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.”

A Discourse on “Second Coming” By William Butler Yeats

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Study of Metrical Units; Expanded

A Study of the Metrical Unit of A Classic Nursery Rhyme:

First thing to say is that I mean nothing pretentious by doing this. I saw a spider in my bathroom, and for some reason I looked up the nursery rhyme from a random access memory of my Mom playing itsy-bitsy Spider with me.

I had this posted without giving a good reason… I then proceeded to lose a subscriber. So, I think some reason has to be given, which I meditated on all day after having written this piece.

My friend J.D. entertained a thought, one worth noting, how our modern children are without a strong, cultural foundation. Things like Little Red Riding Hood, Sleepy Hollow and of course The Itsy Bitsy Spider.

People tend to entertain America as a cultureless cesspool. Unfortunately, they might be right. But there is a strong culture rooted in mythologies, such as John Bunyan or Johnny Appleseed. Both of which I was steeped in in Nursery School. Of course Honest Abraham Lincoln who couldn’t tell a lie, and George Washington who chopped down the cherry tree—the only sin he’d ever committed. These are called Tall Tales. A part of American culture. So is the “Itsy-Bitsy Spider”. So is John Henry.

Modern kids have lost track of this. They are steeped in traditions such as “Sponge Bob Squarepants” or as of late South Park. They mistake Beyonce and Lil Wayne as cultural icons. I think somewhere in the Sixties we did this, when we mistook our Classic Rock as classically iconic. Not that there is anything inherently without merit in bands like the Eagles, or the Beetles. It’s just, something intelligent has been lost. Something in the Mythologies presented to kids. They’ve mistaken Sponge Bob as ancient. They’ve mistaken him with Bugs Bunny and Mickey Mouse.

When I grew up in the Nineties, Rugrats and Animaniacs were programs I watched. But, I had a historicity taught to me dating long before it, so I always knew its place. It was never ancient, time honored nor porous. It was always in its place—and well received by my childhood. I knew about Bugs Bunny and Popeye, I knew about Mickey Mouse and the Flinstones. These were ancient and time honored in my childhood, some thirty to forty year old traditions at the time I was a kid.

Then there were much older things I had learned, giving me a complete history. Itsy-Bitsy Spider was the Sponge-Bob square pants of the seventeen and eighteen hundreds. It was the programming we consumed. Along with mythologies surrounding George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. There was a tangibility to the culture that existed, rooting me in a long history of stories which were passed down from generation to generation, and Popey and Loony Tunes were just parts of that tradition.

Spongebob, modern episodes of it anyway, do not seem to be rooted or steeped in these traditions. They might make a mention of a famous piece of art, but the art of storytelling is fracturing and falling apart.

In the notes below, I mention the “Heroic Verse” of Itsy-Bitsy Little Spider. Because it was ultimately a heroic poem—and today I imagined the Itsy-Bitsy little spider making his way up the spout, in heroic fashion. He is being knocked down, but getting back up again. This is the content of our past. The premise of our economics. More importantly, there are thousands of traditions children learned of work ethic and heroism. Almost strangely enough, a lot of those traditions were not even on the political landscape of modern day.

John Henry was a hard worker, for instance, but he died against a Machine. The poem is both capitalistic and communistic at the same front. It honors John Henry’s work ethic, and his desire to work hard, and treat his family. It then scorns the engine of Capitalism which would throw him out of work. This is the American tradition, steeped throughout it. Casey Jones, Paul Bunyan. Johnny Appleseed is a story about environmentalism and capitalism. The man, Johnny Appleseed, by ingenuity challenges the bad laws by planting apple trees, and then proceeds to economize them; but, on the flip, his trees feed the local poor. There is something economical that transcends left and right.

Further, these traditions fight against the modern notions, on both left and right hemispheres of the political coin. They don’t fit on our modern ethos. Which is why they are being forgotten. The spider in the poem—eloquently, and in perfect Iambic Pentameter—gets knocked down, and then proceeds to climb back up the waterspout. Because that is the American spirit which neither Communism nor Capitalism can claim.

I want it to be clear that I’m not pretentiously posting “Itsy-Bitsy Little Spider” as some manikin pissing in a museum; some claim to artistic ingenuity or even mocking it. I’m simply pointing out how much better formed it is as a story and a poem, and how much better it works as a moral. I didn’t write this poem. My mom was the one who came up with this particular rendition of it, as it was sung over me a thousand and one times in my childhood. The game involved touch, as she’d do the motions on my back, and then tickle me.

There were so many stories I was steeped in as a child. And these stories were critical in developing my moral compass—I know right from wrong partly because of the stories ingrained in me. More than that, they were far better formed than modern day stories. This story, in its four lines is far more coherent than a modern Sponge Bob episode. It makes more plot sense. I was watching Sponge Bob with my brother the other day, and realized that they were filling four episodes worth of content into one fifteen minute time slot, and kids were probably watching this. Lots of them. It’s concerning to me because it seems almost disingenuous to call it good programming when I used to watch shows like Rugrats or Hey Arnold. And, having read Doctor Sues I understand what the children can do with these random stories; children at certain ages will imprint on the stories far more creatively than an adult does, and we as adults cannot understand it. So, we don’t know what damage we’re doing to the kids by letting them consume poorly construed art. There is a link between art and mental health—a profound link, that often gets shrugged at by professionals wanting to maintain a system that feigns capitalistic.

We need to be cautious in this field of creating art, and this nursery rhyme is far superior to the modern traditions being taught to children, which will be dissected below. In four lines there is already more literariness than in a full season of Sponge Bob. Literariness is not allusions, it is like a gear or cog that brings a story to coherence and brings together what the Theorists call “Internal Tautology.” That is internal logic.

 

The below is the Nursery Rhyme “The Itsy Bitsy Spider”:

 

This is how my Mom sung it to me:

 

The itsy-bitsy spider climbed up the water spout;—

Down came the rain and washed that spider out.

Out came the sun and dried up all the rain.

The itsy-bitsy spider, climbed up the spout again.

 

First thing to notice about the poem is its iambs, the unstressed going into the stressed syllables (uSuSuS). It almost perfectly follows its meter, using the whole word “Climbed” working as one long syllable. Second thing to notice is the heroic verse in Iambic Pentameter, and the “AA/BB” rhyme scheme, where “again” is spoken like “rain” with a slight different vowel syllable than the typical vowel used in conversation. It sounds more like “Ageyne” than “Agen”. The third thing to notice is the thirteen syllable lines on the edges of the poem mirroring, and the perfect iambic pentameter in the middle. It creates a sort of Chiasmic Metrical Couplet, making melodic sense. One is tricked into believing the pattern is the same, but close study shows the extra three syllables on the first and fourth verse gives musical emphasis on those lines. There is also an immediate repetition of the word “Out” which makes the poem less encumbered.

 

Why did I just do this? Why did you just spend six minutes reading it?

It’s hard to explain, but I would implore any reader to read Go Dog Go. There will be a confused look on your face with the absurdity of reading it. There seems to be no coherent story. Because there isn’t. And it’s beneficial to the child to read Go Dog Go. But, Spongebob is using this same psychological trick, to unknown levels, and what seemingly is random to an adult is shaping a child in ways we cannot understand because we are not children. Because children are stimulated by what’s on the television. It is a part of their upbringing, as much as the parent or the school.

We don’t know the damage done by Sponge Bob or the other hundreds of programs being consumed by children. I know looking at the Itsy-Bitsy Spider it makes more sense than a modern Sponge-Bob episode. There is less seemingly random events, and the child will link those random events to create a story. This is how a child’s mind works. If you were to be honest, you saw a story in Go Dog Go that doesn’t appear today, without much effort. The children are doing this with Sponge Bob, to unknown effects.

Loony Tunes had a basic tautology of one character wanting to eat another character. There were no real question on either an adult’s mind or child’s mind what the plot was. And, it was significantly less suggestive to where a child would reasonably understand it. It didn’t borrow elements from the child’s culture, and then make suggestive provocations to them. It didn’t make those kinds of notions at all. It is still coherent today, and for some reason it diffused the aggression of its audience. I don’t know how it did, but probably by making our subconscious reflexes seem normal. It rather took the suggestive subconscious material of our day to day and dramatized it in a cartoon, where the audience could laugh, and therefore remedy the subconscious tension.

The modern cartoons aggravate those tensions. It rather augments reality’s most bitter annoyances, and then lays guilt traps on the audiences, catching culture cues such as the suggestive elements of a child’s day to day dealings with peers, not alleviating the frustration but aggravating it. How? Simply put, marketing. Which is how marketing works. The Trix Rabbit never gets the Trix, so the children must act out the Rabbit’s desire of obtaining the prize. Whatever prize is there in modern cartoons, that the child will want to obtain. It normally has some provocative nature, which must be understood by observing the child’s cultural climate. J.D. had pointed this out to me, and I had recognized it soon after with my own cousins.

How do we alleviate this? Simply put, with art. With Religion. With common sense. TV ratings are not enough to keep a child from watching a program. The rating systems are incompetent to understand the damage the program will do.

In short… there needs to be more research into how to construct movies and television programs to prevent children from growing frustrated. As, I see the art they consume only makes them frustrated. There needs to probably be researchers like Dr. Sues on every children’s network, firmly based in real psychology that makes the television producers produce good art.

Far reaching, it is the stories that the children are consuming which is creating the cultural climate we have today. Defiant. Angry. Bitter. Slothful. Entitled. Stories are impressively impactful on a child’s psychological state. I would rather more like “Its-Bitsy Spider” than even Hey Arnold. We need responsible artists, and that even for the adult population.