Imogen Fox, in a Guardian piece makes an interesting argument about changing times at the top of the fashion industry
Anyone ever seen Meryl Streep in The Devil Wears Prada? Well if you haven't go add it to your 'to do' list asap. However, the film itself is an excellent demonstration of exactly the kind of 'culture' in the industry that Ms Fox argues is heading out.
The racist ranting which ended John Galliano's career is clearly a case of delicious karma. And the new faces in the industry are changing. There is a good case to make for the idea that Devil Wears Prada culture is heading out. We now see 'creative geniuses' who not only seem less deliberately extrovert, but also more, well, fallible.
Characters like Galliano, or Christian Lacroix are gone. The former due to a stress and booze-fuelled racist tirade, the latter due to the (horrific) commercialisation of the art aspect of the fashion industry.
Can we say the era of the mad hatter, but untouchable creative genius is over? Perhaps yes, but I for one won't be so quick to celebrate this fact.
After all, the shut down of the House of Lacroix indicates better than anything just what will happen if we allow commercialisation of the arts to continue apace. Yes geniuses like Streep's character do exist still in the industry; and yes, they are volatile and often not as infallible as they seem. But without them, and their abilities with extreme working conditions - all we have left is frankly Heather Mills and a legion of mediocrity.
------------------
p.s. Happy new year to one and all, I will be heading off to the Jools Holland Hootnany tonight. Let us keep our fingers crossed for a merrier 2012 (not bloody likely, I realise)
Year 2010
Saturday, 31 December 2011
Friday, 23 December 2011
Breaking up Britain
As an X'mas gift to all you cybernats bedevilling the blogosphere, I thought I'd spend time focusing on Mary Dejevsky's article on Scots independence for the Independent
Sir Gus parting warning may be something that will go down into the history ledgers for the 'United Kingdom: A History of dead states'. Personally, I most reverently hope not. But his warning is stark, and the unionist parties leaderships respectively really aren't living up to the challenge they are facing.
Yet perhaps Ms Dejevsky goes too far on this point. Devolution does not necessary have the single endpoint of independence. If it had, why then were the SNP campaigning years back alongside the Tories to block it? The reality is that in this great constitutional game of mice and men, nothing can be taken for granted (Perhaps that is why unionists should make more of their 'uncertainty' argument). Devolution may lead to a federalisation of the UK, or it may lead to full fiscal autonomy or even 'devo-max'. The point is, this isn't as linear a destiny for Scots and Scotland as Nationalists prefer to make out.
If anything, devolution may even stifle the longer term demand for independence. After all, during her analysis Ms Dejevsky seems to have forgotten about one critical element: the voters. How the canny Scots will vote when faced with tax hikes to sustain nordic-spending priorities (currently insulated from the marketplace realities by the Union) remains to be seen. I'd cite a recent poll on this subject. It found that if the SNP could prove that independence would make their families "£500 better off" you have just shy of 50% for independence. But, if the reverse is seen to be the truth, you have 60%+ in favour of one of the Unionist options (status quo or devo-max). So cybernats and their eager cohorts really need to start making more of the economics for independence (and no one dare bloody mention 'Scotlands oil' that horse is well and truly flogged!)
Perhaps the sentiments of that quote will resonate with many. Yet, I'd contend that as soon as Scots politicians and public taxpayers actually have to raise the money they spend (rather than just throwing the money around), these 'distinctive' policies will rapidly coalesce to the English example. Call it the 'Tory argument for independence', but the fact remains, if Scotland had to pay for its spending priorities itself, it would soon become a tiger economy leading the way in deregulation and tax cuts for corporations. Is that really the kind of country you want to end up as - an Ireland?
All I'll finish with is, the SNP and their intellectual backers are taking far too much for granted. They underestimate the practicalities of the ordinary Scots voter, and they are wrong about the linearity from which they see history.
Oh, and before I sign off - here was a nice pro-EU message from Ms Dejevsky (you remember the EU, euro etc, the dog the SNP refuse to let bark- alongside their non-existent defence agenda)
At least on this final note, we can agree. An independent Scotland, were it to happen, should join the euro and integrate into the beating heart of our bold and eternal European Ideal.
"Maybe the referendum will not take place for whatever reason; or maybe, if it does, a majority of Scottish voters will vote No. Or maybe they will prefer the lesser variant that could be on offer: a separation of the economies, while the Union is retained. But do not rely on that. When someone such as Sir Gus, whose 30-plus years ascending the ladder of the Civil Service have bred circumspection of an extreme kind, hints at a possible break-up of the UK, it is time to sit up and take stock of the evidence."This is a fascinating starting point. And Dejevsky has a point, in so far that the unionist parties really haven't appreciated the full reality of our current position. In 3 years time, there shall be a referendum (ignore the issue of 'wording' for now, suffice, there is going to be one). Yet the main unionist parties seem currently content to sit reaffirming their devotion to the union, and secretly praying this Christmas for nothing to really happen.
Sir Gus parting warning may be something that will go down into the history ledgers for the 'United Kingdom: A History of dead states'. Personally, I most reverently hope not. But his warning is stark, and the unionist parties leaderships respectively really aren't living up to the challenge they are facing.
Devolution has a logical conclusion, and that is separation. If the policy, initiated by Tony Blair early in his first term, was intended to draw the sting of resurgent nationalism, it seems rather to have had the opposite effect. Scotland and, latterly, Wales have gained a taste for difference that may not, at least in Scotland's case, be satisfied by remaining inside the UK.
Yet perhaps Ms Dejevsky goes too far on this point. Devolution does not necessary have the single endpoint of independence. If it had, why then were the SNP campaigning years back alongside the Tories to block it? The reality is that in this great constitutional game of mice and men, nothing can be taken for granted (Perhaps that is why unionists should make more of their 'uncertainty' argument). Devolution may lead to a federalisation of the UK, or it may lead to full fiscal autonomy or even 'devo-max'. The point is, this isn't as linear a destiny for Scots and Scotland as Nationalists prefer to make out.
If anything, devolution may even stifle the longer term demand for independence. After all, during her analysis Ms Dejevsky seems to have forgotten about one critical element: the voters. How the canny Scots will vote when faced with tax hikes to sustain nordic-spending priorities (currently insulated from the marketplace realities by the Union) remains to be seen. I'd cite a recent poll on this subject. It found that if the SNP could prove that independence would make their families "£500 better off" you have just shy of 50% for independence. But, if the reverse is seen to be the truth, you have 60%+ in favour of one of the Unionist options (status quo or devo-max). So cybernats and their eager cohorts really need to start making more of the economics for independence (and no one dare bloody mention 'Scotlands oil' that horse is well and truly flogged!)
Over the past 15 years, Scotland has become ever more distinct from the rest of Great Britain. On all sorts of policies, from health through welfare, schools, and university fees, it is spinning off at a remarkable speed in pursuit of something that looks more akin to the so-called Nordic model.
Perhaps the sentiments of that quote will resonate with many. Yet, I'd contend that as soon as Scots politicians and public taxpayers actually have to raise the money they spend (rather than just throwing the money around), these 'distinctive' policies will rapidly coalesce to the English example. Call it the 'Tory argument for independence', but the fact remains, if Scotland had to pay for its spending priorities itself, it would soon become a tiger economy leading the way in deregulation and tax cuts for corporations. Is that really the kind of country you want to end up as - an Ireland?
All I'll finish with is, the SNP and their intellectual backers are taking far too much for granted. They underestimate the practicalities of the ordinary Scots voter, and they are wrong about the linearity from which they see history.
Oh, and before I sign off - here was a nice pro-EU message from Ms Dejevsky (you remember the EU, euro etc, the dog the SNP refuse to let bark- alongside their non-existent defence agenda)
that it would make sense for an independent Scotland to join the euro.
At least on this final note, we can agree. An independent Scotland, were it to happen, should join the euro and integrate into the beating heart of our bold and eternal European Ideal.
Sunday, 18 December 2011
Couples, careers & the gender rebellion
 |
| Can they play 'piggy in the middle with 'Call-me-Dave' on social policy? |
Midterm blues ... for who?
A whole spate of polling evidence has come forth, a stark warning that Cameron may be regarded as "aloof" and "arrogant"; but he is still the best man in the room. No party rival has thus far come close to laying a finger of all-too-smarmy Call-me-Dave.
With Tories now running ahead of Labour on polling averages(1), there remains serious questions to be answered. Not least of them, why are Labour the ones suffering - apparently - the midterm blues?
And the LibDems, well they can really only celebrate the fact that if a snap GE were ever held, they'd still manage to scrape a 3rd. Just scrape in with 23MPs.
Policy opportunities
Yet if we stop to take stalk, this hasn't been a 'good year' for Cammie (he is at risk of losing the northern half of his Kingdom). And there is one policy area where he, personally, is acutely vulnerable. Not his party, but him, the one they can't lay a finger on: social policy.
This is going to be the bridgehead which pulls the Tories back below the symbolic 40%, and builds LibDem and Labour up somewhat.
How so?
Cameron has suffered among his worst defeats in social policy (or directly related) issues over the last 19 months. Big Society, his personal theme for power, gone. Already surrendered to the progressives in opposition(2) Furthermore, on social welfare reforms, he is losing ground among the public. Yes, a majority still say 'hard medicine needed' or 'catch the welfare cheats' (and so forth) BUT ... the polling data and mood from the street seems to suggest a rising scepticism as to the true Tory motivations. Put it simply: the public are slowly beginning to see beyond the seemingly hereditary Anglo-Saxon mistrust of welfarism and question the peoples doing the implementing.
Add to it, Nick Clegg has fired an olive-branch to Labour, on core social policy. He has come out saying that he would "never" (strong word for a politico to use, even nowadays) continence supporting a Tory vision for marriage.
If Labour are smart enough, they could work closely with LibDem backbenchers to prevent Cameron or the Tories from achieving their (absurd, as they currently stand) marriage tax cuts.
If LibDems and Labour can compel Cameron to explain precisely what he means by his 'vaguely Christian' comments, and 'marriage subsidy' -- it will cause him very real pain. Either from his own righter-than-Thatcher backbenchers, or from the more in-touch forces of progressivity in UK politics.
Let me finish then with a question. 'Can you trust the Tories on social issues?' No...thought not!
___________________________________________
(1) see UK Polling Report running average
(2) no, that doesn't necessarily imply I view 'the Labour Party' as now somehow 'progressive'
Saturday, 17 December 2011
Suicidal: Labour elect Lamont
 |
| Can she beat King Alex off his Holyrood throne? |
"Scotland's party once again"
Johann Lamont has won the Scottish Labour leadership, beating off her challengers. May I say to her, well done - and I wish you all the best in leading the main opposition party. Yet what is her platform within the party? And what can we deduce from that power-base?
First, Johann Lamont was the GMB candidate. That is, she is the trades union choice. Deductions? To begin, it means she didn't the job by promising to change policies. Indeed the opposite is the case. Lamont in her campaign material places emphasis on the hows to communicate more clearly. There was precious little in her materials talking about Labour actively changing policy direction north of the wall...for that (perhaps more serious change) there was Ken MacIntosh...
With a trades union for your power-base, and all your rhetoric about ... well ... rhetoric - don't expect this new Labour leader to change much.
At the end of the day, Labour have made, like the Tories, the biggest mistake of their political lives. Like Ruth, Johann represents a grass-roots response to the all-conquering worm. Like the Scots Tories, until they elect leaders who will change policy, change their direction - all that will happen is denial as Scotland slowly slips into the separatist agenda.
Friday, 16 December 2011
Obituary: Christopher Hitchens
A British born intellectual and academic, of the greatest ability, he passed on after a complication from the cancer he was fighting.
Leaving behind him his children, and wife, he deserves a special note of recognition.
Being an Oxford graduate, he nevertheless spent a life railing against the system which produced him. Of the Trotskyite left, he combined his own personal politics with a staunch literary career. The world will surely be less vibrant without him in it.
Accordingly, Vanity summarised best:
There will never be another like Christopher
And most certainly there won't. On a personal note, I always found Christopher Hitchens someone capable of motivating large numbers. If you could describe Hitchens, during public speaking, it is possible to see him as some kind of Pericles. Orator, with an impressive capacity to crystallize even the most obscure academic references as something relatable.
An atheist in his own life, he faced death with a cool demeanour of the great minds, saying "the prospect of death makes me sober".
My heart goes out to his friends and family, and to the internationale of citizens who have lost a staunch advocate for true social justice.
Sunday, 11 December 2011
Mr Europe speaks out
Nick Clegg has seen a dire first 19 months in office as the first Liberal to see elected office in over 60 years. First came tuition fees backlash - one entirely of his party's own making. Then came various other minor scuffles which has seen him being painted as either an unwitting stooge of Cameron, or at worst a complicit. Camerclegg stands as the crypt where more than half LibDem polling support rests buried under.
That said, is Europe to be his redemption?
Opinion on the outcome of the EU effective veto is still up in the air, especially given that all party leaders are assuming it will strengthen their stand with the public. Someone will be in for a nasty shock.
Clegg is one of the most patriotic, and proud Europeans of the current political age. He holds diverse European genes, can speak multiple European languages. In short, he is 'Mr Europe'. Thus, his spin of the veto-crisis presided over by Cameron can re-energise his grass-roots standing, or cripple it permanently.
Andrew Marr performance
In light of this context, one has to conclude that Clegg has really shown his mettle. On Andrew Marr's show, Clegg came across as the more measured, thoughtful and rational of the two coalition leaders.
His calmly pointing out that while the veto-issuing had reduced UK ability to protect the City (rebuking the Cameron official line nicely) as astute, and polite. But he went on to point out, like it was common-sense to everyone except Cameron, that there was more to protect than the City of London.
He even implied that Cameron has threatened manufacturing jobs, and non-financial related employment badly by his isolating the UK off from the rest of the entire EU. That means Clegg is aiming directly for 3m workers in the UK, and their employers. He wants them to see Clegg - himself - as their best bet for protecting their interests rather than an increasingly europhobic and irrational Tory Party.
Yet finally, and the cherry on the cake - he explained how his alternative and more consensual approach might have done more to protect Cameron's much-loved 'Internal Market' in the EU...
All in all it was smooth and statesmanlike work. But he never stopped there, he pushed on by implying that he personally could have got a better deal ... or indeed any kind of deal at all. Why? Because, unlike Cameron, Clegg is actually well respected in Paris and Berlin.
The ending impression? Here is a man about to make Europe the issue which can potentially detoxify his mistakes over the last 19 months. And frankly, good on him. Sometimes honesty really is the best medicine. This is the first time when I can with honesty and credibility claim that Clegg appeared truly Statesmanlike.
Friday, 9 December 2011
Isolated UK
Cameron wielded the British veto on any renegotiation of the Lisbon Treaty, on the spurious grounds that it was in our national interest.
Our PM has successfully isolated the UK from any future decisions regarding the eurozone, our most important bilateral trading partner. Why? In order to shield the city of London bankers from facing a transaction tax of 0.05% (which could raise £20bn for the UK to spend), and to prevent our bankers from having to maintain higher capital assets.
How strange, I thought that our PM was defending our national interest?
After all what we urgently need right now is for banks to hold higher capital assets before going off on another gambling session like the last thirteen years.
Then of course there is Cameron's motivation. His real reason for surrendering our seat at the top table of a now inevitable two-tier Europe. His back-bench haters.
The backbenches of the parliamentary Tory party is up to its necks in euro-hating, banker loving, child-kissing opportunists. Apparently they, and his City paymasters mean more to Cameron than our natural national interest. Which is, and always will be in Europe, at the heart of Europe - always.
Our PM has successfully isolated the UK from any future decisions regarding the eurozone, our most important bilateral trading partner. Why? In order to shield the city of London bankers from facing a transaction tax of 0.05% (which could raise £20bn for the UK to spend), and to prevent our bankers from having to maintain higher capital assets.
How strange, I thought that our PM was defending our national interest?
After all what we urgently need right now is for banks to hold higher capital assets before going off on another gambling session like the last thirteen years.
Then of course there is Cameron's motivation. His real reason for surrendering our seat at the top table of a now inevitable two-tier Europe. His back-bench haters.
The backbenches of the parliamentary Tory party is up to its necks in euro-hating, banker loving, child-kissing opportunists. Apparently they, and his City paymasters mean more to Cameron than our natural national interest. Which is, and always will be in Europe, at the heart of Europe - always.
Wednesday, 7 December 2011
The Bride of Corinthe
I found myself analysing one of Goethe's poems today, The Bride of Corinthe.
(1) Once a stranger youth to Corinth came,
Who in Athens lived, but hoped that he
From a certain townsman there might claim,
As his father's friend, kind courtesy.
(2) Son and daughter, they
Had been wont to say
Should thereafter bride and bridegroom be.
But can he that boon so highly prized,
Save tis dearly bought, now hope to get?
They are Christians and have been baptized,
He and all of his are heathens yet.
(3) For a newborn creed,
Like some loathsome weed,
Love and truth to root out oft will threat.
Father, daughter, all had gone to rest,
And the mother only watches late;
She receives with courtesy the guest,
And conducts him to the room of state.
(4) Wine and food are brought,
Ere by him besought;
Bidding him good night, she leaves him straight.
But he feels no relish now, in truth,
For the dainties so profusely spread;
Meat and drink forgets the wearied youth,
And, still dress'd, he lays him on the bed.
(5) Scarce are closed his eyes,
When a form in-hies
Through the open door with silent tread.
By his glimmering lamp discerns he now
How, in veil and garment white array'd,
With a black and gold band round her brow,
Glides into the room a bashful maid.
(6) But she, at his sight,
Lifts her hand so white,
And appears as though full sore afraid.
"Am I," cries she, "such a stranger here,
That the guest's approach they could not name?
Ah, they keep me in my cloister drear,
Well nigh feel I vanquish'd by my shame.
(7) On thy soft couch now
Slumber calmly thou!
I'll return as swiftly as I came."
"Stay, thou fairest maiden!" cries the boy,
Starting from his couch with eager haste:
"Here are Ceres', Bacchus' gifts of joy;
Amor bringest thou, with beauty grac'd!
(8) Thou art pale with fear!
Loved one let us here
Prove the raptures the Immortals taste."
"Draw not nigh, O Youth! afar remain!
Rapture now can never smile on me;
For the fatal step, alas! is ta'en,
Through my mother's sick-bed phantasy.
(9) Cured, she made this oath:
'Youth and nature both
Shall henceforth to Heav'n devoted be.'
"From the house, so silent now, are driven
All the gods who reign'd supreme of yore;
One Invisible now rules in heaven,
On the cross a Saviour they adore.
(10) Victims slay they here,
Neither lamb nor steer,
But the altars reek with human gore."
And he lists, and ev'ry word he weighs,
While his eager soul drinks in each sound:
"Can it be that now before my gaze
Stands my loved one on this silent ground?
(11) Pledge to me thy troth!
Through our father's oath:
With Heav'ns blessing will our love be crown'd."
"Kindly youth, I never can be thine!
'Tis my sister they intend for thee.
When I in the silent cloister pine,
Ah, within her arms remember me!
(12) Thee alone I love,
While love's pangs I prove;
Soon the earth will veil my misery."
"No! for by this glowing flame I swear,
Hymen hath himself propitious shown:
Let us to my fathers house repair,
And thoult find that joy is not yet flown,
(13) Sweetest, here then stay,
And without delay
Hold we now our wedding feast alone!"
Then exchange they tokens of their truth;
She gives him a golden chain to wear,
And a silver chalice would the youth
Give her in return of beauty rare.
(14) "That is not for me;
Yet I beg of thee,
One lock only give me of thy hair."
Now the ghostly hour of midnight knell'd,
And she seem'd right joyous at the sign;
To her pallid lips the cup she held,
But she drank of nought but blood-red wine.
(15) For to taste the bread
There before them spread,
Nought he spoke could make the maid incline.
To the youth the goblet then she brought,--
He too quaff'd with eager joy the bowl.
Love to crown the silent feast he sought,
Ah! full love-sick was the stripling's soul.
(16) From his prayer she shrinks,
Till at length he sinks
On the bed and weeps without control.
And she comes, and lays her near the boy:
"How I grieve to see thee sorrowing so!
If thou think'st to clasp my form with joy,
Thou must learn this secret sad to know;
(17) Yes! the maid, whom thou
Call'st thy loved one now,
Is as cold as ice, though white as snow."
Then he clasps her madly in his arm,
While love's youthful might pervades his frame:
"Thou might'st hope, when with me, to grow warm,
E'en if from the grave thy spirit came!
(18) Breath for breath, and kiss!
Overflow of bliss!
Dost not thou, like me, feel passion's flame?"
Love still closer rivets now their lips,
Tears they mingle with their rapture blest,
From his mouth the flame she wildly sips,
Each is with the other's thought possess'd.
(19) His hot ardour's flood
Warms her chilly blood,
But no heart is beating in her breast.
In her care to see that nought went wrong,
Now the mother happen'd to draw near;
At the door long hearkens she, full long,
Wond'ring at the sounds that greet her ear.
(20) Tones of joy and sadness,
And love's blissful madness,
As of bride and bridegroom they appear,
From the door she will not now remove
'Till she gains full certainty of this;
And with anger hears she vows of love,
Soft caressing words of mutual bliss.
(21) "Hush! the cock's loud strain!
But thoult come again,
When the night returns!"--then kiss on kiss.
Then her wrath the mother cannot hold,
But unfastens straight the lock with ease
"In this house are girls become so bold,
As to seek e'en strangers' lusts to please?"
(22) By her lamp's clear glow
Looks she in,--and oh!
Sight of horror!--'tis her child she sees.
Fain the youth would, in his first alarm,
With the veil that o'er her had been spread,
With the carpet, shield his love from harm;
But she casts them from her, void of dread,
(23) And with spirit's strength,
In its spectre length,
Lifts her figure slowly from the bed.
"Mother! mother!"--Thus her wan lips say:
"May not I one night of rapture share?
From the warm couch am I chased away?
Do I waken only to despair?
(24) It contents not thee
To have driven me
An untimely shroud of death to wear?
"But from out my coffin's prison-bounds
By a wond'rous fate I'm forced to rove,
While the blessings and the chaunting sounds
That your priests delight in, useless prove.
(25) Water, salt, are vain
Fervent youth to chain,
Ah, e'en Earth can never cool down love!
"When that infant vow of love was spoken,
Venus' radiant temple smiled on both.
Mother! thou that promise since hast broken,
Fetter'd by a strange, deceitful oath.
(26) Gods, though, hearken ne'er,
Should a mother swear
To deny her daughter's plighted troth.
From my grave to wander I am forc'd,
Still to seek The Good's long-sever'd link,
Still to love the bridegroom I have lost,
And the life-blood of his heart to drink;
(27) When his race is run,
I must hasten on,
And the young must 'neath my vengeance sink,
"Beauteous youth! no longer mayst thou live;
Here must shrivel up thy form so fair;
Did not I to thee a token give,
Taking in return this lock of hair?
(28) View it to thy sorrow!
Grey thoult be to-morrow,
Only to grow brown again when there.
"Mother, to this final prayer give ear!
Let a funeral pile be straightway dress'd;
Open then my cell so sad and drear,
That the flames may give the lovers rest!
(29) When ascends the fire
From the glowing pyre,
To the gods of old we'll hasten, blest."
Why? Well for a start this poem represents the FIRST poem (or short story) in Germanic Gothic tradition to feature a female vampire, and a male victim (though obv the female vampire can be seen to be a victim herself, of her parents desires for her, of the religion she is forced to give up etc).
The time period for this poem is, at best guess, around 300 AD or so, given the slow turn to Christianity around Corinth at that time. The poem's lifeblood seems to be the war between two opposing theologies which meets in two families. The family of the Bride (Juliet, if you will), has embraced Christianity; while the family of the bride-groom has remained faithful to the old gods, including Venus -- Goddess of Love. The troth was plighted (marriage promise) exchanged under the old religion -- and the maiden refuses to turn her back on the promise made by the two sets of parents.
It is not only the vows of Theology that is being broken in this poem; the bounds of guest visits are being broken as well when young female vampire daughter of the house attacks, and apparently is prepared to kill, the young male guest. He is owed safety and honor within the house. He receives a vampire love/wife, and death. Uncool.
The characters here are unnamed. The roster contains: the young man who has come visiting to meet the fiancé he was betrothed to as an infant. the young woman: his fiance who is also the vampire. The Mother who greets him, and who has recently buried her daughter (and failed to mention it?). Priests who chant and pray through the nights.
The set is staged and the location established in stanza one by the young mans arrival at the home in Corinth on a visit from his home in Athens. He is hoping to claim a favor (his bride! she is quite a favor!) from his father's friend.
Stanza two: Upon his arrival the narrator lets us know that the new religion of Christianity has been embraced by his fiancé's family. Under the tenets of both religions, they will now be pulling different directions. The male is set up as open to the possibility of having a different woman by the question: can a person appreciate what comes easy? his fiancé is coming easy, with no work on his part to win her.
Stanza three: When he arrives he discovers that the house has retired for the night, and he will have to wait to meet his fiancé. The mother greets him and leads him to a guest chamber.
Stanza four: The young man is served food and drinks by ignores it, going to bed instead.
Stanza five: As soon as he lays down and closes his eyes a young "maid" enters. She is wearing a veil to hide her features, and dressed in white. She has a black and gold headband and moves in a glide, without discernable steps.
Stanza six: This maid that has arrived has very white hands. She declares that she is hurt at not having been introduced to the guest upon his arrival. She interprets this as the family being embarrassed by her.
Stanza seven: She offers to leave him alone, and he asks her to stay. He has fallen in love with her because she is so beautiful. (Although she is never shown removing her veil!)
Stanza eight:8. She appears to be pale with fear as he approaches for sex "the raptures the Immortals taste." She backs off telling him not to approach, she can't do it -- for she has already been "raptured" by her mother's "sick-bed phantasy?" (Huh?) My best guess is that her mother's fantasy is Christianity, and the "rapture" being reborn into both Christianity and death."
Stanza nine: Her mother has been cured from worshipping the wrong gods, and since has sworn that since she herself was spared, everyone in the house would devote themselves to heaven. All other God's have given place to the Savior and his cross.
Stanza ten: His unnamed visitor tells him the family now no longer sacrifice lamb or steer, but instead perform human sacrifice here. (My guess: she is talking about the Eucharist -- the body and the blood of the sacrament.) He listens but all he is thinking about is how to get into her pants. Is she his betrothed; he wonders?
Stanza eleven: Marry me!" he says. Our fathers youthful promise was that we would marry. Heaven will bless our marriage. She tells him "I can't marry you -- you are for my sister. When you are diddling her, remember me.
Stanza twelve: He declares "I love only you. I will kill myself if I can't have you!"(classic male cry -- I will die if you don't come across?) To which she answers, you don't have to die; Hymen says we can be together -- come with me.
Stanza thirteen: They exchange wedding vows on the spot; she gives him a golden chain, and he gives her a silver chalice. (Silver is a pure metal, often anathema to supernatural creatures.)
Stanza fourteen: She tells him she can't accept the chalice, and asks for a lock of his hair. It chimes midnight right after she says this, and she is really happy about it. She holds the cup of wine to her "pallid" lips, but drinks none of the wine within. (More shade of the Eucharist.)
Chapter fifteen: She won't eat the bread either. (Bread = Christ's body) He does drink from the chalice when she brings it to him. He is love-sick (read HORNY) and will do anything she asks.
Stanza sixteen: She shrinks away from his prayer, and he falls on the bed weeping at her rejection. She comes near him and apologizes for rejecting his pass. She offers to tell him her "sad" secret.
Stanza seventeen: She tells him that she is "cold as ice, although white as snow." He clasps her in his arms to try to warm her. "Even if her spirit came from the grave," he is certain that his body's heat will warm her.
Stanza eighteen: He tries to make her passionate by kissing her repeatedly, and she sips the flame from his mouth. (Odd phrasing)
Stanza nineteen: His passion finally manages to warm her, but she has no heart-beat!(!!!!) While she is quite careful to not get caught or noticed by anyone passing the room, still it happens. The mother walks by, and hears the sounds coming from inside.
Stanza twenty: The mother hears sounds of joy, sadness, and bliss. They are entwined as bride and bridegroom. She won't leave the door until she knows what is going on.
Stanza twenty-one: The girl hears the "cock's loud strain" (day's announcer), and tells him she will return the next night. At this point the mother finally enters -- who is this maid whoring with her guest?
Stanza twenty-two: The mother is horrified to see her own daughter -- and her daughter refuses to hide her face (brazen).
Stanza twenty-three: The girl lifts herself slowly from the bed -- "spirits strength?" In spite of the passionate kisses, she still has "wan" lips. She gets in her mother's face asking if she isn't entitled to at least ones night "passion?"
Stanza twenty-four: heavy vampire imagery here! She continues berating her mom: Hey mom, aren't you content at having forced me to wear the "shroud of death? I have busted out of my 'COFFIN,' and "by a wond'rous[sic] fate I am 'FORCED' to rove while the "blessing and the chauntings sound" The priests' words are useless!
Stanza twenty-five: She blames her mother for attempting to separate them from the vow of love sworn under a different theology when they were infants -- and water and salt -- even earth itself can't separate them.
Stanza twenty-six: "gods, though, don't listen to what a mother does to separate a promised joining "plighted troth". She is forced to leave her GRAVE to find and love her bridegroom. And to DRINK HIS BLOOD from his heart.
Stanza twenty-seven: When he dies, she must move on to other victims, who will also sink under her vengeance -- she is going to "SHRIVEL UP THY FORM SO FAIR -- she has exchanged tokens with him, and has a lock of his hair. (Witchcraft uses these locks -- early DNA?)
Stanza twenty-eight: He should be sorry when he sees it, he will be gray "tomorrow" and then it will return to brown later? She further instructs her mother to open her GRAVE, and the two of them (she and her lover) will BURN - and have rest!
Stanza twenty-nine: Short stanza, only three lines. -- (the poem began with a four line stanza) When they have burned together, they will return to their old gods, blessed
(1) Once a stranger youth to Corinth came,
Who in Athens lived, but hoped that he
From a certain townsman there might claim,
As his father's friend, kind courtesy.
(2) Son and daughter, they
Had been wont to say
Should thereafter bride and bridegroom be.
But can he that boon so highly prized,
Save tis dearly bought, now hope to get?
They are Christians and have been baptized,
He and all of his are heathens yet.
(3) For a newborn creed,
Like some loathsome weed,
Love and truth to root out oft will threat.
Father, daughter, all had gone to rest,
And the mother only watches late;
She receives with courtesy the guest,
And conducts him to the room of state.
(4) Wine and food are brought,
Ere by him besought;
Bidding him good night, she leaves him straight.
But he feels no relish now, in truth,
For the dainties so profusely spread;
Meat and drink forgets the wearied youth,
And, still dress'd, he lays him on the bed.
(5) Scarce are closed his eyes,
When a form in-hies
Through the open door with silent tread.
By his glimmering lamp discerns he now
How, in veil and garment white array'd,
With a black and gold band round her brow,
Glides into the room a bashful maid.
(6) But she, at his sight,
Lifts her hand so white,
And appears as though full sore afraid.
"Am I," cries she, "such a stranger here,
That the guest's approach they could not name?
Ah, they keep me in my cloister drear,
Well nigh feel I vanquish'd by my shame.
(7) On thy soft couch now
Slumber calmly thou!
I'll return as swiftly as I came."
"Stay, thou fairest maiden!" cries the boy,
Starting from his couch with eager haste:
"Here are Ceres', Bacchus' gifts of joy;
Amor bringest thou, with beauty grac'd!
(8) Thou art pale with fear!
Loved one let us here
Prove the raptures the Immortals taste."
"Draw not nigh, O Youth! afar remain!
Rapture now can never smile on me;
For the fatal step, alas! is ta'en,
Through my mother's sick-bed phantasy.
(9) Cured, she made this oath:
'Youth and nature both
Shall henceforth to Heav'n devoted be.'
"From the house, so silent now, are driven
All the gods who reign'd supreme of yore;
One Invisible now rules in heaven,
On the cross a Saviour they adore.
(10) Victims slay they here,
Neither lamb nor steer,
But the altars reek with human gore."
And he lists, and ev'ry word he weighs,
While his eager soul drinks in each sound:
"Can it be that now before my gaze
Stands my loved one on this silent ground?
(11) Pledge to me thy troth!
Through our father's oath:
With Heav'ns blessing will our love be crown'd."
"Kindly youth, I never can be thine!
'Tis my sister they intend for thee.
When I in the silent cloister pine,
Ah, within her arms remember me!
(12) Thee alone I love,
While love's pangs I prove;
Soon the earth will veil my misery."
"No! for by this glowing flame I swear,
Hymen hath himself propitious shown:
Let us to my fathers house repair,
And thoult find that joy is not yet flown,
(13) Sweetest, here then stay,
And without delay
Hold we now our wedding feast alone!"
Then exchange they tokens of their truth;
She gives him a golden chain to wear,
And a silver chalice would the youth
Give her in return of beauty rare.
(14) "That is not for me;
Yet I beg of thee,
One lock only give me of thy hair."
Now the ghostly hour of midnight knell'd,
And she seem'd right joyous at the sign;
To her pallid lips the cup she held,
But she drank of nought but blood-red wine.
(15) For to taste the bread
There before them spread,
Nought he spoke could make the maid incline.
To the youth the goblet then she brought,--
He too quaff'd with eager joy the bowl.
Love to crown the silent feast he sought,
Ah! full love-sick was the stripling's soul.
(16) From his prayer she shrinks,
Till at length he sinks
On the bed and weeps without control.
And she comes, and lays her near the boy:
"How I grieve to see thee sorrowing so!
If thou think'st to clasp my form with joy,
Thou must learn this secret sad to know;
(17) Yes! the maid, whom thou
Call'st thy loved one now,
Is as cold as ice, though white as snow."
Then he clasps her madly in his arm,
While love's youthful might pervades his frame:
"Thou might'st hope, when with me, to grow warm,
E'en if from the grave thy spirit came!
(18) Breath for breath, and kiss!
Overflow of bliss!
Dost not thou, like me, feel passion's flame?"
Love still closer rivets now their lips,
Tears they mingle with their rapture blest,
From his mouth the flame she wildly sips,
Each is with the other's thought possess'd.
(19) His hot ardour's flood
Warms her chilly blood,
But no heart is beating in her breast.
In her care to see that nought went wrong,
Now the mother happen'd to draw near;
At the door long hearkens she, full long,
Wond'ring at the sounds that greet her ear.
(20) Tones of joy and sadness,
And love's blissful madness,
As of bride and bridegroom they appear,
From the door she will not now remove
'Till she gains full certainty of this;
And with anger hears she vows of love,
Soft caressing words of mutual bliss.
(21) "Hush! the cock's loud strain!
But thoult come again,
When the night returns!"--then kiss on kiss.
Then her wrath the mother cannot hold,
But unfastens straight the lock with ease
"In this house are girls become so bold,
As to seek e'en strangers' lusts to please?"
(22) By her lamp's clear glow
Looks she in,--and oh!
Sight of horror!--'tis her child she sees.
Fain the youth would, in his first alarm,
With the veil that o'er her had been spread,
With the carpet, shield his love from harm;
But she casts them from her, void of dread,
(23) And with spirit's strength,
In its spectre length,
Lifts her figure slowly from the bed.
"Mother! mother!"--Thus her wan lips say:
"May not I one night of rapture share?
From the warm couch am I chased away?
Do I waken only to despair?
(24) It contents not thee
To have driven me
An untimely shroud of death to wear?
"But from out my coffin's prison-bounds
By a wond'rous fate I'm forced to rove,
While the blessings and the chaunting sounds
That your priests delight in, useless prove.
(25) Water, salt, are vain
Fervent youth to chain,
Ah, e'en Earth can never cool down love!
"When that infant vow of love was spoken,
Venus' radiant temple smiled on both.
Mother! thou that promise since hast broken,
Fetter'd by a strange, deceitful oath.
(26) Gods, though, hearken ne'er,
Should a mother swear
To deny her daughter's plighted troth.
From my grave to wander I am forc'd,
Still to seek The Good's long-sever'd link,
Still to love the bridegroom I have lost,
And the life-blood of his heart to drink;
(27) When his race is run,
I must hasten on,
And the young must 'neath my vengeance sink,
"Beauteous youth! no longer mayst thou live;
Here must shrivel up thy form so fair;
Did not I to thee a token give,
Taking in return this lock of hair?
(28) View it to thy sorrow!
Grey thoult be to-morrow,
Only to grow brown again when there.
"Mother, to this final prayer give ear!
Let a funeral pile be straightway dress'd;
Open then my cell so sad and drear,
That the flames may give the lovers rest!
(29) When ascends the fire
From the glowing pyre,
To the gods of old we'll hasten, blest."
Why? Well for a start this poem represents the FIRST poem (or short story) in Germanic Gothic tradition to feature a female vampire, and a male victim (though obv the female vampire can be seen to be a victim herself, of her parents desires for her, of the religion she is forced to give up etc).
The time period for this poem is, at best guess, around 300 AD or so, given the slow turn to Christianity around Corinth at that time. The poem's lifeblood seems to be the war between two opposing theologies which meets in two families. The family of the Bride (Juliet, if you will), has embraced Christianity; while the family of the bride-groom has remained faithful to the old gods, including Venus -- Goddess of Love. The troth was plighted (marriage promise) exchanged under the old religion -- and the maiden refuses to turn her back on the promise made by the two sets of parents.
It is not only the vows of Theology that is being broken in this poem; the bounds of guest visits are being broken as well when young female vampire daughter of the house attacks, and apparently is prepared to kill, the young male guest. He is owed safety and honor within the house. He receives a vampire love/wife, and death. Uncool.
The characters here are unnamed. The roster contains: the young man who has come visiting to meet the fiancé he was betrothed to as an infant. the young woman: his fiance who is also the vampire. The Mother who greets him, and who has recently buried her daughter (and failed to mention it?). Priests who chant and pray through the nights.
Summary
The set is staged and the location established in stanza one by the young mans arrival at the home in Corinth on a visit from his home in Athens. He is hoping to claim a favor (his bride! she is quite a favor!) from his father's friend.
Stanza two: Upon his arrival the narrator lets us know that the new religion of Christianity has been embraced by his fiancé's family. Under the tenets of both religions, they will now be pulling different directions. The male is set up as open to the possibility of having a different woman by the question: can a person appreciate what comes easy? his fiancé is coming easy, with no work on his part to win her.
Stanza three: When he arrives he discovers that the house has retired for the night, and he will have to wait to meet his fiancé. The mother greets him and leads him to a guest chamber.
Stanza four: The young man is served food and drinks by ignores it, going to bed instead.
Stanza five: As soon as he lays down and closes his eyes a young "maid" enters. She is wearing a veil to hide her features, and dressed in white. She has a black and gold headband and moves in a glide, without discernable steps.
Stanza six: This maid that has arrived has very white hands. She declares that she is hurt at not having been introduced to the guest upon his arrival. She interprets this as the family being embarrassed by her.
Stanza seven: She offers to leave him alone, and he asks her to stay. He has fallen in love with her because she is so beautiful. (Although she is never shown removing her veil!)
Stanza eight:8. She appears to be pale with fear as he approaches for sex "the raptures the Immortals taste." She backs off telling him not to approach, she can't do it -- for she has already been "raptured" by her mother's "sick-bed phantasy?" (Huh?) My best guess is that her mother's fantasy is Christianity, and the "rapture" being reborn into both Christianity and death."
Stanza nine: Her mother has been cured from worshipping the wrong gods, and since has sworn that since she herself was spared, everyone in the house would devote themselves to heaven. All other God's have given place to the Savior and his cross.
Stanza ten: His unnamed visitor tells him the family now no longer sacrifice lamb or steer, but instead perform human sacrifice here. (My guess: she is talking about the Eucharist -- the body and the blood of the sacrament.) He listens but all he is thinking about is how to get into her pants. Is she his betrothed; he wonders?
Stanza eleven: Marry me!" he says. Our fathers youthful promise was that we would marry. Heaven will bless our marriage. She tells him "I can't marry you -- you are for my sister. When you are diddling her, remember me.
Stanza twelve: He declares "I love only you. I will kill myself if I can't have you!"(classic male cry -- I will die if you don't come across?) To which she answers, you don't have to die; Hymen says we can be together -- come with me.
Stanza thirteen: They exchange wedding vows on the spot; she gives him a golden chain, and he gives her a silver chalice. (Silver is a pure metal, often anathema to supernatural creatures.)
Stanza fourteen: She tells him she can't accept the chalice, and asks for a lock of his hair. It chimes midnight right after she says this, and she is really happy about it. She holds the cup of wine to her "pallid" lips, but drinks none of the wine within. (More shade of the Eucharist.)
Chapter fifteen: She won't eat the bread either. (Bread = Christ's body) He does drink from the chalice when she brings it to him. He is love-sick (read HORNY) and will do anything she asks.
Stanza sixteen: She shrinks away from his prayer, and he falls on the bed weeping at her rejection. She comes near him and apologizes for rejecting his pass. She offers to tell him her "sad" secret.
Stanza seventeen: She tells him that she is "cold as ice, although white as snow." He clasps her in his arms to try to warm her. "Even if her spirit came from the grave," he is certain that his body's heat will warm her.
Stanza eighteen: He tries to make her passionate by kissing her repeatedly, and she sips the flame from his mouth. (Odd phrasing)
Stanza nineteen: His passion finally manages to warm her, but she has no heart-beat!(!!!!) While she is quite careful to not get caught or noticed by anyone passing the room, still it happens. The mother walks by, and hears the sounds coming from inside.
Stanza twenty: The mother hears sounds of joy, sadness, and bliss. They are entwined as bride and bridegroom. She won't leave the door until she knows what is going on.
Stanza twenty-one: The girl hears the "cock's loud strain" (day's announcer), and tells him she will return the next night. At this point the mother finally enters -- who is this maid whoring with her guest?
Stanza twenty-two: The mother is horrified to see her own daughter -- and her daughter refuses to hide her face (brazen).
Stanza twenty-three: The girl lifts herself slowly from the bed -- "spirits strength?" In spite of the passionate kisses, she still has "wan" lips. She gets in her mother's face asking if she isn't entitled to at least ones night "passion?"
Stanza twenty-four: heavy vampire imagery here! She continues berating her mom: Hey mom, aren't you content at having forced me to wear the "shroud of death? I have busted out of my 'COFFIN,' and "by a wond'rous[sic] fate I am 'FORCED' to rove while the "blessing and the chauntings sound" The priests' words are useless!
Stanza twenty-five: She blames her mother for attempting to separate them from the vow of love sworn under a different theology when they were infants -- and water and salt -- even earth itself can't separate them.
Stanza twenty-six: "gods, though, don't listen to what a mother does to separate a promised joining "plighted troth". She is forced to leave her GRAVE to find and love her bridegroom. And to DRINK HIS BLOOD from his heart.
Stanza twenty-seven: When he dies, she must move on to other victims, who will also sink under her vengeance -- she is going to "SHRIVEL UP THY FORM SO FAIR -- she has exchanged tokens with him, and has a lock of his hair. (Witchcraft uses these locks -- early DNA?)
Stanza twenty-eight: He should be sorry when he sees it, he will be gray "tomorrow" and then it will return to brown later? She further instructs her mother to open her GRAVE, and the two of them (she and her lover) will BURN - and have rest!
Stanza twenty-nine: Short stanza, only three lines. -- (the poem began with a four line stanza) When they have burned together, they will return to their old gods, blessed
Sunday, 4 December 2011
Who says the USA is "culture-less"
A friend of mine said to me tonight in one of my favourite wine-bars that the 'USA is culture-less', to my response, 'says who?'
A field of genius
Yes folks, I am tired of the politics of the day, so this is one of infrequent art posts. A heads-up to go screaming for the exists.
But, as I say, a field of genius. The USA is a land of strong literary tradition, and capable legendary writers. It really is only a combination of European (and British) snobbery and US anti-elitism which prevents this becoming more widely known.
What would life be without the likes of Pulitzer-prize winner Robert Frost?
"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice."
A field of genius
Yes folks, I am tired of the politics of the day, so this is one of infrequent art posts. A heads-up to go screaming for the exists.
But, as I say, a field of genius. The USA is a land of strong literary tradition, and capable legendary writers. It really is only a combination of European (and British) snobbery and US anti-elitism which prevents this becoming more widely known.
What would life be without the likes of Pulitzer-prize winner Robert Frost?
"Some say the world will end in fire,
Some say in ice.
From what I’ve tasted of desire
I hold with those who favor fire.
But if it had to perish twice,
I think I know enough of hate
To know that for destruction ice
Is also great
And would suffice."
I ask you, what would the literary world be without his brilliantly casual illustration of Dante's 32 canto? ... in which the worst offenders of hell, the traitors, are submerged, while in a fiery hell, up to their necks in ice: "a lake so bound with ice, / It did not look like water, but like a glass ... right clear / I saw, where sinners are preserved in ice."
So let us not pretend that the USA has given us all culturally little. Need I go on to the Mask of the Red Death? Edgar Allan Poe?
Come on folks, lets stop the anti-US cultural snobbery please. From a of culture without the borders, a true Globalist.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
