An Interpretation of 23

David’s—the character in the poem—mental state is likened to Beksinski, trees and war.
The “bellicosity” of his roots—that is the roots of poverty, which gives one the will to persevere through trial— Fragmented, therefore a complete thought. It is Juxtaposed with the “Evening” which “Descends in a sob.”
There is a colorless chill—imagery invoking an action shot, or dramatic scene, drawing its image from movies. And a “Gelid Whisper”. Making the imagery that of bitter cold being carried by a light wind. “All of it”
“Is Whispering and whimpering”—juxtaposed with the former character trait of strength, given to him by his roots. The character is on his own, and is fluttering on his own.
He speaks of home again. The home is likened to a “Moraine”, with phonetic similarity to “Murrain”. He’s home sick. And Home is like a towering Geological Structure.
“Imagery”
“Imagery”
“Imagery”
“Imagery” The following four lines give imagery of a Moraine, an ancient geological formation, something natural, old, timeless. All of the descriptions are of Moraine structures, which can produce beautiful colors and patterns on the layers of their geological strata—Poem will further allude to this pattern when it likens David’s homesickness to the “morphology” of the rock layers.
“Thoughts wince into vision”, an allusion to one’s complete vision of the Mind’s Eye fading into sight. Then what’s seen are “Starlings” breaking the moment with “Jocose Murmuring”. That is to say the bitterness is being disturbed by the “Starlings”. Starlings are a type of blackbird.
The image of the flock of starlings “Tears” at the sky and one is reminded
“In a state of subtle sadness.” The image invoked is that of the sadness invoked by the image of the Starlings. Their nonchalance elicits a response from David of, what is perhaps, his low estate.
“It takes years to digest”. There is a slow decent into becoming, oneself, trivial. It is slow, and methodical, and it turns oneself into a background like character, rather than the central focus of the story. The feeling is being minimalized, and finding oneself unimportant.
“It takes shape within oneself”
“To gain contour and morphology” relating the feeling to the set geological foundation of Moraines. Settled against the abandonment from home, and the recognition that one’s place in the world is minimalized.
One being reminded—by the moraines—of “David fluttering on his own.” The unforgettable
Nature of “Otherness.” Which the poem meditates on. The somber feeling of the Moraines in their geological form, cold and splendid. The moraines elicit the same kind of feeling, which is analogous with the briskness of the moraine. Related to the nature of there being other things, and being cognizant that we—our own ego—are not the only ones occupying this world. We find ourselves barren by the realization. Yet we lose it—kind of like how a child grows into an adult, and no longer needs the parental guidance to survive. However, the poem analyzes it in relation to the moraine.
“We lose ourselves gladly.” I don’t think people want to meditate on the rumination, to have that awareness that they are alone, or are not central to the world. It’s an eerie feeling, recognizing we are not central to the movements of the world, and when we’re left all alone, it can be cold.

Thoughts: I think the poem expresses the notion of recognizing we are not central to the world, and that other wills and forces exist, which are out of our control. Much like the geological forces of the glaciers which create the Moraines. The notion is an eerie feeling, which separates us from our ego, and gives us an outside perspective, minimalizing us. I commented on Joao-Maria‘s blog, feeling the emotions of the poem, but not really understanding it. So I decided to do an in depth analysis of it, and this is my take from the poem.

João-Maria. “Poetry Without a Place, 23.” WordPress, 2020. https://wordpress.com/read/blogs/143826840/posts/2482. 6/16/2020. Web.

Analysis of “Am I Insane” by Guy Maupassant

“Am I Insane?” An Analysis of Maupassant

It seems like anything I’d say about this work would ruin the beauty of it. However, some mental notes were that the woman’s revived desire was renewed by the horse, but the jealousy of the man led him to murder.

I suppose the work is meant to capture an image of the passion called love; but also, I’d argue, it hints at an ideal. The woman loved her horse, and the man felt jealous of that love. Should he have loved the woman, I suppose the poem forces you to consider whether he would have been happy for her revived desire, since the root of the problem wasn’t an affair.

His description of the woman made her very relatable. Very desirable, however, the poem seems to try and insinuate the revived desire is with a man, until the end when the notion is dismissed with totality. When, it turns out to be a horse who has revived her desire.

The thought that ran through my mind was this: that if the woman were truly loved, this interest, this passion, would be shared. It wouldn’t be something to incite jealousy.

The woman was martyred for having a renewed passion.

The tendency is in men to do this. The internal narrative of the story is the strained relationship between a man and his partner. The jealousy aroused is a passion of dominance; to be her waking passion morn and eve.

When he’s not her object of total adoration, he goes crazy. So, the poem describes the feeling of a strained relationship, how it seems to make one crazy. Yet this work is supremely beautiful for its rendition, with moral shades to the text: that if he actually loved the woman, perhaps he would have taken another course of action. Seeing the renewed sense of life would have made him joyous and not callous. That was the sensation I received from the prose, was a moral bearing the insanity of a man who wishes to dominate his partner in everything. So, the wife’s joys are sucked from her. It is a relevant discourse, as true love would create a response of affection for any renewed interest because true love wishes to see its beloved happy.

Some notes about Maupassant, I think his naturalist persona was a cover for success. The poems, although usually very cruel, do have a moral shade to them, despite the so called “Pessimism.” This piece affirms the female Libido, and the revival of passion through a healthy cathexis. It then turns to a moral rebuke of the man, by having him internally monologue, “Am I insane?”, insinuating to the reader that he is not insane, maybe, but that maybe he is bitter with jealousy, an emotion we all have felt. The relatability of this passion, for anyone who’s had a partner who showed considerable disinterest in them, is perhaps what shades the text with its insidious interpretation. Perhaps the reader draws too much sympathy to the narrator.

However, there is a moral to draw for someone feeling similar emotions. There is a brightness in the female character. A trueness. A revival of the female libido, which, ought to be shared by the husband/boyfriend, because true love would share its joy with the beloved. So, perhaps the poem scathes the jealousy, which is murderous. An emotion many have felt, if they’re honest. An emotion many have been troubled with, if they’re honest. Because I don’t believe the moral tone could do anything more than offer a remedy to the jealousy. It seems to reaffirm love, by showing love’s complete opposite. As, I tend to empathize with the woman and not the man.

I will not recant my analysis, as I find it is a good analysis.

Maupassant, Guy. The Tales of Maupassant. Illustrated by Gunter Böhmer. The 100 Greatest Books Ever Written Collector’s Edition Bound in Genuine Leather. Easton Press, 1977. Text.

Christabel by Samuel Taylor Colridge, a Biographical Analysis

First thing that becomes clear, the poem is describing Lesbian themes. Furthermore, the demonic presence is captured in the “Spell” which is the unnatural romantic love between women.

Coleridge seems to have been fantasizing about a love triangle between he, his wife and his paramour.

It makes sense, that Coleridge would entertain such ideas. He loved his wife, and his paramour. Frankly, the theme of the successful love triangle has been a strange one to espouse upon, though the poem is not explicitly about this.

The poem is merely a naughty daydream, giving the moral tone significance that the relationship is not right. The “Spell” as is the case, “Spell” in the traditions of the romantic poets is likened to a wicked thing.

Why the protagonist’s name is “Christabel”, frankly, duly understood I don’t believe the poem was finished for a reason. I think Coleridge had initially entertained the gruesome thought of bedding two women who were romantically involved, and played the subconscious moral play out in this little poem.

Coleridge is almost entertaining a modern attitude about it. Which, to say, I think in this regard the correct attitude is to understand the poem as Erotic, Lesbian, but to not shy away from the cultural taboos of the day. I don’t think Coleridge would be completely aware of why he was writing it, nor what he was writing.

It seems to me that the poem was a fancy which captured Coleridge, that he would have greatly desired a romantic ménage à trois between he and the two lovers of his life. Passively, though. The poem is not conscious of diving into the material, so neither is the reader consciously aware of the true meaning of the poem. There is a mystery of the Lesbian eroticism in the poem, disparaging it nonetheless. The tone is utterly negative, taken in the context that the woman has become the desired object of both a father and daughter. It is in effect bibliomancy, and should the poem continue it would most likely end in the father and daughter’s utter destruction. Hopefully the reader cannot assume that this theme is taken lightly, and is possibly why the poem was abandoned by its author, because the subject was inappropriate. Scandalous, even for today’s day and age.

There is something unnatural in the thought of two so closely related being romantically involved with the same person, therefore, it might be a testament to the utter disparity of adultery, that such thoughts will even be allowed to be entertained. It is a testament to how wrong sin is, that if there were a boundary broken by our modern standards, this one surely will not be. Which should disturb the reader’s opinion on the legality of Homo-eroticism, whether it is Malum in Se, or Malum Prohibitum.

Coleridge, Samuel Taylor. The Complete Poems. Edited by William Keach. “Christabel”, pp. 187 – 205. Penguin Classics, 2004. Text.

The Fall of Arthur; An Analysis of Tolkien’s Work

Tolkien’s The Fall of Arthur

Well… I’ve read Chaucer. I’ve read Arthur. Tolkien’s work is a combination of Caxton’s Translation of Malory, Beowulf and Chaucer. Chaucer’s feminine element is embodied in Guinevere, and Tolkien’s story is a very simple one. The title of the piece is “The Fall of Arthur.” Tolkien was writing with material sufficient for a Long poem, but intended the piece to be an epic. It proves one cannot go beyond the archetypal limitations of a story.

I have finished the poem with seven lines to give words to the metaphor, for my own pleasure. As the poem screamed Chaucer to me. It ended so beautifully at the Cliffs of Albion, and the metaphor wanted to be tied up there as a long poem, not an Epic. The metaphor being the loss of Albion giving up the Kingdom. The piece is a metaphor, of course. Arthur was out fighting his battles with, what I assume is, France (metaphorically), left Guinevere alone, and Mordred came and began to stir up strife. Therefore, Albion was lost because Arthur was overseas.

I saw Chaucer in the text. Therefore, a Canterbury tale. The piece is appropriate for a Canterbury tale; its subject is the same. Arthur left his lover vulnerable, Lancelot saved her, Arthur became jealous over Lancelot—therefore, for the warlust of conquering, he lost his friend because that friend had to save Guinevere, and his kingdom; so therefore, Arthur was also killed at Albion. The nature of the Jealousy is Chaucerian;—his son Chris says that the interpretation is new. It is for an Arthurian Legend, but Tolkien fused Chaucer’s element with Malory’s. The subject of Chaucer is showing up in the Arthurian poem, that being a certain feminine character in Guinevere.

The story is a metaphor about losing the Mythos of England to France. Perhaps because Tolkien had already given up the battle and embarked on writing Middle Earth, the poem could not be finished. It’s why I wrote Hail Britannica was this controversy right here, of Britain not having its own mythology. But, there’s some tension between Tolkien’s Middle Earth and The Fall of Arthur. What is called “Mirkwood”, there’s the beginning of a tension between Tolkien’s Universe of Discourse and the Arthurian Legend’s. Tolkien did, in fact, give a mythology to England. So also with the entire English Speaking civilization.

I have criticism from the New York Times, that doesn’t quite understand what they have here; which is typical of anything named after New York. We treat serious literature as if it were a product. But, it has a quintessential English Myth, about losing the Cliffs of Albion—what is referred to as “The Wall” several times in the poem—being the pivotal point in history where Arthur loses his reign. You’d almost have to be English to understand it—or have the first thing you learn about England be the impenetrable Cliffs of Albion.

Albion is the whole of Great Britain’s poetic name. And I believe the patriotic reference is appropriate. Tolkien, as a whole, was deeply ingrained in believing in the unity of good people’s against evil. So with it, I do believe the poem is right. Tolkien is English. He did fight in WWI, the worst war ever fought to date. It is a metaphor about the United Kingdom needing to stay whole.

I do, also, believe Tolkien had a Chaucer like tale here. I wish he could have tied up the metaphor, instead of go down rabbit holes trying to fuse his Middle Earth with the Arthurian Legends. He didn’t have the material for an Epic Poem, just a Chaucer like Long Poem which could be found in the Canterbury tales. The metaphor is perfect—but he had made a mistake by trying to carry on with the poem after its conclusion. The metaphor was in the title, and certainly, it would make Albion fall to Mordred, the events of the poem.

Why Tolkien could not finish a work of poetry is not really understood by me. But, the fact remains that the poem could be finished only by about line 70 or so of Canto V. Arthur was lost at Albion’s beach. As, that’s the poem’s end; it’s the metaphor being built up to. There can be no winning England after Albion falls. If the English lose Albion, there is no Gawain to win it back. I think that’s why Tolkien could not finish the poem. He had too far a breadth, but the archetypes wouldn’t allow him to go any further.

And frankly, my original draft of this essay had said “Dover.” Because of an obscure reference to Pevensey. But, I believe Tolkien is talking about Albion, not just the region of Dover. Where the battle is—which gives the myth more weight as no one knows where Camlann was fought—could be anywhere there are Salt Cliffs in Albion. The unified whole of the United Kingdom. The battle is most likely in Wales, though, as it seems the geographical center of the conflict, but it also blends with Dover. Probably a discreet warning to England about Wales’ geography. One might think that it is perfectly impenetrable being next to Ireland, but the threat is internal. Mordred is from Wales, and in the King’s absence, Mordred stirs up a rebellion. That is why the cliffs of Wales embody a United Kingdom, or better known as Albion.

Upon reading notes in my copy of the book, and my vivid imagination, I had imagined the possibility of writing more to the piece. Siegeworks being rowed in, the logistic train of ships. Though, this is a poor artistic choice. Tolkien would have known this, as many writers have fantastic notes, but employing them would be bathos, or in this case, ruin the Voltaire like ending. As, there is a striking Voltaire like punch in the last line.

My added lines would only be there to help the reader assess what the meaning of the poem is they had just read. Only for a modern audience, as I can easily account that the poem is talking about Camlann. The three futile battles, as Camlann was one of the three futile battles of English history, being the loss of Lancelot, the loss of Guinevere, and the landing of the galleons at Albion. The poem could not make more battles, as Hastings is one of those three futile battles, therefore, it must be three futilities, and landing at Albion is the third futility. To siege Albion would seem French.—To even assume it’s possible. Albion’s shores are futility, being the third futility. Guinevere’s love the second. Lancelot’s disownment the third.

Nothing more needs written to this poem. Except what I had written, only for a modern audience to help them understand what they had just read, and to help give some closure to the ambiguity of the poem if only for myself. Landing a fleet at Albion must be futile, as the battle Tolkien described was already stated a Punic victory several lines back. I suppose one could make it an Odyssey, but one would need fifteen Cantos, which would be theft. Let the reader simply imagine it with this line, as a series of failed siege attempts at Albion would be a strong story, but it would not then be Tolkien’s. His subject was taken up, it was completed, the three woes beautiful and simply were Guinevere’s futile love, Lancelot’s futile service, Arthur’s futile landing. To siege the cliff would be a fourth woe, therefore unnecessary.

A Defense of the Completion of Tolkien’s Poem:

“… :: My heart Urgeth/ that best it were:: that battle waited.” To read the poem as it would naturally be read, with the context of the previous lines, it is Arthur claiming it would have been best to wait to give battle, rather than fight on the beach. The next lines are ambiguous, possibly to allow Tolkien the option to continue if he ever wanted to take up the subject again. But, since he never could, the last lines are best read as if they were stream of consciousness, to help complete the work. There is no way to communicate the sense, but to consider it in a grammatical tense of Arthur giving immediate thought to the events unfolding before he landed on the beach. That he is in that present mind. As, the author’s intents are known to the reader. But, subtracting the author from the text, using Autonomous Artwork in theory, the line should be reflected within the framework of the story as stream of consciousness. Therefore, a conclusion, and giving connotation of Pevensey, where the French sieged England and won at Hastings. The poem is masterful with this conclusion in view,—to go further would be deuterocanonical, and spoil the metaphor.

Why I Offer a Different Scholarship than Chris Tolkien

For one thing, a man is acquainted with his father. He’s acquainted with Arthurian legend. He’s not so sure what he has. I’ll tell him what he has. He has one of England’s masterpieces, but, only if the poem does not continue.

So, it will come to no surprise that there should be no—rather there ought not be any—instance of the Silmarillion in this poem. Mirkwood sounds too much like one of Tolkien’s inventions, which was clumsy in the poem. Granted, Tolkien’s masterwork The Lord of the Rings is far superior to anything I had ever dreamt up, even to this date. It is without ties to any historical story. Arthur, however, is tied up with a lot of legends, where Tolkien’s foray into the Silmarillion or Middle Earth universe of discourse doesn’t fit the body of work poets have been creating in Britain, France, Dutchland and the United States. England has a vast mythology, starting with Beowulf, but including Paradise Lost, Pilgrim’s Progress, Arthur, Robin Hood, St. George. Middle Earth is like Rowling’s Masterwork. It is purely creative; it is even more creative, in that it is something brand new. It is a mythology for England. It is—as it can only be—purely British. There can be no American, Frenchman nor any German intruding on the purely British story of Middle Earth. It is the first of its kind, written in the bunkers of WWI, and only Dune rivals it in scope. If anyone were to ask me which body of work stands as the greatest masterpiece of fiction ever, The Lord of the Rings stands as the greatest.

However, Tolkien wrote an impressive work—to be viewed outside of his body. The Fall of Arthur is not unfinished. It is, I will argue, complete. Because the metaphor is complete. Tolkien had completed the poem on verse 63 of Canto V. I had written an interpretation starting at verse 64, and ending at 70. The reason why—and we’re in the realm of poetry—is that the metaphor is perfect in The Fall of Arthur.

One must understand Tolkien was writing a myth for England. Modern England. The England with Communism to the North of it. The England with Atomic Bombs. The England where further conquest would be futile.

In that is the third futility. Camlann was considered the third futile battle in English History. As recorded. Futile, Punic—Tolkien had written in Canto V a Punic victory. He had—as I read him closely—been conscious of the effect of the poem, and that it was soon coming to an end.

What’s more, is that there are wars with the “East”. Not south. The “East.” Rome was south of Britain. Russia is to the East. The metaphor must be preserved in the poem, as the poem is really about Wales being a vulnerability in the English isles. Not much is spoken of about Wales in our English literature. But, Mordred is a prince. A Prince of Wales, who foments a coup against his father, as his father is out fighting his glorious wars with the East. Remember, the point of the battle of Camlann is its futility. Anticlimax is the sum of futility, and is an artistic choice worthy of the subject.

Historically speaking—perhaps Tolkien realized this—the victory over Rome never occurred. C. S. Lewis was fanatical about this apparently—such is friendship that the fanaticism would carry over to Tolkien. It was, for some intellectual reason, disgusting, and these obscure and arcane opinions are held by scholars in agreement—for whatever reason, probably as a point of agreement that the sacred bonds will never be broken on that one solitary point. Arthur had left—the third futility when he came back and landed at Albion—and lost everything fighting his war with the “East.” Not Rome.

The first is Guinevere’s unrequited love. The second is Lancelot’s disownment as a friend. As the Chaucerian themes start to intrude onto the story. The story is English, but not wholly Arthurian. It is borrowed from Beowulf, it is borrowed from Chaucer.

The story seems to be a metaphor about Albion. The metaphor is the Salt Cliffs—often ambiguous, as the geography is all of England at once, but the conflict arises at Wales. The salt cliffs which kept England safe were the same ones, “The traitor keeper”, that solidified the reign of Mordred. The reign of whatever foreign threat there is. The metaphor is clear, the story must be about futility. It must have three futilities. A battle after winning a beach, the win must be the futility, not the future battle a futility. “:: doom of mortals/ ere the walls were won…” The walls were not won. Albion prevented Nazi invasion. It would never fall, even to Arthur. The metaphor must be Albion, either being in the possession of Arthur, where he can reign responsibly. Or in the possession of Mordred, the power hungry prince. The battle with the East will not be won, but will end in futility. The poem must mean that, or the metaphor it’s building carries no meaning.

It is arcane if studied in the context of Morte D’ Arthur. But Tolkien is not writing Morte D’ Arthur. He is writing The Fall of Arthur; a myth with no French words. The fall of Arthur, the spirit of England, is the disunity of the United Kingdoms. What follows suit, from the beginning of the poem, Albion is protecting not just England, but Christendom. Therefore, the metaphor is not only about Albion. It is about the Western Civilization.

The threat is war with the East. A futile war, that Tolkien is alluding to, which cannot really be won. It would be in name a glorious victory, fictitious in its accomplishment like Arthur’s victory against Rome. Truly, Arthur is in possession of Rome right now, therefore a possible concrete fulfillment of the prophecy of literature. But losing Albion, it is something futile. As futile as unrequited love. As futile as broken friendship.

Tolkien’s Fall of Arthur An Analysis

The poem is not uncompleted. It is finished. With a comma in place of a period, it is finished. With seven lines of mine, maybe even extraneous, the poem is finished. Therefore, what does the poem mean?

The Battle of Camlann is considered the third futile battle in English history. Therefore, the poem is talking about the futility of the English striving with the East. It is a metaphor—Rome being the Western civilization. Therefore, completed, Arthur has conquered all Rome, with the United Kingdom being the principate in control of the entire Western Empire. Therefore, Arthur does control Rome, and the book is not looking back to Arthurian legends, but is looking to today, with wars haunting the West from the East.

With this being said, it is interpreted that while Arthur is out fighting his war, it leaves the door open to his son Mordred to rape away Guinevere, which is where the plot hinges. On that central focus, Mordred is now taking advantage of the king’s absence, by stirring up Wales against the United Kingdom. Wales, in particular, is the most stable of the three protectorates of England. But, in Arthur’s absence, Wales is stirred up against England, and therefore, Mordred launches a coup to usurp the kingdom from Arthur.

What follows is that Lancelot must save Guinevere, and her love for Lancelot is discovered. This leads to a furious jealousy in Arthur, who disowns Lancelot as a friend, and Arthur must now know that Guinevere is unfaithful. Therefore, two of the three futilities. The third, is the loss of Albion to Mordred. There can be—as the poem’s metaphor creates—no winning back the shores of Britain if Albion is seized by another king.

Arthur here is not a King, but is the spirit of England. And if the spirit of England is lost to the East, in futile battles bordering the edges of Mirkwood, the United Kingdom will be lost. The poem is a rallying cry to keep the kingdom United.

It fairs well as a short piece, almost like a Canterbury tale in length. Upon reading it the first time through, I was amazed, and kept hoping that the poem would end at Albion’s shores. It sure enough did, which is why the poem’s subject was finished. There was no sieging nor winning Albion, what was called The Wall. Because the cliffs are unassailable to foreign invader. Even keeping out the Nazis during World War II.

The poem is proof of a concept, and that is the archetypal structure of the collective knowledge. Albion cannot be lost to war, but must only be lost to subterfuge. If the Spirit of England fails, it is gone. The glorious revolution proves this all the more, that England must acquiesce to its rulers. It is the only way a ruler can get embedded within the shores, because once the Walls of Albion are abandoned, the power that is within the walls will be sustained. Thus, it is only lost to cowardice, or it is lost to campaigning, which is how Arthur lost it in the poem.

Readily, that is the metaphor of the poem, the three futilities are Guinevere’s Unrequited Love, Lancelot’s Disownment and Landing Ashore at Albion, as opposed to Pevensey, where it is possible to take Britain by military exploit, if she doesn’t have her navy.

A Reflective Analysis of Mirkwood

Tolkien’s body of work includes references to “Mirkwood.” His masterpiece Universe of Discourse is starting to blend into the Arthurian legend. For what reason, we must know that the poem is Tolkien’s. Therefore, the poem must be a striving with Arthurian Legend and Middle Earth. Perhaps, Tolkien is only capable of achieving one universe of discourse, and is not able to enter into another.

With this said, there is a blending of Mirkwood—Middle Earth—with Arthur’s legend. Arthur is out fighting at Mirkwood, the East, somewhere, I would suppose with Middle Earth. Perhaps showing an unconscious tension between the two realms of creativity, that they could not be separated. Until, at the end, Middle Earth won out, and Tolkien abandoned the Mythos of England for the myth of Middle Earth.

Tolkien had said he wanted to embark on creating a “Universal myth of England,” a mythology that was “Uniquely English.” Thus, drawing from the English of past, fusing it together to work new languages; creating ex nihilo a body of work as rich as Middle Earth, England’s purely English mythology was made to be Middle Earth. Substantial in its own right, it does not interact with the real world. It is, on its own, something untouchable.

Tolkien, however, touched it with the Arthurian legends. He was probably unintentionally creating a link, temporal, with Middle Earth. Tolkien’s fairy worlds were an invention of Post World War I, and were probably an expression of his Post Traumatic Stress Disorder incurred by fighting in the trenches of World War I. Thus, the dark and dingy world of Tolkien’s is starting to burgeon into the more tangible metaphysic of Arthurian Legends.

This is what separates literature from fantasy, by the way. Literature is more real in its subject. As opposed to Fantasy, a world of pure creative thought, literature embarks on recreating what is real, even when it is using fantasy. It’s why Orwell’s 1984 is literature. Because it is real. Same with Brave New World. As opposed to Middle Earth which is High Fantasy. There is something overall fantastic about it. Yet, here, bordering Mirkwood, Tolkien is embarking on the fusing of the reality of Arthurian Legend—-something tied into the archetype of England—with his invention. It was, for lack of a better term, unwelcome by me when reading the poem. It is my only criticism of the poem, that Middle Earth began to rear up. It was better left at the War of the Rings.

Though, the poem does not suffer from it. As, its effect once understood begins to impress upon the reader the imaginative subject of Tolkien. Mirkwood is dark forest. Something ominous, nonetheless. Just, unfitting for the subject, we see what probably didn’t let the poem get finished. A man is only capable of perhaps one great world. Two great worlds, they must, therefore, be fused in some way. As is what happens in most of our art. I’m sure Disney will do it with Star Wars and Marvel, unadvisedly. Much the same, it had the same effect in this legend as Disney would fusing Marvel and Star Wars. And unwelcome fusing of two well established themes.

However, an author is keen on doing it. They get their little pet ideas, which then burgeon to a schema about how their worlds work. And, ultimately, it is unavoidable, which is why Tolkien should have probably written this work first. Unless, of course, the work was written first, and then Mirkwood created The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. To which case, Tolkien inventing Middle Earth by mere suggestion of a place is itself a wonderful little invention. But, he’s hereto created from Mirkwood what will, from now on, be associated with it, and that’s Middle Earth.

Therefore, Tolkien maybe created the archetype of Mirkwood. He not only created it, but encapsulated it with the War of the Rings and the Ents. To which I would say “Bravo”, but it still looks awkwardly placed in an Arthurian legend. Simply put, because Tolkien had invented, post hoc, the myth of Mirkwood. Which is interesting in its own right that this would take place, that even if Mirkwood were, itself, a real established literary place, Tolkien had been the one who created it for the modern audience. Therefore, it might be difficult to unravel Mirkwood as Tolkien created it with Mirkwood as it is established in a historical context.

In either regard, its placement, and not being deleted, is proof that Tolkien’s body of work was already fully immersed in The Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit. It could not go any further, nor any creative work could be separated from it.

Conversely, even I with Fairyland must have it bleed into my other Universe of Discourse. Of course, there is the round and flat earths. The round the tangible; the flat earth the afterlife.

But, I digress there because it is inevitable that a worker of Universes of Discourse blend them into one Superordinate reality, which in Tolkien’s case is Middle Earth. In mine it is just Here and There.

The Fall of Arthur a Legacy

Encroaching upon the cannon of history, a well written, paragraph response about this will not show up on Wikipedia’s entry of Camlann. Even if it’s true, or fundamental for England, Scotland, Ireland and Wales. We are falling on dark times, when research must be vetted for what is obvious. One paragraph, and a week has gone by, the paragraph disappears.

I find this is why my scholarship is hard to publish. I have intellectuals who want to break into the field, possibly break ground first. Possibly plant their flag. Or, possibly, they don’t care to know that The Fall of Arthur is about Camlann. Much of our interpretation of literature is specious at best; unmoving. Because of academic pride. It should not be about planting a flag, but about the truth.

The Fall of Arthur shows a truth. The futility of conquest. The futility of war. The futility of a king striving with other nations, abandoning their kingdom. It’s only an idea as old as civilization. It is proven time and time again. When the owner of a business is gone, the Manager is in his place. The store gets dirty. The employees slack off. Why The Fall of Arthur is not about this, I’m afraid it will be lost to the annuls of history unless I take it, and make it read. Much like all of literature, which holds these invaluable pieces of wisdom. Not because they literally occurred, but because they do literally occur. There was probably not a Battle of Camlann. If there was, Arthur probably did not fight there. If he did, the most likely cause of it is a Barbarian invasion of Rome, where a battle was won against it. And, the news carried up into the Barbarian tribes in England, and disseminated throughout the isle.

And a process of peer reviews needs to show it is possible. Often breaking away from the sublime truths of literature.

I offer this essay in response to Christopher Tolkien because the work is not his; the meaning, anyway. The rights to the words are his, and the property rights. But, the metaphor—the meaning—is not up to him to determine. It was up to his father, who had studied Camlann, and knew it was the third futile battle in English history. Who knew that Hastings was another of those battles. And a perfect metaphor which needs to be read, especially in these days when Scotland is talking about annexing from the United Kingdom. Literature is important. Not because it actually transpired, but because it can, quite refreshingly, help us understand by legend what is practical advice. Not because the United Kingdom ever did loose itself to Mordred, but because Scotland could as much be Wales as Ireland, and Tolkien, who fought in hell’s barracks, needs to be listened to. Men who fight in war, men who understand war, even if their stories are metaphors, their stories are true. Because Scotland needs to not annex from Britain. The fate of our earth depends on it. And if this truth is found in a simple literary poem, it is worthy enough for me to do six essays worth of analysis. And Christopher Tolkien does not get to dictate—nor would he, as I would hope he’d see his father is more serious than he had first understood.

We need stories because they preserve truths that go beyond the actual battles of history. They are intellectual and metaphorical battles, to be waged on paper so they do not get waged in real life.

That is why this little poem is important. Probably the most important.

Tolkien, J. R. R. Edited by Christopher Tolkien. The Fall of Arthur. Harper Collins, 2013. Text.

The Daughter of Zion Theologically

I come to this topic often, as I’m still trying to make sense of it. It seems she’s the one who births our Savior. In Revelation 12:13, I do believe this is the Daughter of Zion. Perhaps whom the Catholics were prophesying with their Rosary. We know Mary was not sinless, but perhaps the Rosary was foreshadowing the Daughter of Zion.

Theologically speaking, The Daughter of Zion is the promised land—the Holy Spirit, and also the gift of eternal life. Our hope should be for this Woman to give birth to our Savior. She is an integral part of our religion, being mentioned 25 times in scripture. And where it speaks of “Her sin” obviously, the mention is we the Christian; for the Daughter of Zion is the promise of eternal life. Which, Lamentations is a prophecy specifically relating to the captivity of Christians and the destruction of the Holy City; whom, having obtained the gift of salvation have, thus, sinned beyond all hope.

The woman, therefore, in Revelation is the embodiment of the Daughter of Zion, who “Travails”. This travailing is to bring forth the Christ, the Second Coming. And it is going to happen, as the words of scripture cannot be altered or changed. A prophecy must be fulfilled. The Daughter of Zion is our gift, and if we as Christians do not use our gift—do not live righteously—we will encounter hardships in hell, and be forsaken and in Lamentation. For truth, the Daughter of Zion is the gift of God—the Promised Land of the New Jerusalem—but one must not mistake her as the door to salvation. Rather, she is the blessed hope we have of our Savior’s return.

The Mayan idol blessed by Pope Francis was what Malachi and Micah referred to as the “Beginning of Sin” to the Daughter of Zion. In this sense, she is here symbolized as the Christian apart from the Holy Spirit and work of Salvation through Christ Jesus, and she represents the fleshly Jerusalem. This Mayan idol is the Babylonian goddess “Sin”; therefore, the prophecies are a literal statement about idolatry in Zion because the Pope had blessed it.

However, for the longest time, no plague was brought on the Catholics for their Mary Rosaries; one should consider this a miracle, as God works often quite blatantly through history. It could possibly be that the Daughter of Zion will give birth to our Savior Jesus Christ, and she will be made by the Holy Spirit perfect and like she has never sinned.

An Analysis of “Hey Look Ma I Made It” Lyrics by Panic at the Disco

The reason I like this song is multifaceted. I had just heard it on the Radio not too long ago, and the music video is not good because it ruins the musical shade on the meaning. It's just, not capturing the song the way I see it.

It's unrepentant. It's the modern age, unrepentant. It's not sarcastic; it rather basks in the glory of sin. It's saying, "I did this, and I'm not going to say sorry."

And in doing that, it shows how desperate our civilization is, making the point that the Music Video doesn't have to; rather, the music video is too moral bearing and not journalistic enough. The song as it is naturally makes its point---shaded by an unrepentant beat, an unrepentant soul, an unrepentant sinner praying in the golden cathedral for the faithless.

It's upbeat, about screwing over the other guy in order to get where you are going. And "It's ok." The song doesn't need to bear a moral weight. All of our songs are like this. They just say, "Screw it, I'm going to be bad." And I like it because it's honest. It's easy to know how messed up it is. The writer of this song is obviously unrepentant about being successful---"If you lose, boo-hoo." Panic at the Disco does a good rendition of it, but secretly, like a few Johnny Cash songs I know, they probably didn't write it. Johnny always wrote his songs, but surprisingly was the talent behind a lot of our most famous grooves, and you'd never know it.

The ethos of the song is unrepentant, and the pathos is too overbearing. It's just flagrant, spiteful, not angry, just flagrant. And I LOVE IT! Because I feel like everyone I know is like this. I feel like our whole society has to be this way in order to make end's meat. I love it because it captures exactly how I feel about modern society. And, journalistically---that being a style without the moral expressly stated---it makes sense in our modern ethos to have a song like this.

Halsey did a good job in a few of her poems at doing this, but it's too dank and depressing. It's not glorious enough. It's not that glorious future that you get if you just say "F____ off" to everything, and then go on living your life not caring about how it affects the people you love.

And then "Hey look ma I made it!" He's singing the chorus to his mother, who is probably seething and chomping at the bit to just smack that boy across the behind. Not because he made it, but because he compromised all of his virtue doing it. It's beautiful, how "Ma, look at me! I'm successful!" and Ma is looking back at him, seeing whatever revelry had to be done to get there. She's thinking, "I'd rather you be poor and a rat, being honest, than to be successful screwing over everyone who ever loved you."

And that is our modern age. I love this song because it just captures it without any hesitation. There isn't a beat missed, there isn't a groove missed, that doesn't say, "Hey look Ma I made it!" The puppet didn't need to be there, because this isn't a puppet. This is not a puppet at all. This is an unrepentant, flagrant, "Hey look ma I made it!"

I like our modern music for this reason, but I would like to see something more sentimental. I'm getting tired of the whole, "I'm bad and I'm not going to care about it." Because it's getting boring. I'm tired of hearing songs accusing the listener of all their hidden sins, or on the flip, encouraging people to be bitter and petty. I'm tired of it. And with this song, I think we've captured it all, the portrait Halsey couldn't paint. The portrait that a lot of singers and songwriters couldn't. "I'm having fun, therefore I don't care about who I hurt." Halsey comes at a close second, but this song by Panic at the Disco really just grooves it. Other songs are singing about women wearing blades in their bras, and how they can fight a man. But this song just grooves, and seethes with this generation of America. It is the alter call of American civilization. "Hey look Ma I made it! And if you lose, boo-hoo."

Panic at the Disco. "Hey Look Ma I Made It". Pray For the Wicked. Fueled By Ramen, DCD2, 2019. Radio.

Analysis of the Herb Leech by Joseph Campbell

I've seen in this writer something prophetic. Some kind of insight. I did not know he was writing so contemporary; I thought he was writing in the eighteen hundreds. Generally, the reason why I'm so interested in it is the schema of a very normal delusion, that being a brain parasite of some sort that causes the illness of Schizophrenia.

So, this is what influenced my poem about the "Yeerk"; was I read this poem the Herb-Leech in my Barnes and Nobles' leather bound A Treasury of Irish Literature, and was like, "Well, I'm having really bad dreams, and have a lot of problems with xyz." And, there must be some mythological reference here to a mythology that Joseph Campbell once read. But the poem is talking about dreams, and the fact is that they have a reach into the person's mental health. When a delusion enters into the dream sphere, it begins to reach into the conscious and begins to be believed. And the mythology, literally here, is not so much being believed, but rather is manifesting in the dream.

But, the poem is definitely dealing with Schizophrenia. And "Schizophrenia" is often not having a filter in day to day activity. That means that everything is going to be interpreted as it is, and the brain is going to put all that information together. A good example of this is the rotating mask. The Schizophrenic sees it rotating the correct way, but the normal mind sees it with a filter which makes the illusion as if it span in both directions. So, Schizophrenia is a lack of having those filters.

At the end of the song, there's talk of the Murrain Stone. That right there, "Murrain" means sickness. It's speaking of mental illness, specifically, schizophrenia. Because anyone who believes, and I quote "All things on earth/to me are known" because of the "Murrain Stone", then it's obviously saying outright a man does not have omnipotence with this line. The poem is rather talking about Schizophrenia, with regard to an omnipotence delusion. It's impossible for a man to know all things, so the poem is talking about something else.

Which, seeing he got conflated with other religions---and this is why I really would discourage people from learning about religions other than Christianity---is that he must have picked up a delusion from believing in Folk Tales, giving him the "Murrain Stone." Or Schizophrenia. Because experience with the Mythological---as he puts it in an essay I was doing research on---is something I think ought not happen. There's only one God, that's Jesus Christ. And there's a ton of other religions that are not Jesus Christ. They have other revelations, and it is a sickness when they are revealed; that is, if the magic of the superstition reveals itself it is a sickness.

When I look at this, my mind thinks of the "Yeerks", as if they were some kind of schizophrenic pathogen. As if the mental illness of Joseph Campbell, by reading into Mythology too much---because that is where the pathogen takes root---is being likened to a Brain Leech of some kind. As if mythology can be a pathogenic cause of schizophrenia; which Campbell would not accept this thought, but I find it accurate. There are other pathogens, too, like the Truman Show, or generally speaking any source of literature that skews the mind from the one solitary truth, and that is Christ.

Which, now the poem makes sense, that the Herb-Leech is his Schizophrenia. It is a delusion he's dealing with, something similar to a Yeerk, and Schizophrenia can be metaphorically linked to this science fiction concept. Which, the way to beat it, and the path to a healthy lifestyle, are to overcome the illness with love. To simply love; that is actively work at becoming a better and more empathetic person. Because I believe it is something like the "Error of Balaam" as talked about in the Bible. He was a so called "Prophet" and named his prophecies, but it is was then reinforced when he saw a Donkey talk. Delusory tendencies, with research to back them up with schemas, then start manifesting in negative behaviors such as fortune telling, and then when some of those predictions might come true it can lead to OCD or Post Traumatic Stress. Which, ultimately brings the illness to a much worse standing when the things we've fortune told came true. It makes us believe we have power.

Which, seeing his mentions here of the different myths that must have spurred it on, I think his dreams are actually spurring on the mythologies. That maybe he has some latent understanding of them, forgets them, dreams them, and then finds them, reinforcing the schizophrenia. Which, external stimuli that proves a delusion drives someone mad, into the depths of Schizophrenic tendencies. It's imperative that one understand that, and try their best not to prove a Schizophrenic's delusions. Because external stimuli that proves a delusion, will only reinforce the delusion, making it stronger in the individual.

So, the Herb-Leech is Joseph Campbell's mental illness.

Campbell, Joseph. "The Herb Leech". A Treasury of Irish Literature. Sterling Publishing Co., Barnes and Nobles Classics Edition, 2017. Text.

A Discourse on “Second Coming” By William Butler Yeats

Oddly enough, I wrote a poem about the "Sphynx" and it's an image about the apocalypse. Which, I came to this poem by William Butler Yeats, and he mentioned "Spiritus Mundi", which would be something similar to my description of the "Davidic Archetype". To avoid any unnecessary discourse, "Spiritus Mundi" means "Spirit World", but the two concepts are identical.

And, I can't get through this, how interesting it is that I come up with a poem about the Sphynx, twisting its shoulder blades even, almost exactly the same idea and imagery. The notion of the Sphynx in my mythology came from a weird hybrid animal born in a lab. Of course, Yeats describes the Sphinx, but doesn't say that's what it is. I know, from having pictures of Egypt, what a Sphynx looks like, but I arrived at the conclusion from YouTube.

It's interesting to me. What's even more interesting is how the LORD says, "By two or three witnesses my Law shall be established." I would never expect to see another poem relating the Sphynx in so similar a fashion, especially linking it to End Days Eschatology.

The poem is misinterpreted, though. Yeat's ethos skewed the meaning of the poem. The poem is not saying that the "Sphynx" is Christ, but rather the "Sphynx" is coming to gobble up the child. It's plain to me that's what the poem means, even if the Poet was unintentional in describing it. That would be the Seventh Trumpet when the Dragon tries to swallow up the Child Christ.

Which, Egypt is likened to a Dragon or Serpent in the Scripture's poetry; so, it's very likely that the Sphynx archetype is being used here in two distinct places to describe something specific. As Hosea says, the Prophets speak in similitudes, that would mean parables.

The story here is imperative. Perhaps the Sphynx in Egypt has something to do with the Dragon of Egypt or the Nile. It's interesting to me that both poets, myself and Yeats, come to this imagination cogently and lucidly, separately, and without having read one another's poems.

Yeats, William Butler. "The Second Coming." Poetry Foundation. https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43290/the-second-coming. 2/13/22. Web.

How To Interpret Fairyland

There is a philosophical concept I want the reader to understand, first and foremost. That is Nihilism, Solipsism, Last Thursdayism, Mind in a Vat---etc, etc, etc,. In other words, absurd claims in philosophy. Nihilism is the thought that there are no morals. Solipsism is the thought that only you exist. Last Thursdayism is the thought that everything was created last Thursday, and our memories are simply inherited, and are not real. Mind in a Vat is that we are in a computer program, etc.

So... there's one common theme and element in all of this. It is the element of untruth. We know, without a doubt, that morals exist. We know without a doubt that Last Thursday was not the beginning of the universe. We know, without a doubt---with the most amount of evidence than the others---that we are not alone. We know, without a doubt, that we are not in a computer program. And the reason for this is quite simple. There is something in us, hardwired even, to say that the empirical world we observe is true. It's in us to say some other things, as well.

So, all of these claims are purely philosophical in nature. Yes. We know they are absurd. Yes. We know that they are unable to be proven true. Yes. Or false. Yes. They are simply thought experiments. Yes.

So, onto some other noteworthy, and actually believed notions. The Earth is flat. We have ample sources, satellite photos, astronauts, even ocean cartography among other things, to safely assume that the earth is not flat. It is a little harder to be convinced that this is true---just a little, but enough to make foolish people believe it. So, at the core, there would have to be an entire conspiracy of all governments of the world keeping it secret that the Earth is flat, if it really were. So, keep this in mind.

Then, there is evolution. We don't have direct evidence of it. But, we have a cadre, a very large cadre, of people who inherently believe that Evolution is not true. And the reason for this is religiously motivated. Now, I'm more religious than these because I don't think God is proven false or true based on the existence of a theory like Evolution. It's really not a thing to consider, but Christians consider it and look mighty foolish doing so. So, the idea that evolution does not exist, falls into these categories. But, there's more.

Conspiracy Theories. Now we get to the meat and potatoes, that every American will believe, at some point, a conspiracy theory of some kind. JFK assassination, Big Foot, Moon Landing, Illuminati, Lizard Kings, etc. etc. etc. And, we get the same kinds of problems with this as we do the previous. It's all built on data that is interpreted in a way that is not accurate. For there to be a conspiracy, there'd have to be a lot of things happening that would be impossible to hide. So... it's all ideas based in some solid sociology, but the cause is being attributed to a few people, when it, in this case, should be attributed to the society as a whole. For not respecting Democracy, for letting themselves be fooled by Entertainment. For simply desiring their lives to be a lot more interesting than they actually are. In other words, Conspiracy Theories are cultural delusions meant to spice life up for the average Joe, and imprint on the society the ills of the individual.

So... we get to the ultimate schema. Fairyland. It is the culmination of all of these. It allows all of it to be true. There is a Jontunheim underneath the earth. If we're in space, it's because we're in a jewel like galaxy created by giants. If there is magic, it's because of xyz. So... I'm sure a lot of Fairyland will be proven false. Some of it will be proven true. And like any theory, there will be mental gymnastics to make it exist. As is the case with Conspiracy Theories, Flat Earthers, Moon Landing Deniers, 9/11 Truthers. The fact remains that it is probably not true. 9/11 was more than likely perpetrated by foreign powers wanting to drive America to the ground. The earth is probably not flat. Giants probably don't exist.

So... there encounters a problem with Religion, specifically Christianity, to believe in Flat Earths, Evolution's untruth, among other things. And if this is true, then Fairyland must be true. Because we no longer live in an accidental world---that doesn't mean by accident; it just means it is caused. We then live in a magical world. And the point of Fairyland is to simply say, "I don't know if it exists or not. But, I don't believe it does because it doesn't make sense with reality."

So... what does Fairyland mean. That's the more important aspect. It is no longer metaphysical, but it is rather metaphorical. It means something. Medea does not exist. But, the Internet and Television do exist. Brittos does not exist. But, people have to fight a battle against the entertainment they consume in order to win the day, and stay a Christian. Giants do not exist. But, people have uncanny lusts for life that will make them more likely to commit wrongdoing just to have a better life. Orcs don't exist, but there are extremely violent people. Elves don't exist, but there are people who lust, and would accept any gross technology that could be conceived because it will give them more opportunity to do gross things that will please them in the short run. There is no such thing as Leviathan---a three kilometer long Sea Conch---but there is death, and an afterlife. There is no such thing as Thor---but there is a desire to leave here, and go some place different, new, strange, lusty. There is no such thing as Fairies---but there is an artificial reality created on the television and internet. There is no such thing as Somodivas, but there are women who are more interested in their freedom than actual love; and more often they are beautiful and wildly dangerous to court. There are no such things as Dragons, but there is such a thing as misers and people who will destroy everything just to enrich themselves.

With that being said, that is how Fairyland is to be interpreted. It's not likely that these things exist in reality. Nethanim more than likely are not real. But, I am real. And these stories are there to help me overcome the theories noted above... all bound together in Fairyland. Because there it is an ultimate schema that must be wrestled with. There, anything is possible in the real world of Fairyland, which is the mental world of the author, or the Nethanim. Which is why it's dangerous to believe the above because they take the blame off of the actual problem. That is the person, the individual---because people often search for Fairyland for a purpose. A notable author, T. S. Eliot had his famous character Prufrock drown himself looking for this. I can see no other metaphor to draw from it. It's interesting how archetypal this is... what I'm dealing with. But, you can drown yourself looking for the Fairyland, when you need to be grounded in the actual land you're standing on. Rather, Fairyland is there to explain psychology. Not reality.

And the above theories are all Fairyland. They are all mental movies and delusions the person who entertains them are living. They are defense mechanisms, they are binding all of our hate into an effigy, much like the secret societies do that we critique. But, they, in a sense, are Fairyland. Far away, removed, and kind of there dancing around Moloch, in their crazed delusions. Which, real or not, they only have power if they suck you into it too. Which is why Fairyland is much like Solipsism or Last Thursdayism. It's a thought experiment meant to help you escape the so called Magical Reality, which is in all truth a delusion shared by a population.

And these foes are dangerous. Don't get me wrong. Just, they're dangerous in a different way. Rather than attack you physically, they attack you mentally. And if mentally, you start making bad decisions. And that's how we get Trump in office. That's how we run Hillary against him. That's how we pass bills in Congress that are troubling like the Real ID or Healthcare Mandate. And we must remember that the Founding Fathers fought against something tangible. A tax. It was not boogiemen. Had it been, it would have been a war that couldn't be won. And in the intellectual battleground, we need to rid ourselves of the boogiemen in order to see the real problem, which is just human corruption creeping in at every level of government. And that being conflated with Fairyland is dangerous because Fairyland to a rational human being doesn't exist. Neither do conspiracies or Moral Nihilism. They are fringe doctrines, and I'm afraid that no war needs fought right now. But, these corruptions within the leaderships is letting open a door for wars, and unnecessary conflicts which could threaten the Earth.

So, the foes to fight are internal. That's Fairyland. It's internal, not external. It's a battle for thoughts, not steel. And if we understand that, I think we'll learn why stories are so important for a society. Because they are one of the foremost ways we define evil, and we can also use it to stand against evil. But seeing the bad guy on Avengers Hail Hydra---which is Hitler, like, that's what it is---it's not the foe we need to fight. The foe we need to fight is within us.

The Davadic Archetype

I happened upon Peter Pan while trying to convince a group of youths that it has an objective meaning. And while reading Peter Pan's sequels, I came across something very strange. There was mention of a "David", who was, as the author put it, a Moralist. And of course David and he were always making stories, and perpetually having this exchange of ideas... What was funny was that it could have come out of one of my stories. I've come independently to the "David" theme in my writing, and it's interesting to me that someone else has, too.

So... why do two completely different authors, two authors from different centuries, even, come to the same, prevailing idea? That there is this person named "David" who has a share in our work. And of course, this Author resisted David--- they were his stories, not David's. Who is David? Why do two people come to this very same archetype, latent deep in the subconscious mind?

I had deleted two essays, and I mean to put them both here. There was another phenomena that was quite similar. After reading Seamus Heaney's version of Beowulf, I had written my own version of Beowulf. And, I did what the 9th century author did, I infused Pagan Mythology with Christian Mythology, and then read four cantos of Paradise Lost, and saw, almost eerily, we both we writing the same tradition. His were shape shifting Demons, mine were shape shifting elves using alien technology---both were demonic entities, which, in both, must actually be fought.

So, this is two times the state of fact came, that I was independently coming upon things that other authors have touched upon at different times, in different ways... David being one of them, and of course Paradise Lost's mythology, which lined up perfectly with mine.

So, I believe this is proof of communication. Which, proves that ideas---I'm not sure why this had to be proved, but apparently it does need proved---actually occur beyond that of the most visceral levels. The fact that I could write something like Hail Britannica, come upon this Davidic Archetype, create Elves---and this is all after reading works of literature like Bulfinch's Mythology, Wordsworth, Beowulf, Edith Hamilton's Mythology, Plato, Nietzsche, Kierkegaard, a lot of the Bible, literature like Jane Austen or Leo Tolstoy, etc. etc. etc. I came upon independently two ideas independently reached by other authors.

So... there's other things going on here, too, but the real issue is that when I confronted a bunch of young women on Peter Pan's meaning---expressly stated at the first few lines of the novel even---they became disgruntled. They denied that there could be a meaning, and they believed that it was all theory. Right... but how am I communicating ideas I've never entertained independently of having entertained the ideas in their purest form? Simply put, how am I writing about the same things as authors I've never actually read? And that's a question, that no matter what it proves communication. Even the most absurd theory would have to admit there is some kind of communication happening, on a level deeper than the rudimentary one we often associate communication with.

And, foremost, why David? It's interesting that David even comes up in Barrie's writing, and in my own fixed beliefs I had believed there was someone named "David" writing my work. And I realized, at the most rudimentary level, there was. David, in Christian Theology---because you can't use Mythology here---is the Messiah Conqueror. He is the coming Christ. He is the Shepherd. And in Ecclesiastes, it has something here to even say: "The words of the wise are as goads, and as nails fastened by the masters of assemblies, which are given from one shepherd."

So, what it proves is wisdom... universal ideas latent in the human psyche even. Jung would call them Archetypes, I'd call it wisdom. Universal ideas prevalent in writing, and David---when you've gotten to be a storyteller---might just be the Gatekeeper of the stories. You write for Christ. And of course, the author here might be resisting that call, which he says "David is a Moralist". He gives a story, which involves a creative memory---and here I begin to outline, that the story written by Barrie here, the Peter Pan sequel, is not canonical to the actual myth of Peter Pan. It's rather, schizophrenic in its delivery, and maybe the reason why is because it didn't get approved by the gatekeeper, David. Maybe when someone builds a life in stories, they begin to see---if it's truly wisdom---a pattern that must be followed, otherwise the story fails and otherwise looks ridiculous. And often I've found this many times.

And we come to the Romantic Poets, often calling themselves prophets, who wrote in styles we'd assume were period. But, I'm writing in this style without having learned it. I don't know how I'm doing it... I really don't actually. I had thought maybe I was plagiarizing, but I had never read anything like Paradise Lost to plagiarize. I did have a dream, once, of Hail Britannica, and it frightened me because I didn't understand what the dream meant. And I had dealt with obscure dreams---which lent to some of my stories---and it's often a wonder to me how this can be the case. Because I don't really recall any kind of reason to have these dreams---there is one obscure memory, and a prayer only to Jesus attached to it---but other than that, there is no reason for me to doubt the dreams' authenticity. So... it's scary to me how this works. But, somehow my stories are communicated to me. And I believe they are given by One Shepherd. If they are truly wise. And that gatekeeper is David, whom we should give the glory to, as in Christ Jesus, Messiah who comes to Conquer. And there is a latent angst in me... it's strange. I don't believe the stories are mine... I believe they are David's. I believe Barrie's stories are also David's, because they are wise. And I think when we rebel against David---or Christ---we tend to lose the authentic ownership of our craft. We begin to question them--- which is often what writers do at some point. I remember Ray Bradbury in an interview saying that he questioned his own words and wordings---maybe because he, in a sense, was trying to wrestle with the ownership of them. Bradbury became a Christian---or rather, always was despite some protest---and I think the ownership of these stories belongs to Christ, like all other things. If we are to be successful, we have to offer the story to Christ, or really anything for that matter.

And the fact that people are coming to these notions independently of me, suggests something rather odd and haunting. That is there are prevailing ideas outside of us, and forces outside of our own comprehension.

Barrie, J. M.. Peter Pan in Kensington Gardens. Project Guttenberg. https://www.gutenberg.org/files/26998/26998-h/26998-h.htm. 2/13/22. Web.