel.
Chris: Have you ever thought about why this is?
Shouldn't you give rock the same chance you give
poetry?
Me (now): Chance, yes. Outcome, rarely. But I won't
flog the mule, since we both have the same basic
feeling.
Me: [on intent and meaning, where "it" refers, I
think, to a song]
In other words, 'it' does what it does only
because he tells it to.
Chris: Laurie Anderson makes a point -- it's not her
point, but I'm copping the line from her -- that any
performance (and Ithink this would include any work of
art) gets its effects half from the artist (or the
artwork itself) and half from theaudience -- and so
really an art work is a collaboration. In other words,
I find Perfect Circle to be an amazing and moving song
partially because of R.E.M. and partially because of
who I am. A lot of the magic of the song is based on
me. So I don't necessarily think a song "does what it
does" because the author or performer "tells it to".
Me (now): You're right, you are required to observe
the piece. You even meet it halfway at your best
moments. Some people never get there. It may help you
deal with a relationship; it may help me get over the
loss of a loved one (sound familiar?). Let's move on.
And I admire your insight regarding impressionism. But
words have more limits than paint. One of the most
difficult things a writer faces is the limit of
language; I can combine a primary color into thousands
of variations. But I can find only so many adjectives
to modify one noun, only so many adverbs for a verb.
So what to do? If you're Shakespeare, you invent your
own words. If you're Stipe, you play around and hope
for the best.
For example, had Stipe said, "Nine craters," people
would be searching the archives for references to Lunar
Seas visible from Earth. But, he said, "eleven
gallows," which seems too specific to let slip by.
Maybe hangings during the civil war. Maybe gallons of
gas if you read it when you're stoned. Maybe just the
vague feeling of bodies swaying in their noose. I
don't know why, but I'm simply more willing to accept
this phrase has a real reference point. Perhaps
because even the best impressionist writers (yes, there
are plenty), just like painters, chiefly used the
effects of light to convey impressionism. Read,
"Sleepy," by Chekov. Its repetition is almost
song-like (it's a short story). You might note the
Dream Sequence, the use of light and darkness, and the
effect on the little girl while awake and during, you
guessed it, "R.E.M."
But don't take my word for it. Read fellow writer
Tolstoy's comments about his technique in "On Chekov's
Craftsmanship" by Glen Struve.
Ø Chris: 2 You've got cheater written all over you. for
"eleven gallows on your sleeve". This is IMO a more
reasonable interpretation than one involving
loyalty/betrayal, like you posit below.
Me(now): Gotcha. But how do you explain the
connotations of eleven and gallows?
Me: ["Drink another, coin a phrase"] Again I went
with the sarcasm in his voice and the countermelody.
Chris: I hear more resignation than sarcasm in "drink
another", and no sarcasm at all in "coin a phrase".
(Actually, I find it hard to imagine a situation where
you'd say "coin a phrase" sarcastically. "Oh, yeah,
*coin a phrase* why don't you?")
Me(now): Here's one example. You're all sitting
around a table. You and a chick go get it on in front
of everyone. You come back like nothing happened. (If
you've never seen this then maybe you don't relate.
I've seen it plenty.) Then you tell one another how
great of friends you are. You call it a "perfect
circle." (Yeah, right. Drink another. Coin a
phrase.)
Chris: > 10 Speak out sometimes. But don't let anyone
know.
"don't let anyone know" for "try to win"??? You're
right. If someone can demonstrate he means I'll check
it out…
Chris: I don't think he means either. I think the
question to ask is: what might "win" mean? Win at what?
[I suggest "Heaven assumed" ~= "near wild heaven"]
Me: That's intriguing. I hadn't considered it. But if
heaven assumed means heavenly, what does standing too
soon refer to? There should be a connection.
Chris: Why?
Me: Because the choruses are similar in wording. And
because the function of a lyrical song (or poem) like a
poem is to provide an epiphany. The change in wording
is clearly intentional; the first time means one
thing, the second time provides the epiphany.
And going back to win=heaven, is he then winning by
leaving off (sexually)? (Seems like a loss, unless
it's a Christian moral sense, which you apparently
don't buy….)
Me: And why 'shoulders'? An image that strong has got
to have a purpose.
Chris: Its purpose, clearly, is to be a strong image.
It's an image of a physical act that follows another
image of a physical which is chastised.
Me (now): Which physical act is being chastised?
Chris: In other words, just as "stading" is done "too
soon", I hear some of that chastisement as connected
with "shoulders high in the room". Also there's
something awkward about having your shoulders high.
"Standing too soon, shoulders high in the room" has
always struck me as the singer feeling physically
awkward, making wrong moves left and right.
It's also connected in my mind to Camera's "I fell by
your bed once. I didn't want to tell you."
Me: I agree. You're reading the literal meaning. In
my approach, blushing would also occur, especially in
her case with the guilt on her sleeve. So, your take
works equally well with my interpretation. But yours
has no figurative level (from what you've said so far).
And I still don't see an epiphany with the change to
"Heaven assumed." Even granting the 'heavenly sex'
connotation, you don't have an explanation for
"assumed." Your move, my friend.
Me (before): If it stands out, I'm going to pick at
it. An isolated image of gallows is perhaps
meaningless.
I think the word "gallows" has some fairly strong
connotations. And the number eleven could be many
things.
Chris: Not this least of which would be a number
between 10 and 12.
Me: You might also explore its etymology. The
Indo-European word 'leven' comes from 'lif', which
literally meant, "to leave."
Me: Adjectives do not always modify nouns as we would
expect (eleven gallows).
Chris: Baloney. Have you ever heard of Ockham's Razor?
The song works perfectly well if you assume grammar is
used (more or less) normally.
Me: I will consider any version, if it is simpler,
when I hear it. Frankly the song is nonsense to me
without the backing allussions.
Chris: Do you mean that this song is nonsense to you
without the Passion references?
Think of the song as a sort of Impressionist painting.
Each line adds another fleck of connotation. There are
several flecks of people leaving, some flecks of
attempts to "win" and winners getting "paid", a fleck
of post-coital snuggling, many flecks of assumed
heaven, more of standing up (to leave?) before an
appropriate standing-up time, and even more of high
shoulders (awkward movement? head hung low? shrug?).
And there is what the most haunting fleck of them all:
"A perfect circle of acquaintences and friends",
singled out both by being in the title and by having a
slightlydifferent melody than the rest of the verse
lines.
Me(now): Again, see Chekov. I won't discount your
approach; I just see less of an impressionistic work,
and more standard literary writing based on age-old
themes and references. And again, note the title.
I have broken down, line by line, and explained each
word and phrase. Generalities won't do.
What do you mean by assumed heaven? And why is it
associated with 'standing too soon?'
What are the eleven gallows? Why are they on her
sleeve? Why are the eleven gallows turning to shadows?
Why is it figurative, or does he really see eleven
nooses hanging on her dress? Why change from literal
to abstract if not to convey, a crucial idea early in
the song? If you agree, what is the symbolism, at
least to you? Who is winning and why? Can you relate
to this to the end of the song when he says, "try to
win?"
Explain the epiphany in the choral change. If you see
no epiphany there, how does it happen at the end? Or
does no one learn anything?
Chris: How those flecks come into focus is dependant
on the individual listener.
Me(NOW): Yes, and vision varies. It's not like there
are no other Passion references or Jesus references in
R.E.M, old and new. "There's a splinter in your
eye..." (Reckoning--Stipe via Jesus) "Judge not lest
ye be judged..." (Electrolyte -- Stipe via Jesus).
[Ockham's razor]
We're not seeking truth, my friend. We're inspecting
subjectively-made lyrics, designed for a target
audience, through literary methods. Period.
Chris: Nevertheless, if you say
eleven = loyalty, like the 11 good Apostles
gallows = betrayal, like Judas on the gallows for
betraying JC thus, in "eleven gallows", eleven doesn't
modify gallows but stands in opposition to it. I'm
going to say that you're rewiring the English language
to do that.
Me(now): Not necessarily. Literally, it can modify
it, as in adjective/noun. The workable meaning is
debatable, depending on your point of view. More
abstractly (here is some painting perhaps) we can
accept the syntactic clash if we so wish. You don't
want to. I won't belabor the point since my
interpretation seems to work fine on either level (a
nice bonus).
Chris: There is an easier way to put the formula
together.
eleven = the non-Judas Apostles
gallows = the fate of Judas
thus, "eleven gallows" = all the other Apostles
will end up
betraying Jesus, like Judas -- there's a gallows for
each of them.
Of course, that isn't what happens in the Passion.
Me(now): Actually, Judas' fate is salvation. Gallows
imply fate only if you ignore his repentance. The
gallows are symbolic of betrayal, not death. Judas was
forgiven.
Betrayal is EXACTLY what happens in the Passion.
Eleven disciples follow Judas' lead, and yes, they
betray Jesus. Granted, they do not hang, but do they
not betray him as badly as Judas? Read Matthew chapter
26:56 through the end. They all abandon him after his
arrest. Peter even denies knowing him, three times.
They have the chance to speak on his behalf. They
don't. He dies.
How would you feel, imprisoned, then sentenced to die,
and your friends act like they never met you? Is it so
far from lies and abandonment to betrayal? Talk about
the passion.
Chris: Uh, you'll notice that there's nothing at all in
the song to imply a table, or a party, or really
anything more than people in a room, one in a
particularly thoughtful mood.
Me: Doesn't "standing too soon, shoulders high in the
room" have a connotation of 'relativity'? High compared
to what? The floor? Chairs? Tables? I realize this
requires inference, but it is nonetheless crucial. Once
you infer someone else is there, you might as well
throw in the whole circle to try a
consistency test.
Chris: It means they seem high to the speaker, and to
the ceiling. And there might be some notion of
"getting up" (leaving off).
Me (now): Okay, so now you're seeing the room, but
still not the circle of friends. And if he's getting
up, are you referring to the interruption of a sexual
act? No need to be coy, Roy.
Then, how does your 'assumed heaven' fit in with
'shoulders high in the room (interrupting the act)?
ME: "Try to win" could mean either betray/cheat or
repent/explain.
Chris: Or, try to succeed in a relationship.
Me: Yup. Could be. But I can't make sense of that last
couplet without linking 'winning' to the theme of
betrayal. Your move. Also, in your simpler reading,
tell me your take on the ending couplet. What do you
see? Link it to winner's pay "heaven assumed" if
you're sticking with that. And, explain the circle and
your view on whether he means 'perfect' or
'imperfect.'.
I
Chris: Heck, to be honest with you, without your
Passion filter, I don't _see_ betrayal in Perfect
Circle.
Me (now): Well, without the eleven gallows, I reckon I
don't have much a passion filter.
But I have eleven gallows. And the 'hair' reference,
possibly to Mary, sister of Lazarus. And winner's pay,
possible reference to Judas' 30 coins. And the perfect
circle, possible reference to the disciples. And
standing too soon, possible reference to the Last
Supper. And heaven assumed, possible reference to
forgiveness of Judas. And the parallel structure of
the Passion narrative to the literary moment. Etc.
Truth to tell, I'm warming up to your literal take on
this song. But I don't see all the dots connected.
Finally, it's gonna be hard to disconnect the Passion
dots.
Want to try another song? You have good 20/20 and I'd
and frankly I'm sick of P.C. (In hebrew translations,
Jesus Christ is spelled P.C.)
tad
PS regarding PC: that was a joke
*** Posted from RemarQ - http://www.remarq.com - Discussions Start Here (tm) ***
Chris [Steve] Piuma, etc.
<just...@execpc.com> wrote:
> And I admire your insight regarding impressionism. But
> words have more limits than paint.
Words have different limits than paint. I've never tried to quantify
them, but I doubt words have more.
> One of the most
> difficult things a writer faces is the limit of
> language; I can combine a primary color into thousands
> of variations. But I can find only so many adjectives
> to modify one noun, only so many adverbs for a verb.
I can find thousands of adjectives, if not more, for any given noun.
> But, he said, "eleven
> gallows," which seems too specific to let slip by.
> Maybe hangings during the civil war. Maybe gallons of
> gas if you read it when you're stoned. Maybe just the
> vague feeling of bodies swaying in their noose. I
> don't know why, but I'm simply more willing to accept
> this phrase has a real reference point.
That's just it. There, look again. Those are _all_ real reference
points. The line refers to all of those possibilities -- the
multivalent meaning to the phrase "eleven gallows". You'll notice that
most of them (well, not the gallons of gas one, I suppose) have a
relatively similar emotional charge. It's that charge that makes the
line so effective. The specific reference you find to the charge is
only there to make the song work for you -- it isn't the charge itself.
> Perhaps
> because even the best impressionist writers (yes, there
> are plenty), just like painters, chiefly used the
> effects of light to convey impressionism. Read,
> "Sleepy," by Chekov. Its repetition is almost
> song-like (it's a short story). You might note the
> Dream Sequence, the use of light and darkness, and the
> effect on the little girl while awake and during, you
> guessed it, "R.E.M."
I think you're confusing impressionistic content (mentioning light,
etc.) with impressionistic writing technique (IWT). Well, perhaps
Chekov is using an IWT as well -- I haven't read the story -- but you
praise him for things that have nothing to do with an IWT (except
possibly the repetition). But spoken (sung) words don't have light --
they have sounds and connotations.
[C[S]P suggests "Heaven assumed" ~= "near wild heaven"]
> Me: That's intriguing. I hadn't considered it. But if
> heaven assumed means heavenly, what does standing too
> soon refer to? There should be a connection.
>
> Chris: Why?
>
> Me: Because the choruses are similar in wording. And
> because the function of a lyrical song (or poem) like a
> poem is to provide an epiphany. The change in wording
> is clearly intentional; the first time means one
> thing, the second time provides the epiphany.
While this is true when there is enough build-up to the change -- as in
The One I Love's "another prop" and 7CB's "guess we lost that battle"
-- it hardly works if you've only been exposed to the chorus once. I
can't think of a great example of an R.E.M. song to illustrate my
point, but there's a Dylan song called Lily, Rosemary, and the Jack of
Hearts. Each of the 16 verses ends with the phrase "the Jack of
Hearts", usually referring to the mysterious character in the story,
occasionally to the literal card. Here's how the first few choruses
end:
...looking like the Jack of Hearts
...face down like the Jack of Hearts
...and drew up the Jack of Hearts
...quite like the Jack of Hearts
These lines all have similar structure and end with the same phrase --
but that doesn't require any "epiphany" to explain the change, nor does
it suggest a link between being face down and drawing up a card. (They
both work off the pun of the character being like a card, but.)
Similarly (although I'll admit I could hunt around for a better
example, sigh), there doesn't have to be any direct link between
"Standing too soon" and "Heaven assumed". Although, of course, both
contain the ideas of physically getting higher -- by standing up or by
being taken into heaven. As does "shoulders high".
It manages to mean all that, without even considering Judas!
So although there is a connection, there doesn't _have_ to be one just
because of the structure of the song. It's nice that there is, however.
And I don't think it particularly brings about an "epiphany",
especially since it reverts back to "standing too soon" at the end.
> And going back to win=heaven, is he then winning by
> leaving off (sexually)? (Seems like a loss, unless
> it's a Christian moral sense, which you apparently
> don't buy….)
Well, unless the sexual relationship is unappealing. You ever have
really bad sex?
But I don't know where your statements are coming from. I'm pretty sure
I never suggested that "going back to win" was anywhere in the song, or
that it was connected with "heaven", or even that "leaving"="winning".
> Chris: Its purpose, clearly, is to be a strong image.
> It's an image of a physical act that follows another
> image of a physical which is chastised.
>
> Me (now): Which physical act is being chastised?
Well, personally, I've always felt it was someone who felt really
awkward in bed. You know, making the move at the wrong time, getting up
to leave at the wrong moment, feeling very self-consious the whole
time. I'm not sure that specific take can be justified by the lyrics,
but that's how the song has intergrated itself into my life...
> So, your take
> works equally well with my interpretation. But yours
> has no figurative level (from what you've said so far).
Um, exactly. I think. My interpretation is that "standing too soon"
means "standing too soon". It does not have any "deeper" meaning in the
sense that it might also mean "nailed to a cross".
> And I still don't see an epiphany with the change to
> "Heaven assumed." Even granting the 'heavenly sex'
> connotation, you don't have an explanation for
> "assumed." Your move, my friend.
I thought I had gone over this. But if not:
"Assumed" has two relevant connotations. There is the most common one,
"supposed" or "took for granted" [I assumed it was Friday, since
everyone was dressed casually at the office.], and there is another
connotation, "taken or received into heaven". The line plays with both
those connotations.
Which, as I read it, comes off in the song as "I assumed that I'd been
assumed into heaven".
A thousand things indicate that he has not been assumed into heaven
after all.
[11]
> Me: You might also explore its etymology. The
> Indo-European word 'leven' comes from 'lif', which
> literally meant, "to leave."
Have you ever considered reading James Joyce's _Finnegans Wake_?
My dictionary, which isn't the best at this sort of thing, doesn't have
that etymology. But I'll try to remember to check the OED at work. That
etymology sounds fascinating.
> I have broken down, line by line, and explained each
> word and phrase. Generalities won't do.
And I have found logical flaws or holes in every arguement you've
thrown out. Specifics (at least, that kind of specifics) miss the
greater picture of how the song operates.
> What are the eleven gallows? Why are they on her
> sleeve? Why are the eleven gallows turning to shadows?
Gallows cast long shadows.
> Why is it figurative, or does he really see eleven
> nooses hanging on her dress?
Neither. Well, possibly the latter, but I doubt it.
Or at least, it isn't symbolic of something that isn't gallows, nor
refering to any specific gallows.
> Who is winning and why? Can you relate
> to this to the end of the song when he says, "try to
> win?"
Sounds like no one's winning, just trying to win. But if they did win,
they'd get paid. ("Winners paid" instead of "Winner's paid"?)
> Explain the epiphany in the choral change. If you see
> no epiphany there, how does it happen at the end? Or
> does no one learn anything?
There is no epiphany in the choral change; the epiphany, IMO, lies in
the line "A perfect circle of acquaintences and friends".
> Me(NOW): Yes, and vision varies. It's not like there
> are no other Passion references or Jesus references in
> R.E.M, old and new. "There's a splinter in your
> eye..." (Reckoning--Stipe via Jesus) "Judge not lest
> ye be judged..." (Electrolyte -- Stipe via Jesus).
New Test Leper, of course. And it was Ron's claim that Biblical refs
weren't Stipe's style. I disagree with him there -- although I agree
with him in the sense that I think he probably wouldn't have written a
whole song around a Biblical parable.
> Me (now): Okay, so now you're seeing the room, but
> still not the circle of friends. And if he's getting
> up, are you referring to the interruption of a sexual
> act? No need to be coy, Roy.
I'm not. I think it's about sex. But I don't think that's in the text;
I think I'm filling that in myself. So I won't argue that it's part of
the song.
> Then, how does your 'assumed heaven' fit in with
> 'shoulders high in the room (interrupting the act)?
There are moments when it all becomes clear that this isn't near wild
heaven at all -- wild heaven isn't even on the map.
> Me: Yup. Could be. But I can't make sense of that last
> couplet without linking 'winning' to the theme of
> betrayal. Your move.
My move? Pawn to Queen's Pawn 4.
> Also, in your simpler reading,
> tell me your take on the ending couplet. What do you
> see?
Try to win and suit your needs
Speak out sometimes but try to win
It would be easy if I were willing to pin the tail on "sexaul
awkwardness" -- but...
You try to win (at life, at relationships, at love) and, obviously part
of that is suiting your needs (which may also have some overtones of
"fulfilling your hormonal needs", i.e., a random lay now and again when
you're not winning). But let's say you're in a relationship -- you
still have to be true to yourself (and suit your needs), and that
requires speaking out sometimes -- saying what's on your mind, etc. But
that might screw everything up -- you might just say the wrong thing.
(Remember, you're awkward and self-conscious.) So, you still try to
speak out sometimes, but you have to balance that with the need to try
to win.
Which is more a system of checks and balances than a perfect circle,
but.
> Link it to winner's pay "heaven assumed" if
> you're sticking with that.
That wild heaven is the reward (payment) for winning (at life, at love,
etc.).
> And, explain the circle and
> your view on whether he means 'perfect' or
> 'imperfect.'.
Perfect in its imperfection, would be my guess. The "ah, well, despite
all this, life is beautiful". (Anne Frank at the end believing everyone
was still basically good, to give an extreme example.)
> But I have eleven gallows. And the 'hair' reference,
> possibly to Mary, sister of Lazarus. And winner's pay,
> possible reference to Judas' 30 coins. And the perfect
> circle, possible reference to the disciples. And
> standing too soon, possible reference to the Last
> Supper. And heaven assumed, possible reference to
> forgiveness of Judas. And the parallel structure of
> the Passion narrative to the literary moment. Etc.
You do. But try connecting it with, say, Billie Holiday's life story
("Lady Sings the Blues"). I'll bet you'll come up with a bunch of
parallels there.
> Want to try another song? You have good 20/20 and I'd
> and frankly I'm sick of P.C. (In hebrew translations,
> Jesus Christ is spelled P.C.)
Again, I think Finnegans Wake may be for you...
--
Chris [Steve] Piuma, etc. http://www.flim.com
R.E.M. Lyric Annotations FAQ: http://www.flim.com/remlafaq.html
"Wait, nevermind. They want someone who uses WordPerfect 5.1, not Word."
Tad Schirz
variations. But I can find only so many adjectives to
modify one noun, only so many adverbs for a verb.
>I can find thousands of adjectives, if not more,
for any given noun.
Me: I'll make it easy for you. Not 10,000 or 5,000.
Just one thousand. Come up with one thousand ways to
say "eleven."
>11 gallows< That's just it. There, look again.
Those are _all_ real reference points. The line refers
to all of those possibilities -- the
multivalent meaning to the phrase "eleven
gallows". You'll notice that most of them have a
relatively similar emotional charge. It's that charge
that makes the line so effective. The specific
reference you find to the charge is only there to
make the song work for you -- it isn't the charge
itself.
Me: The charge, perhaps spark, or emotional focal,
can be an end or a beginning. A glass or a mirror or a
lens. A literal reading is no more valid, certainly
from the impressionist standpoint, than one that works
both literally and figuratively, such as "Dallas Cowboy
starters all admit NFL violations."
>I think you're confusing impressionistic content
(mentioning light, etc.) with impressionistic writing
technique (IWT). Well, perhaps Chekov is using an IWT
as well -- I haven't read the story -- but you praise
him for things that have nothing to do with an IWT
(except possibly the repetition).
But spoken (sung) words don't have light -- they have
sounds and connotations.
Tad: Ah. "IWT." How could I miss the acronym? Just
a sec, I need to check the Cable News Network (CNN).
Hmmm. Yes, it's safe to say Chekov wrote that way,
since he is considered the first impressionist writer.
Yes, I did refer to Chekov's use of light in the sense
of content, such as lamps and shadows.
Also, spoken words and music do have darkness -- these
would be the ceasura: pauses in the line of spoken
prose, 'rests' or breaks in rhythm of music. Lightness
is somewhat more detailed, as these would be the sounds
and wording.
I take a bit of issue with what you're saying about
Stipe. I would only point out his 'flecking' does not
necessarily invoke the accessibility which
Impressionism is known for. Pictorial shorthand isn't
a license to be obscure (or unintellibilbe), both of
which Stipe depends upon.
P.S. Any text that doesn't mention Chekov is missing
key history. You'll find that same answer in books on
culture or art, wherever literature crosses paths.
Stipe's use of a psuedo-impressionistic style also does
not categorically preclude traditional literary depth.
Does it? Or should we just call him 'impressionistic'
as an 'out'?
>There doesn't have to be any direct link between
"Standing too soon" and "Heaven assumed". Although, of
course, both contain the ideas of physically getting
higher -- by standing up or by being taken into heaven.
As does "shoulders high".
Me: In the context of the wording, yes, there has to
be a link. Your assumption that no epiphany has
happened is also not sound. A dramatic arc that shows
a journey through instability and ends up back at the
same old stability is still a dramatic arc. See
choruses one, two, three.
Me: "Whoa!!!" Taken into Heaven? In what
non-Christian sense do you now speak? Previously you
said, "assumed heaven," as in adjective/noun. Are you
now saying "Heaven assumed" as in noun/verb?
It manages to mean all that, without even
considering Judas!
Me: Sure, but not without Jesus.
.
Me (now): Which physical act is being chastised?
Well, personally, I've always felt it was someone
who felt really awkward in bed. You know, making the
move at the
wrong time, getting up to leave at the wrong
moment, feeling very self-consious the whole time. I'm
not sure that
specific take can be justified by the lyrics, but
that's how the song has intergrated itself into my
life...
Me: Fine, then, you've had some bad experiences. I,
on the other hand, had an upbringing in Sunday School,
and somehow my read on the song is less valid than
yours? Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that
contradiction impressionism?
>And I still don't see an epiphany with the change to
"Heaven assumed." Even granting the 'heavenly sex'
connotation, you don't have an explanation for
I thought I had gone over this. But if not:
everyone was dressed casually at the office.], and
there is another connotation, "taken or received into
heaven". The line plays with both those connotations.
Which, as I read it, comes off in the song as "I
assumed that I'd been assumed into heaven".
A thousand things indicate that he has not been
assumed into heaven after all.
Me: There appears to be a problem with the text above.
[11]
Me: You might also explore its etymology. The
Indo-European word 'leven' comes from 'lif', which
literally meant, "to leave."
Have you ever considered reading James Joyce's
_Finnegans Wake_?
Me: Yeah, but I enjoyed Blond on Blond and Texas
Hold'em too much.
> I have broken down, line by line, and explained each
word and phrase. Generalities won't do.
> And I have found logical flaws or holes in every
arguement you've thrown out. Specifics (at least, that
kind of specifics) miss the greater picture of how the
song operates.
Me: No, you haven't. Should we go back to Ockham's?
Why not limit every artistic work to one and only one
interpretation. Certainly that is why Moby Dick is
considered a classic. And positively, that's what
impressionism is all about. Pawn to Queen 5.
>What are the eleven gallows? Why are they on her
sleeve? Why are the eleven gallows turning to shadows?
Gallows cast long shadows.
Me: Not at high noon or under a cloudy sky. Besides,
what about the first two questions?
> Why is it figurative, or does he really see eleven
nooses hanging on her dress?
> Neither. Well, possibly the latter, but I doubt
it. Or at least, it isn't symbolic of something that
isn't gallows, nor refering to any specific gallows.
Me: I suspect there are plenty of Christians who
would like to know why this is so. And if they're not
reading now, you can bet they'll see this from me. Or,
should all Christians approach every song by shutting
off a lifetime of learning? Should they ignore the
narration of the Passion even though an image triggers
it? Then sustains it. Feeds off it. There's room
for everyone, Chris. I promise we won't hurt the
horse.
>Explain the epiphany in the choral change. If you see
no epiphany there, how does it happen at the end? Or
does no one learn anything?
>There is no epiphany in the choral change; the
epiphany, IMO, lies in the line "A perfect circle of
acquaintences and friends".
Me: How so?
>Yes, and vision varies. It's not like there are no
other Passion references or Jesus references in R.E.M,
old and new. "There's a splinter in your eye..."
(Reckoning--Stipe via Jesus) "Judge not lest ye be
judged..."
(Electrolyte -- Stipe via Jesus).
Ř I think he probably wouldn't have written a whole
song around a Biblical parable.
Me: It's not a parable. It's history as recorded by
the disciples. It's the fundamental pivot point in
Christianity. There is no salvation without the
crucifixion. There is no crucifixion without betrayal.
> Then, how does your 'assumed heaven' fit in with
'shoulders high in the room (interrupting the act)?
There are moments when it all becomes clear that
this isn't near wild heaven at all -- wild heaven isn't
even on the map.
Me: Which is it, though? Heaven assumed (noun/verb
-- the way the song plays) or assumed heaven
(verb/object) or assumed heaven (adj/noun)?
> And, explain the circle and your view on whether he
means 'perfect' or
'imperfect.'.
> Perfect in its imperfection, would be my guess.
The "ah, well, despite all this, life is beautiful".
(Anne Frank at the end believing everyone was still
basically good, to give an extreme example.)
Me: But the 'perfect circle' modifies acquaintances
and friends. How are they imperfect in their
perfection?
> But I have eleven gallows. And the 'hair'
reference, possibly to Mary, sister of Lazarus. And
winner's pay, possiblereference to Judas' 30 coins. And
the perfect circle, possible reference to the
disciples. And standing too soon, possible reference to
the Last Supper. And heaven assumed, possible reference
to forgiveness of Judas. And the parallel structure of
the Passion narrative to the literary moment. Etc.
Ř You do. But try connecting it with, say, Billie
Holiday's life story ("Lady Sings the Blues"). I'll bet
you'll come up with a bunch of parallels there.
Me: Why?
> finnegan's wake
Me: And you might try, "The Cherry Orchard" by Chekov.
I don't suppose he managed to combine symbolism and
impressionism.....nah, that's never been done....
"keepin' but an open mind, not too quick to criticize…"
-- drivin' n' cryin'
Chris [Steve] Piuma, etc.
<just...@execpc.com> wrote:
> >>I can combine a primary color into thousands of
> >>variations. But I can find only so many adjectives to
> >>modify one noun, only so many adverbs for a verb.
> >I can find thousands of adjectives, if not more,
> >for any given noun.
> Me: I'll make it easy for you. Not 10,000 or 5,000.
> Just one thousand. Come up with one thousand ways to
> say "eleven."
Uh, your challenge was to find a bunch of adjectives to modify a given
noun, not to come up with a bunch of ways of saying a specific
adjective. There's also only one Pantone color (sp?) each. If I pick
one out, you can't find another color that will pass as it.
> Also, spoken words and music do have darkness -- these
> would be the ceasura: pauses in the line of spoken
> prose, 'rests' or breaks in rhythm of music. Lightness
> is somewhat more detailed, as these would be the sounds
> and wording.
That's "rest", not "dark". "Dark" is just a metaphor for "rest"; I
could easily argue that rests are "light". There is no such physical
quality to language.
> I take a bit of issue with what you're saying about
> Stipe. I would only point out his 'flecking' does not
> necessarily invoke the accessibility which
> Impressionism is known for. Pictorial shorthand isn't
> a license to be obscure (or unintellibilbe), both of
> which Stipe depends upon.
Impressionism, when it was first introduced, was not considered
accessible. If that fireworks painting by Whistler isn't "obscure", I'm
not sure what is.
> Me: "Whoa!!!" Taken into Heaven? In what
> non-Christian sense do you now speak? Previously you
> said, "assumed heaven," as in adjective/noun. Are you
> now saying "Heaven assumed" as in noun/verb?
Uh, I've always said "heaven assumed" as noun/verb; I've just been
pointing out that the verb "assumed" has two meanings, and the phrase
"heaven assumed" is set up to accept both. (He doesn't say "assumed
into heaven", for example, which would force one meaning of "assumed".)
>> It manages to mean all that, without even
>> considering Judas!
> Me: Sure, but not without Jesus.
Even without _considering_ Jesus. I think you can talk about being
assumed into heaven without specifically referencing Jesus. Not without
heaven, sure.
[C[S]P thinks the song's about sex, but that isn't in the text, so he
don't force that interpretation]
> Me: Fine, then, you've had some bad experiences. I,
> on the other hand, had an upbringing in Sunday School,
> and somehow my read on the song is less valid than
> yours? Is that what you're saying? Doesn't that
> contradiction impressionism?
No, that's not at all what I'm saying. I'm not even saying my sexual
interpretation is "the correct one" -- it's just the one that fits me.
That's why I avoided bringing it up. Let's talk about what's happening
IN THE SONG, not about whatever baggage we bring to it. That baggage
may or may not be interesting, but it has little to do with the song
itself.
I'm not saying it's wrong for you to associate the song with the
Passion -- although I think your arguement jumps through hoops to
accommodate the reading. I'm saying it's wrong for you to think that
just because you can (sorta) map the Passion onto the song doesn't mean
the song itself has anything to do with the Passion.
So I have been arguing you on two counts: first, I've been trying to
show you the holes in your Passion arguement and the hoops it has to go
through; and second, I've been arguing that you don't _need_ the
Passion arguement to appreciate the song, make sense of it, or have it
work on you.
> Me: I suspect there are plenty of Christians who
> would like to know why this is so. And if they're not
> reading now, you can bet they'll see this from me. Or,
> should all Christians approach every song by shutting
> off a lifetime of learning? Should they ignore the
> narration of the Passion even though an image triggers
> it? Then sustains it. Feeds off it. There's room
> for everyone, Chris. I promise we won't hurt the
> horse.
Of course not. I just don't see enough justification for a Biblical
reading of PC -- of the assurance that "clearly" PC must refer to the
Passion or else it makes no sense.
> >You do. But try connecting it with, say, Billie
> >Holiday's life story ("Lady Sings the Blues"). I'll bet
> >you'll come up with a bunch of parallels there.
> Me: Why?
Because there are no two things which cannot be connected by
"symbolism" if you argue hard enough.
Tad Schirz
not nonsense, a valid question is, why did he say
"eleven gallows"? It appears you and I are coming up
with different answers for that. I say symbolism to
set up the betrayal/guilt theme, you say impressionism
(not symbolism).
Actually, I think I'm still waiting to hear your theory
on this phrase…? Survey says…?
Chris: Impressionism, when it was first introduced,
was not considered accessible. If that fireworks
painting by Whistler isn't "obscure", I'm not sure what
is.
Me(now): I wasn't aware we were talking about that
particular period of the movement. Literary
impressionism certainly isn't new. Or, are you saying
Stipe is breaking new ground? And, how so?
Chris: So I have been arguing you on two counts:
first, I've been trying to show you the holes in your
Passion arguement and the hoops it has to go through;
and second, I've been arguing that you don't _need_ the
Passion arguement to appreciate the song, make sense
of it, or have it work on you.
Me(now): Well I certainly appreciate your
counterpoints on my Passion interpretation; it has
taken me in certain directions. As for holes and
hoops, yup, but everything is relative. And my
interpretation is still a work-in-progress. As for your
second point, well, geez, I already knew that. I've
got different literal reads on the song myself. So do
most my friends. Still, I can't dismiss what seems
obvious to me. The challenge I reckon is to make it
obvious to everyone else. Hmmm.
Chris: I just don't see enough justification for a
Biblical reading of PC -- of the assurance that
"clearly" PC must refer to the Passion or else it
makes no sense.
Me(now): Could it be that filters work both ways?
Anyway, stay tuned. I'll post it when it's done.
Chris: …there are no two things which cannot be
connected by "symbolism" if you argue hard enough.
Me(now): Well, since we're into truisms, here's one
for you: You can hear a lot by listening.
PS In your interpretation, what's the "perfect circle
of acquaintances and friends"? Still thinking about
that?