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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

God’s Plane and Scale

Mr. Emerson, may I just attain
What you said about circles.
It makes me first get offended.
As is true with all wisdom
All truth, we resist it at first.
We do not like things to be 
So simple, nor do we appreciate
Patterns we ourselves have not attained.

Yet, looking at the mountains
The trees, my palm, my fingers
My gloves, the rocks,
My calves, the cow's horns
The lizard's ovular body
The worms, the fly's which are 
Shaped like eggs,
The grasshoppers which are shaped
Like fingers, the bird's
Which are shaped almost ovular
The frogs, which when scrunched
Are like a little oval
The bushes which are ovular too...
And cats and dogs and horses when they lie down.
I do say I see the pattern as well.
And I do believe I have a theory on why.
Pi---being infinite, as is the infinite measurement of the curve---
Must inherently be the natural order of geometry.
So everything, running off, and smoothing over by rain
And evolving over time,
Naturally must produce a circle.
As, Pi is the natural shape, the natural
Number of nature, by which all other things are dictated.
Surely, it has its subtle imperfections
Making each specimen different,
But given the natural shape of all things
Are likened to a circle---
And what is straight
Often we can assume was man made,
How men create things in squares
And nature its circles---
I do say it's an 
offensive little thought.
That I hadn't attained it first---
Maybe I equal you in genius
For giving an explanation as to why---
Is it the infinite reality of Pi
Which causes this?
That number naturally representing
The geometry of a curve
Therefore, randomness must
Inherently, be shaped into curves.
For, the patterns in nature show
That all things, built by God,
Are as a curve. Men build in squares
And God builds with circles.
Because men must shape our environment
To order, and God must shape His environment
To the natural world toward that infinite 
Shape, that infinite number Pi.
And Mr. Emerson I do not plagiarize you
Rather, as you said about great poets
Writing in an age where there are few,
We take all things and make them our own.
But, my solemn task is finding in the past
Things which ought to be remembered by all
For a better future.

Another peculiar thought.
It seems that man is the only creation
Of God's which is like a rectangle.
For, the Golden ratio
By which men create and shape their world,
Is dictated by the rectangular shape of our body.
No other creature is dictated by its rectangular
Form. None which I know.
For, they are either cones, spheroids
Or outright shaped like circles.
The Human body, when standing upright
Exhibits the Golden Ratio;---
That being Five to two.
So do trees, so do bushes,
But only human bodies seem to be nature's rectangle
Which may be why we prefer them in our creations.
But this strange ratio has been told to me
By a much beloved professor
When describing the Acropolis
Which is fitted to our human shape;---
Which does appears in nature;---
Perhaps it is nature's rectangle
Which we men are formed closer to----
Yes, it is most defined in our human form.
For, perhaps these two measurements
The measurement of Pi
And the measurement of  Phi,
Perhaps these numbers are scientific
Facts, oblong and shaping the world
Through their infinite order.

Perhaps Pi is nature's curve
And Phi is nature's rectangle
Both working together
In their infinite measurements
As if planed and scaled by God
Like the Bible said, 
"Wisdom was with God when he Planed the Scale of the Earth".

For, by observing this order, 
I am confident that God exists.
For, these measurements create
Upon the earth, and define all Aesthetic Beauty.
That, and of course, Fibonacci's sequence;
Which repeats itself through all natural shapes.
For some reason, these numbers lay down the law
Of how our natural world gets shaped by the 
Eons of textures and winds, and rains.
And, certainly, to have such geometric certainty
As this---for randomness cannot truly occur in nature
According to these principles---
It must be that an architect, by design
Created our world.

And as certain as these mathematical principles are
Which are observed in everything from trees
To mountains, to rock formations
And even the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls,
So are the moral principles laid down by Christ
As certain. Which, Mr. Emerson, 
Is my scientific foundation for believing in Him.

Featured

The Importance of Literary Theory

B. K. Neifert

(C) 2019

All Rights Reserved

I

For about ten years now, there has been a pervasive conspiracy theory that the Sumerians had created the Bible, and that everything we know about the Jews is a lie. The Epic of Gilgamesh is the text cited as being evidence of this erroneous supposition. There are a few glaring examples of why this belief is erroneous. For one, the Bible is conscious of its tradition, being written first by Moses, around 1300BC. So the assumption that the Bible was first oral traditions would be correct, and even corroborated by the Bible itself. Does it therefore discredit the Bible’s claim, when it corroborates itself that Moses was the first to write down the tradition? Then, it was carried forth by several dozen other prophets, to further record the prophetic heritage of Israel and her people.

No, rather, the conspiracy theory is so grand as to erase Israel from existence. No longer did the Twelve Tribes of Canaan exist. No longer do the Jews exist in Exile in Babylon, despite historical records of their conquest by Babylon. No longer does Persia exist, to send the Jews back to their land. No longer, in fact, because the Bible was written by the Sumerians. Which, literary criticism of the Bible would show that this is impossible. On several dozen fronts, but if we were to erase the Jews from history, we would essentially erase all of Western History with them. If the Sumerians wrote the Bible, and there were no Jews, then there have been absurd claims that Babylon never existed, and Cyrus never conquered it. Therefore, no Persia, therefore no Greece, therefore no Thermopylae, therefore, what exactly? If we acquiesce to the bad literary theory being used to discredit the Bible—and literary theory is the subject you embark on when interpreting it—then we can assume that if the Sumerians wrote the whole of the Bible, then there would be no Western Civilization to speak of. Which is actually one of the more radical and absurd claims being postulated in the hallowed halls of academia.

Of course, the argument breaks down, does it not? We have historical evidence of the Babylonians, evidence of the Jew’s exile in Babylon and the sack of Jerusalem. We have evidence of Persia, and yes, even the Sumerians. Which means, that if the Bible is being challenged on its literary truth, it corroborates what we already presume to know about the entirety of Western Civilization. Without the Bible’s claim, which is also corroborated by Herodotus and archeological evidence, we’d be in severe lack of an explanation for all of History. There’d be no Grecian defeat of Persia, no Persian defeat of Babylon, no Babylonian defeat of Assyria, no Median Empire, possibly even, if you got radical enough, no Roman empire. If we viewed history in the imaginary lens that the Sumerians wrote the Bible, then we’d have no history to speak of.

But, the Bible fills in the gaps of all history. It tells us of all these empires, corroborated by archeology, like the Babylonian game of Ur found in cuneiform text. Which proves there was indeed a Babylon, along with actual pictures of Babylon; Herodotus also noted that Cyrus had conquered it.

If we try to denounce the written records of historians, mythologists, prophets like Socrates, Confucius, Moses or Christ, we tend to do something destructive to the overall understanding of the continuum we call history. We skew it for our political aims, rather than view it objectively from witnesses at the time periods. For, the Bible could not simply be a text written by the Sumerians, passed down and propagated by them. More than likely, the Hammurabi’s code would predate or run contemporary of it, and show us that the Laws in Exodus and Leviticus were in their infancy, being hemmed out by those early civilizations. Hence where the myths get their traction. But, some Prophet had the foresight to place Abraham at the time period, through the Genealogical records of the Bible. Given this weird coincidence, that happens again with Moses and the Cult of Aten, and then again at the Fall of Babylon and the weird monotheistic invention of Zoroastrianism, it would seem that the Bible is very good at predicting when and where its prophets will be at times when Monotheism became most prominent. If studying the genealogical records, it lines up exactly with the events described. Either some genius constructed the Bible for that purpose, or the Bible is itself an accurate description of a people’s heritage. We know it’s an accurate description of a people’s heritage, and we can safely assume that the Bible is an authentic piece of literature describing what is, indeed, the first monotheistic religion. Because the evidence corroborates the stories in the Bible, and the Bible even discusses times when its own adherents forgot their own religion. The Bible is a seamless text at describing the very real and frustrating nuances of history. It even predicts its Messiah will suffer on a cross. It predicts its people will go into exile while only at the time of Moses. It predicts itself time and time again, and those predictions come true. It seems to find the most arbitrary points in history for its prophets to line up with, to corroborate the Monotheism of itself in those eras. And the Bible does, indeed, say that it began with God talking to a Mesopotamian Lord, corroborates with El Worship in Mesopotamia, around the initiating of the Hammurabi’s Code, where they worshipped El and El’s Son. The Bible is a seamless piece of literature, being corroborated by history from the time of the Sumerians in Mesopotamia, where only one man, Abraham, had divine promise from God to establish a people, to now the whole world in Christ.

There is possibly a reason for this, as cultures became more adept at describing the moral patterns of civilization, it became necessary for God to reveal Himself to the civilizations when they were at their ready stages. For some other interesting things appear.

The Greeks have numerous times quoted Old Testament passages. It’s highly unlikely that the quotations were taken from Greece and adapted into the Bible. If Persia wrote the Bible, the Greeks were their mortal enemies, and therefore, would not want their protectorate to succumb to Greek Influence. However, there is much evidence of the Bible predating the establishment of Persia or Greece. One blatant example is the literary consistency of the Bronze Serpent in the days of Moses being destroyed by Hezekiah; which suggests the Bible were written over a period of time, rather than all at once, for such a detail would be nearly impossible to artificially invent by more than one author. More than likely, the Bible was a document written by a people whose ancestry came from the land of Canaan, and their document was widely popular and widely read, as is stated in the Bible when God Himself says He has great fame. Through literature we can understand this is likeliest of all cases. Because the scripture is either written with the most unique piquancy to somehow get itself entangled in all of history, East and West; or it is the written Casebook of God.

Certainly, however, we must backtrack to understand that Western History is reliant on the Jews; the fundamental nature of our historical background is cemented by their existence. Because without the Jews’ Bible being authoritative, we have no knowledge of how Europe came to exist. No real knowledge. For, what is archeological evidence seems to even corroborate that all of it existed, there is a unique conspiracy theory that the Jews were in fact invented by Persia, but the Persians included Greek quotations in their little satellite nation’s book of propaganda, whom the Persians were to be sworn enemies with at their collapse. Less than likely.

What is more likely the case, is that the Bible was established prior to the foundation of Persia or Babylon, or Assyria, or Greece, that the Jews forgot their religion like is said numerous times in the Old Testament, and that the Bible was a widely circulated document in the time periods, which some of its wisdom ended up in the Iliad and Odyssey among other places. It could even be where Confucius learned “Do unto your neighbor as you would have them do unto you.” The Bible could have been, and likely was, a widely disseminated book read by myriads of scholars who would catalog such obscure things in their libraries. Such is a less superficial and fantastical theory than the Jews being the prodigious satellite state of Persia, who just so happened to include Greek quotations in their book of statewide propaganda.

This is more in line with a correct theory, as it’s Occam’s Razor. Assume the most likely of all solutions. It’s almost impossible to think that the Bible was written by anyone beside the Jews. It is almost exclusively, through literary analysis, an entire history of a people.

II

This fact remains, of why it is most imperative that we investigate literature. The Epic of Gilgamesh, upon a cursory perusal, is not the account of Noah and the flood. The Epic is more like Beowulf or Nordic Eddas than it is any account similar to the Biblical text. So, the story of Noah is likely original to the Jews, and given this fact, it is almost imperative that we place history back into its open alignment, with what we know, and not get to be obscurantists with it, by muddying arcane archeological discoveries with what we know through witness testimonies. Because the Bible is, by and by, witness testimony. It’s corroborated through Herodotus. It’s corroborated through Archeology, despite Atheist and skeptics’ protests. The attempt to erase the Bible from our historical knowledge is itself anti-Semitic, and would indeed erase all of known history, leaving us with a Europe that has no actual cause, but rather a mythological cause, which is then replaced and pieced together by archeology to bring about a new, and “improved” version of the truth, that completely contradicts the contemporary, eyewitness accounts of those truths.

With this said, it’s why it’s imperative that we read and understand literature. It is not “Fictitious.” Nor is the Bible purely literature, as I believe it to be the God Breathed Word, and the perfect Casebook on how divine judgments work. Because the patterns described in the Bible display the prescience to describe real psychological phenomena, and sociological phenomena. Which, so do literary works in Science Fiction and Fantasy, and yes, even Realism. But the Bible even more so, that it is almost so hyper realistic in its portrayal of these truths that people will say word for word things the Bible itself says. I often encounter in debates things that Christ’s opponents said to His face, when speaking to them in my evangelistic encounters. Nearly verbatim.

The evidence even goes so strongly in the Bible’s favor, that questioning it at this point is something similar to antisemitism. Which, perhaps, I have found an anti-Semitic vein in the cultures at large to completely erase a people from existence, and therefore their culture, and therefore the invention of that culture, which is what Socrates described in his Symposium: right before he was abused, and a gay orgy exploded on the scene, disrupting a beautiful dialogue about the meaning of love, and what love is.

Simply put, there is a vein in the culture to disenfranchise the Jews, disenfranchise Christians, and it is a sinister road of disenfranchisement, tending only to the destruction of Western Civilization. Which, literature is a preservation of the Western Tradition, as Google can change facts about history, but we can still read about them in old books, and see that Google is, in fact, lying.

The whole road ahead is one paved with fanatical zeal to destroy the past, to erase it from existence, and to build a narrative about the Sumerians. The Sumerians wrote the Bible. A basic propagandistic statement, founded on little shreds of archeological evidence such as The Epic of Gilgamesh. Which, to turn the table around, things that are simple to believe are often not the things that make truth. Simple things are built on propagandistic, little catch phrases and pithy quotes to understand and navigate life. We know this to be utterly simple, because what is true is nuanced. And literature offers a nuanced view of history, which can be seen through the lens of someone who lived through it. Not our far off eyes, trying to peer through the opaqueness of science and archeology.

Much the same, our interpretations of science must then be wrong if this is what we’re beginning to assume through archeological evidence. Either that, or the science does not actually corroborate what is popularly being attributed it. Perhaps it is as Paul warns, “Things falsely called Science.”

It can be an affront to the entirety of the human race to subtract the innocent people of the Jews from history. To steal from them their heritage, and to rob them of their Kings and Princes. This is a crime of anti-Semitism. Heinous in its all sweeping wave through society, that the academies are actually trying to propagate the lie. But, history is too strong, and the existence of Europe too much of an obelisk to forget the past. That same past which shared the Jews and Christians.

The Bible is a strong, historical document. Strongly corroborated by historical evidence. And we need to understand literature at this critical hour, lest we lose our heritage, and not just the West’s. The Jew’s heritage is in all civilizations, all people’s. The Bible is quoted in the Iliad and Odyssey. The Bible created Zoroastrianism. Moses’ defiance of Pharaoh created the Cult of Aten. Abraham created the Hammurabi code. Because the evidence is too much corroborated by the biblical genealogies.

III

Perhaps God had revealed Himself to us through stages. First to one man, because only that one man, plus Melchizedek, could have a true relationship with Him. Then, God revealed Himself to a people. Because only that people could truly know Him. Then, God revealed Himself by coming in the Flesh as Jesus Christ. The ultimate revelation, so man would have no mistaking what God wanted from us. Perhaps, even so, it was the invention of Love that God wanted us to discover. Written in Socrates’ Symposium, as it built from romantic love to the divine love. That perhaps Socrates had known the Hebrew Bible, which is only conjecture. But he possibly could have, as I would imagine the idea of monotheism would be quite novel to someone at that time. And so with the Monotheistic God’s invention, which is of course love.

Perhaps certain groups and peoples were not ready for the discovery of love, but when they had “Evolved” in the most crudest terms, to a point where they were ready to understand and fully comprehend love, that was the point where God fully allowed Himself to be revealed to the whole world, through His Son Jesus Christ.

As, the Bible strangely follows the patterns of history, and strangely is corroborated by random springs of monotheism correlating at the exact time the lineages place our prophets. It’s not likely that anyone would have the access to the information to know it back then, but rather it’s either a one in an impossibly large number’s chance of happening, or it was divinely inspired.

That God would show Himself to the world is itself necessary for God, if He’s benevolent, to do. To leave no question about what we need, and what He wants. First, he codified it with Moses, and second He lived it with Christ. First with the Law, and then with His Life. First he wrote the instructions, and then He demonstrated them. As anyone with Character does when in a managerial position. First he gives the instructions, and when those instructions are not followed through correctly, he demonstrates it himself. God, however, added a third aspect to this. God did it through us, by His holy Spirit.

But this is getting into religion, not literary theory. However, I lay down the reason why I believe in my religion. And next I will lay down why I believe in literary theory.

IV

Often there are questions as to the cause of this or that. There are great sundry questions of history and psychology that people debate. Which, if someone were to read literature they would no longer have these questions, as eyewitness accounts would peer into the dank depths of human imagination, to draw forth an eye witness. A single man’s testimony, whether good or bad.

Yeats is fond of wanting to view love ephemerally, as if love were best as a buck and doe meeting in the woods, the doe showing herself to the buck from the rear, and then the buck mounting the doe. It exists as a prophetic look at the sort of person, whom we can see is wrong because of our knowledge of what love actually is. The check to that idea is Freudian psychology, which claims that the nuclear family is integral in the character development of human beings. Further, literature like Dostoevsky’s shows in stark detail the psychological portraits of unstable families, and even renders it into the most heinous crime, murder, in his Brothers Karamazov. We must view literature in this lens, first, as actual eye witness testimony of the time periods, and we can get a good grasp on their decline or Golden Ages.

In Russia, it was Atheism that caused it to decline. It was divorce. It was the throwing down of the old order, The Judeo-Christian ideas of family, of love, of virtue. Anna Karenina divorces her husband on a whim, and at the end gets the poetic justice of suicide to fit her crime. She had made everyone unhappy, and her hatred for her husband protruded to a hatred for her paramour and child. Which, then left her without a solid place to seek foundation. For she hadn’t love, and that was why she divorced. Levin loses much in the course of the book, gets as depressed as Anna, maybe more because he actually possessed love, but he survives his episode of despair because he finds Christ.

Dostoevsky, otherwise, shows the leap into despair and desperation when Dimitri wants to kills his father, which the cause is over a dispute about money. Dimitri’s father is not a good man, and humiliates a priest in the opening scenes of the book, but it doesn’t change the conscience of the book, that the murder is wrong, and is caused by the father hunger.

Literature captures these portraits of society. It is a barometer of the social milieus at the times it was written. If anyone were to look upon our social barometers, we’d see the world is getting darker. The stories are beginning to reflect more and more the banal realities we all face. In fact, literature is not present at the moment. It is left aside for videos about practical jokes and video essays concerning a host of strange subjects.

The Bible says something strange in Hosea. It says the “Prophets speak in similitudes.” It often crosses my mind if these litterateurs we read are not often prophets. Science Fiction is often prophetic of dark and destructive futures, and can put on moral plays for their audiences, to help the audience understand global trends in diplomacy, armistices,—as one superman episode had superman disabling the nuclear warheads, and then the subsequent invasion of aliens—and applied ethics. While I highly doubt there are aliens, the stories are discussing real phenomena. And it has, for the interim, helped sustain some semblance of peace. But, the story is simply telling its audience that nuclear weapons are keeping the world from experiencing unending global wars, and that the same principles for ethics apply to alien species as they do also to mankind.

At the time period, it was a very good critique. Now, I’m not so sure it was listened to, as there were other, more fundamental science fiction motifs that didn’t get listened to. Such warnings in Bradbury’s novel, or Orwell’s, showing the destructive and intrusive reach of technology into the everyday man’s life. The fact that people became callow from technology, and started harming one another for fun is not far from the truth we see today.

It’s imperative that we recognize the fact that these stories are able to foresee the psychological trends created by technologies. They are not forging the trends, but rather are calculating its use by observing what we already knew about human behavior to begin with. That men are fascinated with devices. Such devices as the printing press have revolutionized the spread of good information, while the internet has polarized everyone into their superficial, ideological camps, ready to cast stones at one another. Fiction predicted this.

Fiction is also good at predicting people’s lives. It can, even with no moral shade to the text, show itself reflective of human error. D. H. Lawrence had created his version of Tolstoy’s Anna Karenina without the moral shame cast upon Anna. And, in describing it from an essay in the very defense of D. H. Lawrence’s work, I could see the very critique Tolstoy outlines in that very defense of D. H. Lawrence. The cruelty and debauched nature, which Tolstoy had poked a hole in, and D. H. Lawrence could not hide it. It is often insulting when we read good books. The fact that the tautology of Tolstoy’s work didn’t need Anna to commit suicide, it was already present that she had done a wrong against her husband. And more often is it the case.

We as a people must realize this is what literature is for, to help be a barometer of the social climates of their days. It can diagnose what is wrong with a civilization. Greek and Roman artists portraying sodomy are a good indicator of where their social climate was, and surely enough, the portraits dated close to social upheavals. More than that, a society is best understood through its art. The Epic of Gilgamesh can teach us a lot about the Sumerians but literally nothing about the Jews. Noah would not be a drunkard, nor would he be a great heroic king. He would, rather, fit the character of a humble shepherd or farmer; the noble peasant—,following the will of God, patiently building his ark. Two distinct versions, which modern Hollywood wanted to conflate in their portrayal of Noah. It was the illegitimate child of the stories of Noah and Gilgamesh. An action movie, that made it seem like the people at the time period wished to fight to get onto the ark. It portrayed our modern family aesthetic, but did not understand that Noah and his family would probably be quivering with fear, and huddled together in love, awaiting the flood waters to dissipate; as such would be the character of a man of God. A very unlikely adaption, as it doesn’t fit the reality of how good people behave, but rather bad people. More than likely, those other people drowned without knowledge of the ark ever being constructed, who Noah would have desired greatly to see on his ark, and the few who knew about the ark would have thought Noah was as insane for building it, as he was getting into it before the flood waters rose. That God was a tyrant for allowing the flood is, in all actuality, the same as a murderer thinking his executor is a tyrant for giving him the lethal injection. The fact remains it is more humane to let the murderer die, than live in the suffering he has caused for himself. That is why the law speaks to such affect. And at the time of Noah, everyone was a murderer, or I can see no other reason for God compelling Noah to build the ark. Nor, as is the case today, would anyone believe it, as our current yellow-scholarship tries to erase the Jews from history; it would be the same kind of blindness the peoples had in the days of Noah. It’s not that they are doing it on purpose, but that they cannot know the truth, nor even perceive the logic that makes it true. But, the facts were bare and certain yet opaque because nobody had searched them out.

V

This gets into the importance of literary theory as a whole, that we can, if we’re careful, deduce important artifacts from history. Not only that, but understand cultural milieus, and understand things in a nuanced way. Of course, Babylon’s ruins exist, one can merely look at them, and see it. However, the current milieu is to erase the history of our religion, that is the Christian and Jewish religion. The religion of the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. Not the God of Abraham and Ishmael. Not the God of Haile Selassie. Not the God of Joseph Smith, nor the God of Charles Russel. For, if one were to simply look at the meanings of the Biblical text, it would be difficult to equivocate the beliefs of these people. One would recognize instantly that Ethiopians are not the Jews. One would recognize immediately that Jesus claimed to literally be God, and is prophesied as so in the Old Testament. On would understand that it was Isaac whom the covenant was given to, not Ishmael. Therefore, one could easily discredit the claims of all of the other Abrahamic religions. If literary theory were practiced correctly, it will derive a meaning from a text that is accurate.

I do not mean the run of the mill Hermeneutics, either. As certain texts explicitly defy being interpreted that way. Some poetry is meant to not convey clear meanings, but is rather sensory, and other poems are meant to draw from subconscious cues a personal interpretation rather than an objective interpretation. Rather, that an interpretation and intention can be derived from any piece of literature, that is sufficient in itself for literary theory.

With this said, one can easily begin to understand rather than interpolate, and begin to view communication as a fundamental part of what makes us human. No other species can philosophize, nor create religion. As Jonathan Haidt said in a lecture, “Humans are the only species that can form cohesive bonds, and build things without being blood related.” I paraphrase. However, he cites quite accurately that it is religion that allowed these feats to take place, or nationalism, or communalism. What he fails to understand is that though the greatest cooperation was built by enlightenment philosophers in the capability of man to reason, and reason, not blind obedience, is the vehicle for cooperation in a pluralistic society such as America; however, underlying that Enlightenment society is the father-vein of Christianity. The one our Mason brothers built, who though rejecting the corner stone, it became the chief corner stone on which all of Western Civilization hinged. Without Christ, there can be no Western Society, and if literary theory were implemented in just understanding what men like George Washington and John Adams were saying, it would be moot whether they believed. The fact remains that in every quote attributed to them on religion, they found the moral epicenter of Christ’s teachings on the Sermon on the Mount sufficient as a moral law for their civilization. And they found no better.

I do not say the founders were Christian. They were not. They did, however, lay a foundation of Christianity in the country, to check the otherwise wild tendencies of human nature with what they found as a sufficient religion. If we were to try and argue against this very nuanced but accurate point, we’d undermine the social fabric of American democracy. Which, is what the postmodernists are doing at this present moment, by undermining the meaning of works of literature through deconstruction.

It is why the scholars who butchered the interpretation of Milton’s Paradise Lost, rather than succumb to the obvious meaning of the text, invented an ulterior meaning, making Satan—the murderer by trade—the good guy. Never did he value the insight of how reason, if taken in its purest form, could undermine the moral fabric of a country. This is what Immanuel Kant observed in his treatise. But, more than that, he quite arbitrarily made a murderer the hero of Paradise Lost. The insanity of this is lent to bad literary theory, where rather than try to utilize and communicate, the point is to simply expound whatever beliefs one has. That power is the alternative to reason, and without a foundation for reason—without literary theory, and accomplishing the arduous task of correctly interpreting someone else’s work—we undermine the foundation of our democracy. It can go one step further and say that the predicate of Reason is founded in the Greek concept of “Word” which St. John had coined as the embodiment of Who Christ is. It might very well be why this alternative viewpoint is being espoused by the universities, in order to undermine the premise of the enlightenment, which was, indeed, founded on the principle that a piece of writing could be understood, and rational discourse would win in the end.

This can only work if we have correct literary theory. Novels and Poems are similitudes, that perhaps the prophets speak, and interpreting them gives a moral play in the existential structure, allowing the audience to judge the characters and determine whether their actions are moral. Or, as a matter of fact, judge the social climates, the intrinsic networks of sociological and psychological truths needed for understanding what literature is. It is foundational to literary theory that we not do away with the clear meaning of a text, as the predicate of reason requires that language be able to be comprehended, and literary devices at that. It is predicated on context. And if Paradise Lost were read in context of the work’s premise, it is that Satan is ultimately bad, and will use persuasion in order to suck the human beings into the trap of nihilism, and therefore, undercut and dissuade men from behaving benevolently. As Satan knows this about us, and knows reason is a slippery slope of syllogism, that once fundamental premises are nullified, then the social strata can begin to slide into more desperate moral decay. And lo and behold, we do this by nullifying reason, ergo, nullifying religion, ergo, nullifying the age of reason with it by supplanting literary theory, and turning it into a subjective science.

Deconstruction is the method by which philosophers have negated clear meaning, and have even bled that lie into the population, so that they are unable to think critically about a piece of writing, and therefore interpret it. It is because the premise of communication is predicated on successful transactions of ideas. And if an idea is merely a matter of subjective interpretation, then there can be no premise to succeed in getting to the predicate of reason.

Therefore, it is fundamentally necessary for reason to be imbued with the thought that sentences can be interpreted. That meanings can be derived. That ideological frameworks can change with the right sorts of information. Our entire civilization hinges on the notion that there is truth, both metaphysical and empirical. That strata of ideas can exist just as concretely as strata of scientific phenomena. Therefore, morals are predicated on this logic too, that they can be discovered. It’s why moral philosophers have discovered morals all throughout the millennia. But, only Christ had found them all. A carpenter’s son. If this isn’t the miracle of them all, a boy who had no access to learning, no access to books, could create the most cogent moral philosophy ever in existence, then one can only be obstinate in their views that Christ is not the Messiah. For, it is proof enough for me to believe, and always was.

That Christ died, and raised from the dead, it is a matter of literary theory, too. The theories of His resurrection being a hoax don’t pan out with the observations we make about human character. Men do not die for a lie. They will readily admit the lie before dying, which none of the apostles who were martyred seem to have done. There have been many miraculous events in history described by many historians, for instance the darkness that followed Hannibal’s invasion of Rome. I personally believe this story, and even that the shields sweat blood. But that is just me. For the scholar who does not believe such things, and believes that the resurrection was a hoax, men contemporary of the time period died for that “hoax.” It is not likely that they died for a hoax, but that they truly saw the risen Christ. Because that is human nature, to die for something concrete. Muslims bombing Christian men, the Muslims are dying for the comradery of their group. Their religion is a great stabilizing factor in all of their lives, and it creates happiness for them. They die for it. But, when early Christians died, they were not dying in battle nor for the comforts of their religion. They were dying by execution after excruciating persecution and little public support. And it wasn’t for an established religion that everyone in society believed in. Only a very few people believed it. No, they died because something real led them to believe. And literary theory proves it. Because human psychologies do not let men die for what they don’t truly believe. A man can die for Christianity in battle, but that same man would have a hard time sitting in an execution line, seeing the opportunity to strike back flee him as he allowed himself to be martyred. For Christian martyrs will die even with an escape. They will still die. They will still risk getting arrested and thrown in prison, when everyone in their society is convinced that they are lunatics.

What’s important to know is that literary theory helps explain this, as what was true for the men and women back in the days of Christ still holds true for our Christian brothers and sisters today. Every day, almost, I hear news of martyrs in Northern Africa. I hear of martyrs here in the United States. It’s yet to be that the government is involved in the persecution, and by the grace of God and work of people like me it might never happen. But, it could happen in this day. Because literature is abused, and literature is rejected. It predicts human responses, just as the Gospel predicted its martyrs’ responses up to this very day. Literature is a forecasting device to allow us to peer into the future. And misinterpreting it, or calling it useless is a dangerous assumption because it has often been more accurate at predicting human advancements in technology, and human advancements in moral philosophy for the better part of its existence. Losing this ground, losing this special invention by mooting it, is leading to the kinds of chaotic thinking we see today. That Jane Austen had nothing to say, and that the time period were not really being described but was her own subjective interpretation;—or that Orwell had nothing to say, and that his vision couldn’t happen, but lo, it is. And what of it? Men need to understand these things so they can prevent it from ever occurring, and literature is exactly the inoculation against bad ideas.

It must further be attested that reading literature helps one think clearly, and understand morality in its narrative function. One can see morals demonstrated through stories, and this is why stories are so important. Without this function, they cease to be stories, but are rather propagandistic statements trying to elevate one side of a power struggle.

However, humans balance out over several generations back into their natural mode. When a great revolution occurs, and a great civilization burgeons, it falls, and another civilization stands on its ashes. As Marc says in my work, The Fifth Angel’s Trumpet, “Well, the sun rises and it also sets.” Which, it is literature that teaches us this mortality, even social mortality, of a civilization’s fall. Literature teaches us why it occurs, and if a man were intelligent they’d realize this, and hem the levies before it ever burst. For if the people are themselves unwilling to do what’s good, they ultimately get what they deserve. But, it’s better they see it in a poem, rather than in practice. It is better to understand war from art or literature, than it is to understand it by actually having to fight. It is better to understand divorce from Anna than it is to understand it from…

And, if we deny that communication is valuable, and can transfer these experiences from one man to another, then we forget that literature is powerful, we forget that experiences can be communicated, and we will forget the nature of our struggle, which is a moral struggle against the flow of the world. Which, is probably why literature was attacked, and vehemently too.

VI

Literature, if done right, gives us experience. It gives us emotions, it gives us truths to aspire for. When Tolstoy had written Anna Karenina, he literally made me feel like I was getting married, though I had never experienced it. No other author could, or perhaps many have. And that’s the power of literature, too, is that it can communicate experience from one person to another. It can communicate thought. If thought is not communicable, then the very premise of an Age of Reason fails. And that Age of Reason is hemmed in with the existence of a Jewish Carpenter who died on a cross two thousand years ago, approximately. Because if we undermine reason, we undermine Word, we undermine the very nature of the Enlightenment, which is that truth can be established. It is not a light subject we embark on. Postmodern philosophers have noted power as the only thing which roots reason. Whose power? Certainly they do not know, for if it is man’s power, is it the man Orwell created who governed 1984, or is it the man in the KGB who understood corrupting our psychology makes us weak and susceptible to internal collapse?

Somehow, our enemies understand this, but hold as a bone the idea of anarchy and freedom in front of us. They sashay the bone in front of us, saying, “Freedom and Anarchy, Prosperity for All and Perpetual Leisure!” and it is Locke’s very freedom that this Postmodern revolution is predicated on. For freedom in a postmodern world is, indeed, Locke’s freedom. It is Locke’s system. But, so is the ardent capitalist. However, both sides of the debate are locked in a heated war of whose poison will be there to fill the vacuum, when Locke’s philosophy reigns supreme. Will it be the socialist or the capitalist? Maybe neither. However, it is not whose power, but rather the cogent philosophy of Locke, that men want happiness, and the government should be best administered to the people’s happiness and that just free exercise thereof of our ability to figure things out for ourselves. There are differing opinions on whose brand will be chosen. However, what is duly unnoticed by most, is that both systems would be hell on earth without a foundation in God’s love. And reason freed from the feelings we share is dangerous. For, truth brings into us feelings, and our hearts can be pleasurable, either for good or bad. But, there are good and pure feelings that we can understand are not bad. There are good and sublime feelings that we can, indeed, understand are wicked. There is pleasure in cruelty. There is also pleasure in feeling an emotional bond with a woman you are making love to. Cruelty in war is the root of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder because the killing was enjoyed, having enjoyed the slaughtering of your enemies. And artists describe it. That guilt, it is an artist’s job to describe.

Where else can you feel the guilt of having committed a murder, unless an artist portrays it to you? Perhaps the artist himself had an outburst of violence, and nearly killed someone, and had felt for a second what it was like to have killed. To translate that emotion to a reader, it is invaluable moral teaching. It can show us what it is to have murdered, and we will never have to know firsthand. We can understand that the conscience is indwelt within us, and is built in our very souls from the moment of conception. We can know many things both good and bad from literature. And if we throw away this valuable teaching tool, we in effect nullify the real experiences of the authors, and say man cannot ever know what it is like to truly experience something, until he does. Yet, anyone who has had a true awakening to art, can understand that the experience in art is nearly the same in similitude with the author’s who wrote it. And we can understand it from afar, seeing if we truly wish to embark on such a dangerous—or perhaps beneficial—task.

It is these experiences in art that lend to the most important aspects of art. That art is satisfactory in communicating, and that it can, indeed, communicate. It can communicate new experiences to us, ones we have never even experienced. The isolation of a Russian Gulag, the terror of a psychotic’s thinking, the evil deed of a good man who murdered a degenerate, the vengeance of a broken whaleship captain.

We must understand these things. We must not try to undermine them with our own notions, nor our own prejudices. We must not get lost in the dark alleys of believing communication cannot exist. For, it is a new invention to say that communication doesn’t exist. Communication does exist. It is very real. Very serious. Very strong. And it would be imperative that one understand that because we can tap into this reality, that the Bible itself details a people’s history, for it is too real not to. If not for the historical existence of the Twelve Tribes of Canaan which we know from the Tel Dan stele, or the photos of Babylon, or the Babylonian Game of Ur of the Chaldees, the literal transcripts of the sack of Jerusalem in Babylonian historical recorded in the Nebuchadnezzar Chronicle, the birth records of Jesus Christ, the witness accounts of Herodotus, then the most cogent reason to believe in the Jews historicity is that they have a piece of literature woven from different times, corroborated by things like Hammurabi’s Code, and the Prophets aligning with every instance of Monotheism; there are just too many details, and precious ones at that, for the Bible to be fictitious. It is, indeed, the history of a people, written by that people over the course of thirteen hundred years by different people. Jeremiah, alone, describes the sack at Jerusalem. It is too invested in the subject to be anything but an eyewitness account. He is the same as me, trying to warn my country of danger, but its darkened ear and ravenous silence answers back.

Such is too much a similitude with my very existence. Such is why I’m inclined to believe the Bible, because the experiences it tells are not only true, but the only concrete and predictive truths in literature. People actually respond the way they do in the Bible. Quite miraculously, stupor comes over people, and they ludicrously take literal what was intended as metaphorical. They strive at strange conjectures, over the simple adherence of the subject revealed. That the Sadducees are the Mainline Denominations and the Pharisees the Evangelicals, and that the Gospel itself predicted this. Both the doctrines stay concrete, unchanging, and that literary truth is why it begins to show itself veritable. It shows itself more plausible than any other religion in history. Because the concepts still exist. The New Apostolic Reformation are the Niccolaitans. The Gnostics are the New Age Theologians and Prosperity Gospel Teachers. The Arians are the Jehovah’s Witnesses and Mormons. The same religions persist, but take embodied forms with details dissimilar, but the Word is all the same. And it is that concept of Word that proves the Bible’s verity. That the concepts persist, that they sustain, that they predict, that they even on occasion were so blatantly plain in a prediction, that the only thing someone could say to the contrary was that it was a later edit into the Bible. But the Dead Sea Scrolls proves that to be inaccurate. There is more evidence sustaining the truth of the Bible, and it can all be attained through literary studies. Not because the literary studies are postmodern, but because they can attain a concrete interpretation of an abstract text, and that communication does indeed exist despite all our protests that it does not.

VII

One of the things that reassure me is how an artist is the best judge of another artist’s work. Humans tend to gravitate toward art that reflects their own soul, and their own conscience. Be it horrific, or sublime, the man who appraises art, appraises it based on his own soul, and sees himself reflected. It is one of the reasons people tend to devalue literature, is that they have never had the idea, nor was it original to them.

I say this is the problem with our interpretation of all literature. It tends to imitate what we already know about our world, and tends to give explanation to the moral phenomena which are often discomforting. What is most true, that literature becomes valued and appraised higher than what is most untrue. The similitude with reality reflects the appraisal of the art. The best Science Fiction, for example, reflects society better than the worst.

This is why literature is logic. It has true and false propositions. The best literature is a cogent strain of logical operators, creating in theory cause and effect, based on the causality observed outside of the container of the novel. They are meant to meet resistance by the reader, but a good novel persists because it overcomes the reader. It shapes them, rather than having them shape it.

Postmodernism, therefore, has become quite the philosophy in modern days, where interpretation of art and artists has been accomplished by the general populous, and the result is less that of art influencing the population, but rather the population influencing the kinds of art being consumed. This is counterproductive. Most of our important ideas come or start in novels, or they get stated in perfect clarity first in novels. Because there is action, and the moral philosopher finds the consequence of those actions. Dramatic, often bigger than the real world, but far more understandable, in that it can isolate one aspect of human existence and meditate on it for a few hundred pages.

Where art is never serving this purpose, but is simply serving a utilitarian purpose of entertainment, or enjoyment, it’s not a good day for the culture from which that information comes. Essays cannot, for instance, capture the truth like a poem can. And a novel is simply a poem written in paragraphs, and in existential structure—that is, action and time in narrative. So we can see in the narrative the events unfold, and bear moral weight on them. The details are there to help shape the reader’s understanding of the world they are observing; and if it’s a well-developed world, it will reflect reality because it was created from reality. It isn’t simply the author’s wishes in fancy. It is met with the harsh reality of truth. And that truth is what the novel must meditate on.

For example, in my Utopian novel, the truth is rooted in the romantic love shared between two partners. The almost ethereal and sublime love shared by them gets overshadowed by the constant barrage of scenes about war. Friends do die, old acquaintances with them; the characters who die are often random. Without purpose. Because it is war. And how many narratives are derived from the reality of war? Counterpoised with the reality of a home life? How many novels are written in the between moments? Most of the best novels, actually. Yet, my novels are sociologically rich with insights. The manner in which the society falls is the actual method employed by the KGB. The method is found by me without knowing this, but it happens to be the real method employed by the KGB. Something concrete is developed, something cogent. Something, in other words, real. Campy dialogue turns into real life, when the harsh realities of the outside world intrude upon Marc’s internal reality. And certainly I do not want someone who isn’t an artist themselves to critique it. Unless that non-artist understood the painstaking amounts of time I devoted to the effort, to create literature out of pulp fiction. Was it done? No… not satisfactorily, but the audiences will like it more than my pretentious writings because they will understand it. They themselves will be the artist, emotionally invested in the work, trying to preserve the societies I created, because somewhere they are allowed to create similar societies for themselves. Seeing it in stark detail, what they need.

Literature does this, too. It helps us understand our world. Somehow I traipse upon arcane Psychological Operations employed by our mortal enemies. And somehow they work, despite the protest of the more elite crust of audiences that the work I had made is “Unrealistic.” Pretentious is the thought that my work is unrealistic, when indeed it takes an artist of sorts to understand my work. That is, to say, a creative mind willing to bend to my reason, rather than superimpose their own. Which is what people need. They need to listen, not to speak. Let the artists speak, who have volumes more to say, rather than the propagandists and journalists who spout popular dogmas and opinion pieces. Rather than Rick and Morty, which is a stupid show, feigning depth, when it is indeed a certain kind of individual who watches it, feigning genius. It is indeed a show for those of exactly average intelligence. It is not literature. But, it is our modern literature, as the bulk of our voices are marginalized for what sells on Cartoon Network. And even Cartoon Network is losing its ratings because they don’t produce quality stories anymore, meaning that stories are a part of us. They are inherent in the way we understand the world.

More so, what is considered “A True Story” often has borrowed elements of fictitious literary devices because it captures what we want to know about the truth better than the truth itself. It captures the ideal. And that ideal is what men and women want to know about. Not the vulgar reality. Because the vulgar reality cannot attain moral betterment. It can only attain to an imitation of the vulgar banalities of life.

In that sense, literature is more real than reality. It transcends reality, getting into the layers upon layers of archetypes, and the reality beyond what we see. It gets to the moral perfection, the ideal, a form, and it gives us a vision to aspire to. It teaches us why certain pursuits are vain. If we lose it, which we are, we lose ourselves. Because humans without stories, humans without virtue, humans without the prophets’ similitudes, are humans without a moral standard. And these are more dangerous. These, as is often portrayed in the Russian Authors, are who stir the downfall of civilization.

Because stories are indeed important. Not for what they contain, but for what they aspire to be. Not for the real event, but if the event had transpired, what relevance does it have to our life? And of course it cannot be disagreed with. Disagreeing with a piece of literature is like disagreeing with a well formulated math equation. Because the moral conscience of man is employed by the consumer, to prick them where there is injustice, and to sway them to where there is good. Within the art displays the attitudes of a civilization, to unpack and understand. In those attitudes, we see—in America’s case—cultural decline. And the literature all points to it— without a belief in God, Americans are without the conscience to understand anything. They, rather, are all in an egocentric predicament, where everyone around them can see the mischief of their own doing, but they themselves cannot because to them, their heart is good and just. The moral play pricks at this conscience, when it has bad consequences. The prophet even pricked David’s conscience with his story when David raped Bathsheba. But, where the consequences are tolerable, they laude it. Such is why serial monogamy in art is heralded. Because the consequence is simply loneliness, and Americans are all already lonely.

VIII

For the penultimate part of this essay, I would like to distinguish what I believe about the Bible. It is precisely literary theory that I believe in the Bible. That I can indeed understand.

It’s hard to explain to someone the internal consistency of the scripture, and the doubtful theory that it was written all at once by a man named “Isaiah” who happened to live in Babylon.

First, the Torah sounds distinctly different than the rest of the Bible. It is simpler. It is like the difference between the Pauline letters and the Gospel. There is a certain wording in the Torah that distinguishes it from the rest of the Bible. Meaning, it had a distinct writer.

Secondly, regarding the historical texts, we know through Nehemiah and Ezra that the Bible was being written in succession through the generations. The writer of Judges and Kings sounds different than the writers of Nehemiah and Ezra. Not only do they sound different, but their mode of narrative is different, describing different elements and themes. Meaning, another writer had written them.

Then we come to the Prophets. The prophets each write in different themes, consisting of a consistent narrative throughout the Bible. There is a timeframe at which it is written, and too many differences—yes, actual differences—for it to be anything but a response to what was happening at a moment in history. I’ve read all of the minor prophets, and they have different subjects, different poetic references, different symbolism. It’s often easy to overlook that, but there are methods of interpreting the Bible, that each dispensation in the texts, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Daniel, there is different symbolism. Not to mention that the Bible lines up with these historical prophets, with their corresponding kings. Had one man written the Bible, or a series of scribes, it would have been difficult to get the kind of internal consistency that I see in the book itself. The kings line up, and the prophets will tell when they were written, and the correlation abides with the kings. Several accounts of the kings are given, sometimes the same king is mentioned twice. Meaning, it is a record of a people’s history. Was the Bible put together directly after the reinstatement of Isreal? Highly dubious and unlikely, because there is a continuum of information that seems to have been written as it was happening. It seems to be written in succession, by different authors at various different times.

Not to mention, if the religion were simply made up on the spot, it would be nearly impossible for anyone to believe in it. That’s one of the strongest evidences of the Bible, that nobody would believe a religion that they knew was cooked up by a so called “Prophet Isaiah”, who dreamt of a fictitious people, and then with the help of a couple hundred scribes drafted a scripture. There would have to be some relevant link. And, looking at people like Mortdecai, who is lamenting in Babylon in front of the King’s Chamber, it would be obvious to the people living in that day if it were true or false. Nobody would adopt a religious volume knowing it was a forgery. Nobody would believe an account of modern figures if there wasn’t a correlating history to solidify their investment into the stories. Therefore, there almost certainly was a Jewish people. And we learn this through literary studies, as the studying of the literature would be hard to suggest otherwise. What we know about human psychology, is that it’s hard for one man to establish a religion without some kind of historicity. Joseph Smith, for instance, used it with the Native Americans. Had there been no Native Americans, or interest in his mythology, the religion would have failed immediately. But, because there was a people to attach the religion to, the religion succeeded in germinating. As Mormonism is a blatant example of what likely has to be the case. Islam, again, is much the same thing, borrowing from the Jewish stories of the Old Testament, only inciting Ishmael as the mythical founder. Because the tribes of his day had more in common, and the knowledge of these figures ran deep throughout the cultures. Even into other cultures. There’d have to be some—even if hypothetically specious—reason for the Jews to believe in the religion. Some foundation for the belief. And if the Jewish people did not exist, and these contemporary figures like Daniel and Mortdecai and Esther were not Jewish, then there’d be no reason for the people to adopt the religious text, as the subject of their salvation rested solely on their race and its history.

This alone proves that there must have been a culture of Jewish people prior to the captivity in Babylon. It is proven through literary theory. The cogent leaps from existential structure, the chronological telling of events from the time of Moses to the time of Nehemiah, is itself a sort of miracle, and not something that happens overnight. People tend not to believe things, unless there is a reason to invest in the belief. For Muhammad it was the Arab race. For the Israelites in Babylon, it would almost certainly have to be their own race. Otherwise, why would Persia grant them admittance out of the country, and take the painstaking efforts to produce a Bible? Or, why would the kings of Persia give credence to a madman like “Isaiah”, and establish an entire colony based on his ridiculous remarks? Of course, one might posit something like Christopher Columbus, but it is still ludicrously specious to assume that a great migration of people—documented in the very books, so their genealogies were recorded somewhere too—would take the time to go to some desert when Persia was a flourishing capital.

Too many questions are left, that have to be explained by blind zealotry, great persuasive methods, the ability of one orator to convince a mass of people to migrate out into a desert; the likelihood of this is less than likely, unless we have the presumption given to us that the Jews were a people prior Persian rule. It only makes sense, and it seems to make sense with what we know about psychology.

With that there are other reasons I believe in the text of the Bible. Psalm 2 explicitly says that there will be a Begotten of God, who is the Son of God, and that the government of Israel will rest on His shoulder, and we must “Kiss the Son, lest He be angry with us.” The likelihood of this ending up in the Bible is not likely at all.

Second is Psalm 22, the Psalm Jesus quoted on the Cross. It describes Crucifixion.

Third is Isaiah 43. Where it says “No other saves, except me.” This regarding the divinity of Christ, for those who doubt Christ’s divinity.

Fourth is Isaiah 53, where it plainly says a man’s soul will be offered for our sin.

Fifth is Jeremiah 31, where it describes a New and Unbreakable covenant with God. The New Covenant being established after Israel leaves captivity.

Sixth is the captivity itself, which severed Israel from the Old Covenant.

Seventh is Abraham being told to offer Isaac, which was a type of what was needed for our salvation.

Eighth is Job 9 where Job pleads for a mediator between he and God.

Ninth is Leviticus 27 where it says, “No one who may have been set apart among men shall be ransomed, he shall surely die” speaking of Christ, for only one man ever was set apart.

Tenth, and I can continue like this through every chapter in the Bible, is Isaiah 48 where it describes the new thing which was created now, that we hadn’t known before. That very new thing is Christ Jesus.

IX.

I will conclude this essay by saying that literature is a store of some of our most important knowledge. Beowulf, in fact, is an artefact of great importance. It showed us the heritage of Early Saxon culture. It also, in meaning, taught us that struggling against society’s ills was more noble than struggling against our fellow man.

The Bible, no less, tells us the moral law founded by God to His creation, the failure of His creation to fulfill that moral law, therefore, the creation of a new law, established on a previous covenant older than the original, to bring salvation to the whole world.

Arthurian legends tell us much about medieval Europe and Chivalry. They also teach us about comradery.

Don Quixote teaches us about the fall of Chivalry, it also teaches us about friendship.

Hemingway’s novels teach us about injustice, and they also teach us about harsh realities.

Modern scholarship teaches us about our modern age, and it teaches us about our modern bent toward distorting the past by not taking into account the witnesses of history.

Literature is anything we may read, as it is all created by time period it was written in. It is by no means true that we cannot render history accurately. But simply, what we write today is tainted by our own vices of modernity. There is no other way to explain it, as when Happy Days and Brady Bunch were shows, the earth really was that happy. Because it had something to say about the era it was written in. Andy Griffith said a lot about its time period. So with Twilight Zone. So with my History of Civilizations by Fernand Braudel; it taught me much about history, from the lens of the 1970s. So my history textbook tells me a lot about today. Our books teach us about the present, but we can, indeed interpret the past. Montaigne describes a lot of heartache, but in no way does he reveal the kinds of things we accept and tolerate today. Byron was about as bad as he could be, given his knowledge.

Literature is a moral compass. Whether we can be objective about the past, I’m sure we in some sense can, and were better at it at a time. But, unfortunately, the modern age has much to say about the modern age. And not much else. Because we find a sentence is incomprehensible, and this might be why the Jews are being taught in schools right now, as having never existed. When, clearly, the overwhelming amounts of literary evidence suggests they do. Doubly, the stories aren’t understood, and both of these facts are causing major problems in academia right now.

People truly believe that the Jews didn’t exist. It is an anti-Semitic lie perpetrated by academia itself. It makes no difference if a Jew was the one who formulated the theory or not. To minimalize the Bible, is to minimalize history. To minimalize literature, is also to minimalize history. It minimalizes our ability to communicate, and use reason. As, the texts themselves corroborate history. Why? Because they are written at different time periods, predicting futures, being corroborated by archeology, and have internal consistency with what we know about psychology. Reason is the premise that truth can be understood if it’s told to someone. Unfortunately, the problem with our modern age is that truth is subjective, that interpretations of literature don’t matter, and that art itself is outmoded. What will come in its place is systematic simplicity, where context no longer exists, and reason cannot exist. This, in itself, will undermine everything we’ve built, and it is why I am a writer, to help bridge this gap we’ve created. A gap between science and the truth, which needs to be bridged with literature.


	

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.

Forged in the Fires of Mordor

Forged in the fires of Mordor
O' ring of power,
You crux of the Great War;---
The meaning of World War I
Is found in your coercion.

Kings seeking to be Power,
To bring forth the blackened age
Of industry's might,
To burn what's green
And make what's violet
The color of ash.

The Sauron was crushed
By the Somme, and other such evil.
The Orcs were the raping Huns,
As war marched from the green
And battlefields turned blackened under war.
Yes, the meaning of World War I
Was Green in conflict with Black;---
The Green grasses, and the auburn rivers
Turned into ashen mud and oleaginous ducts.

It's the meaning I have never seen
Who a man like Tolkien
Suffering under the same sicknesses as me
Needed a meaning to the war he witnessed.
A war no man understands,
Nor rhyme or reason.
All he could see,---
The war was Green against Black;---
Nature against Industry
Sauron against the little Shirefolk of Hobbits
The Germans against peace loving Englishmen
Who did not wish to fight in a war.
Men who did not want adventure,
But adventure was forced upon them.

That is why The Lord of the Rings
Are the novels containing the meaning of World War I.

Featured

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

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

  1. 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.

The Crippled Sinner

 1After this there was a feast of the Jews; and Jesus went up to Jerusalem.

Now there is at Jerusalem by the sheep market a pool, which is called in the Hebrew tongue Bethesda, having five porches.

In these lay a great multitude of impotent folk, of blind, halt, withered, waiting for the moving of the water.

 

I’m going to start my commentary here. “Blessed art the Meek. For they shall inherit the earth.” These are all the meek. Those who cannot take care of themselves.

 

For an angel went down at a certain season into the pool, and troubled the water: whosoever then first after the troubling of the water stepped in was made whole of whatsoever disease he had.

This is an important verse. It shows the Old Covenant. How a man had to heal themselves in order to be saved. They had to atone by sacrificing animals.

 

And a certain man was there, which had an infirmity thirty and eight years.

The man in this story suffered thirty-eight years.

 

When Jesus saw him lie, and knew that he had been now a long time in that case, he saith unto him, Wilt thou be made whole?

Here is a conversation. I heard a foul teaching yesterday that suggested the man was in some way to blame for this. We have this habit of being treacherous toward the meek in our society. I think the most blame is placed on the fact that we cannot understand the context of the dialogue. Mostly because verse 4 was removed, we cannot know that the waters actually did heal. The Old Covenant actually did heal, but because of the throngs, and the crippling nature of our sins and the flesh, it was not sufficient.

 

The impotent man answered him, Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steppeth down before me.

He cannot enter into the pool. This is why Jesus asked, “You are willing to be healed?” The man answered, “Sir, I have no man, when the water is troubled, to put me into the pool: but while I am coming, another steps down before me.” The point is that there is a conversation happening between Jesus and the man. Jesus is asking the man “You are willing to be healed?” knowing the man wants to be healed, but the throngs are preventing him. The point being that Jesus recognizes it is a competition, and those first to the pool are the ones being healed. It is no longer about faith, but rather about striving among one another. Jesus, at this point, is saying, “You are willing to be healed?” Probably shocked that the man, wanting to be healed, is not healed.

 

Jesus saith unto him, Rise, take up thy bed, and walk.

At this, Jesus heals the infirmity. Just like grace will heal our infirmity, which is called sin.

 

And immediately the man was made whole, and took up his bed, and walked: and on the same day was the sabbath.

Here, the Pharisees believe Jesus broke the Sabbath laws, and therefore could not be the Messiah. They had thought He sinned.

 

10 The Jews therefore said unto him that was cured, It is the sabbath day: it is not lawful for thee to carry thy bed.

The observation of the Jewish law here testifies to the absurd boundaries placed on individuals in Jewish society. Much like the man could not enter into the pool by reason of competition, the whole country was in a mad dash to be saved by observing laws that benefited nobody by themselves. In that, they could not even carry a mat that they lied down on. This was why the Pharisees needed challenged.

 

11 He answered them, He that made me whole, the same said unto me, Take up thy bed, and walk.

He doesn’t know who healed him at this point. Much like the Gentile believers, who when encountered with the Spirit of God, are healed, but do not know the name of the God who saved them. “I was sought by a people who did not seek me, and was found of them; of them who knew me not, and I was found.”

 

12 Then asked they him, What man is that which said unto thee, Take up thy bed, and walk?

13 And he that was healed wist not who it was: for Jesus had conveyed himself away, a multitude being in that place.

The man did not know who had healed him.

 

14 Afterward Jesus findeth him in the temple, and said unto him, Behold, thou art made whole: sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee.

This is the same thing he told the prostitute. And it’s the same thing he tells anyone who has sinned. We are not to sin after a salvation experience. We can’t sin. Stronger than “Ought” or “Must not”, it literally means “Cannot” because the consequence is everlasting torment in hell if we backslide into our sin.

 

15 The man departed, and told the Jews that it was Jesus, which had made him whole.

16 And therefore did the Jews persecute Jesus, and sought to slay him, because he had done these things on the sabbath day.

I find it concerning that this is interpreted as a betrayal against Jesus. The reason why is the negative connotation on the word “Jews”. Had not the Samaritan woman done the same? This imbibes an antisemitic vein in the culture, that the word “Jew” takes such a negative connotation. All of Judea were Jews. I am furious with the pastors who put forth the idea that this poor man was sinning. If so, we all are sinners until we are made able to walk by grace.

The Thirteen Kings; The Codex for My Mythology

The Thirteen Kings

Pekah, King of Israel – The False Ephraim or Athena. Absalom. He comes as Medea, and uses meogic to do unnatural things. He can place Giant Souls in innocent people, he can transform into strange forms, and he is an expert in all meogic.

Prince of Tyre – Or Thor. He commands the armies of Elves and Orcs and Vikings, and has magical abilities to throw people into other realms.

Nero – The Beast, Or Judas Iscariot, or Wicked John; he has the power to control other people’s bodies by the Giant Soul. He is the ruler of Rome, or the Earthly Airs, and is trying to gain possession of the whole Earth.

Nebo – Or The Bull. He has the power to live your prosperous life as you are in captivity for sin. He does all the things you shouldn’t, and gets rich doing it.

Chemosh – Beelzebub, the goddess of Fairyland, Belial, the ruler of the Spirit of the Air, or the ruler of Atlantis and Elysium; a ruler of the Grave and Fairyland.

Abaddon – The Two Horned Beast, the False Prophet, or the Grave. Death. The human embodiment of Leviathan. Prometheus. He, also, has the same powers as Nebo, but is far more powerful. He is the ruler of the Grave, and has power over it. He is allied with Nero to take over the Earth.

Yehonason – Lucifer, also known as Rezin Mad, he is the king of Assyria. He oppresses the peoples of God. He is in league with Abaddon and Nero. He is of the tribe of Ephraim, but has command over Assyria and Ephraim.

Jezebel Zarathustra – She has the power of lies, to accuse the saints of everything the Other Thirteen have done while impersonating them. Sometimes is called Belial, too.

Nebuchadnezzar – Also known as Sheshak. He has a war against Rezin Mad and Abaddon, but then turns evil when he sees the corruption of man, and grows angry with God when He doesn’t avenge the Saints. So, when the Nation Israel persecutes its prophets, Nebuchadnezzar comes and conquers them to avenge the Prophets.

Daughter of Babylon – Also known as the Whore of Babylon, the Queen over the city of Istanbul. She has power over the world’s commerce, connecting the Giant Kingdoms of Mars and Jotunheim with the Earth.

Daughter of Moab – The Daughter of Nebo and Chemosh. She persecutes the Saints until they are found to be saints, and then turns upon Nebo and Chemosh.

Zoan – A Sphynx with the power of the Elf Jewel to transform into a man or Satyr. He was created in human labs with the power of the Angel Swords. He was then taken back to Egypt where he became the gatekeeper of time for the elves.

Tyrus – Also known as Helen of Troy or Helen of Tyre. She wrote all of the myths written by Virgil and Homer, and is credited as being the most beautiful woman to ever live. She has power over men, to draw them off of their walk with Christ with her vanity.

 

Other Noteworthy Characters

Ammon Ra – The King of the Ammonites. We have seen him in Adolph Hitler, Chairman Mao and Stalin. He is at war with the Saints, but is the least of all these.

Hezekiah – The King of Israel who’s faith and prayer caused God to defeat Rezin Mad.

Cyrus – Judas Son of James, Jude, and the Persian king who defeated Babylon, Assyria and Media at the height of their empires, and he also returned the Jews to their homes.

David – The Conquering Messiah. In other words, Christ’s Second Coming. The one who is at the head of all the Nethanim.

Brittos – Shem, son of Noah, the Nethanim who founded Great Britain by conquering the Grea, and later would confront Medea and Thor and overcome them.

Beowulf the Less- The Nethanim who blew the Fifth Trumpet, and fought through the fiercest internal wars during Armageddon, son of James the Less.

Joash – One of David’s Mighty Men credited for calling on Prestor John to aid in the war against Christiandom.

Prestor John – The king of the Protestant Kingdoms.

Paul – One of the Twelve Apostles.

Solomon – The wisest man who ever lived.

James – King Arthur, and one of the Twelve Apostles.

Lear – The Danish King who ruled over Britain, and was suzerained by Yehonason.

Mordred – Yehonason, the Black Knight and the Sheriff of Nottingham.

Elora – The wife of Brittos.

Robin Hood – Jeremiah, and the one who freed England from the clutches of Mordred and Arthur, when he was demon possessed.

Sung Wukong – A warrior who used moegic for his power, and lost to Thor in mortal combat.

Siddhartha – A Baalim who created Buddhism.

Muhammad – A Baalim who created Muhammadanism.

Zelek – David’s Mighty man who was an Ammonite, of the nation who were the sworn enemies of Israel. He killed his former king Ammon Ra in battle.

Tavid – A mighty man who fought alongside Zelek when they went to battle with Nebo and Ammon Ra.

Albion’s Queen – The type of earthly authorities and legitimate governments, given to protect animals, nature and humans from the Thirteen Kings.

Broom Crown New – Me, the Nethanim of these stories.

 

 

Just Some of the Creatures Found in Fairyland

 

Blodtudor – A vampire, and duke, who attained immortality by making a deal with the devil that if he consumed the blood of the innocent, he’d be forever young.

Stonebat – A gargoyle, who is immortal so long as he is not stone, and transforms into a creature when night falls.

The Fairy Lord – Also known as the Caerbanog, the Fairy Witch, a creature with power over visions and what men consume on their idols. It is under the control of Medea.

Astille – A Gorgon the size of a mountain, with a centipede body, slain by Beowulf.

Olgid – The General of the final war of Armageddon. He is a symbol for Cruelty.

Daethon – The Captain of the final war of Armageddon. He is a symbol for Worldlust and Sloth.

The Wyrm – A Dragon who hordes gold.

Natahunt – The Hydra of the Slough of Despond.

The Orc – A sea monster; not to be confused with Leviathan.

Leviathan – The Grave, or She’ol, or the Sea, or Davy Jone’s Locker, or Atlantis, or the “Blessed” Isle, or Fairyland; the one whose belly consumes the dead and drives sinners who are perishing insane, to cause them to covet death.

 

Notable Relics:

 

Hrotheon – Beowulf’s Sword, which he forged with his own wisdom.

Silver Sting – A mythical sword of silver wielded by several saints, forged with a piece of the book of St. Jude being mulled over while being forged.

Excalibur – The sword of King Arthur, the strongest sword in the world.

Deathrain – The sword wielded by Voggleswyrd.

Brittos’ Shield – A mythical shield given to Brittos from heaven, that when broken, will come back later on in combat when he needs it.

Shields – Represent the Shield of Faith in the Armor description Paul used in Ephesians.

The Whalebone Spear – Brittos’ spear, typed after the weapon of choice of David’s Mighty men.

The Fruit of Life – A fruit that when eaten, will give the consumer immortality. It is fiercely negative, because it implies you will live forever on the earth, and men are not supposed to, otherwise they go insane and reap destruction.

Ogcragnock – Excalibur’s mortal enemy.

Skildbladnir – Or the Skidbladnir, it is the flagship of the Elves’ fleet.

The Snail Jewel – An alien technology used to transform people into other objects.

 

If you like what you read, click the link, and purchase a copy of my book. Thank you.

 

The Inspiration Behind the Ballad of Maddok

Carl Jung came up with a concept of the “Shadow Self.” In Freudian psychoanalysis, it’s the same as the id, or the animal self. It comprises all of our violent tendencies, all of our animal like nature, all of our evil. In Biblical imagery, they call it the “Flesh”, or our “Sin”.

There was a verse in Micah 7, toward the end, about our sin being removed from us. That was the whole of the inspiration behind the poem, was our sin’s removal from our body. And in Ezekiel, when declaring Jerusalem’s sin, and in Jeremiah, it has a laundry list of crazy sins.

I have no recollection of committing any kind of sin other than what I have written in Young Shadows. The last poem is the full account of the entirety of my memory about my sins. But, the thought remains strong in me of the sin nature, every thought I’d ever had, every lust, every lewd dream that somewhere in me is that… and that is what became Maddok. The fact that somewhere, this creature called “Maddok” or “Death” is in us. Just having a thought makes our minds capable of doing something awful, every secret thought, every secret desire. Which, leads me to the mystery of perhaps—not a doppelganger, but like Brittos’ Giant Soul—our bodies are capable of such great evil without our will. And that God needs to shave—or circumcise—that sin off of us somehow. Maybe that’s what baptism is, or maybe it’s something else entirely; maybe that subconscious evil in us called the “Shadow” makes us capable of awful things that needs to be physically removed by God Himself.

So, that’s the inspiration behind Maddok. The kind of musing of the “Flesh Self” that needs to be removed from the Christian—or really everyone—in order for salvation to truly occur. And of course I’m Brittos, meditating on this while writing the poem—though not literally Brittos because he represents every Christian, not just me, needing to understand that God saved us by grace.

So, before anyone calls me a “Gnostic” I believe wholeheartedly that this Flesh needs to be removed from the Christian in order for true salvation to occur. That Maddok, who is literal in the poem, is actually metaphorically in every human being, such as the survival instinct. Such as walking to your car with the key stuck between your fist, because you’re ready to hurt anyone who tries to mug you. Or even a canister of pepper spray. Or, perhaps owning a weapon and imagining having to use it. Or, the countless hours of pornography and violent movies we tend to watch. As if all of this culminating in the human being leaves these latent Shadow Selves in us, and it needs to be removed by God in order for us to truly attain the riches of salvation.

That is the inspiration behind the poem, and of course Maddok is a personification of the ultimate sinner because he is literally Death embodied. He is so unwise, that he forgets that he’s the very thing that he’s about to get sucked down into because he’s so deluded to think that he’s actually accomplishing the will and work of God. There are some subtle satires on Christian Theocracies in the poem, too, such as their desire to Crusade in order to bring about punishment on kingdoms, or criminal justice, or in all regard Vengeance, which seems to be the primary pathway to our violence, is the meditation on vengeance and self defense. Which, we can all say we’ve mused, which if anything were Maddok, it’s that. All of the people we had imagined killing, we had killed in video games, we had imagined fornicating with;— Maddok is all of that because he is our subconscious, the shadow that haunts us, the sum of what we’re capable of and the evil we all have present in us, latent somewhere in the survival instinct. As a Christian, we need to have that circumcised from us completely, in order to attain the riches of the Kingdom of Heaven. And nobody perfectly attains it on earth, but the metaphor was a very strong one I mused on for the better part of a year.

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.”