|
"a fish, a barrel, and a smoking gun" |
|
|
Watching the Directives
Juxtaposition is an essential function of intelligence and, it seems, of stupidity as well. The thundering hydroelectric dam of human intellect, searching everywhere for meanings and overlaps, seizes on things promiscuously. For the especially creative, or perhaps just the especially tweaked (fueled either by faith or fumes), this mad rush to meaning can result in revelations that are at once brilliant and absurd: A Biblical snipe hunt reveals a sniper, a musical coincidence reveals that Pink Floyd saw far enough in the future to predict the VCR. The predictions ferreted out by Michael Drosnin in The Bible Code may or may not be "true"; what's interesting is how predictable the predictions themselves are, and how predictable we are in our impulse to find them. The dossier on apocalyptic interpretations of the Bible is several feet thick; respectable scientists who engaged in it included Newton and Columbus, and the list of specific years arrived at in calculations of the date of end of the world is itself enough to fill pages and pages, most of them probably falling between 1100 and next
week
In this light, the Talmudic dedication shown by Floyd fans is notable not for what it exposes, but for how they've managed to widen the prophetical canon to include not just Dark
Side of the Moon, Wall set of scripted images, but never mind). Also striking, of course, is the way even the discoverers of these coincidences deny that the "synchronicities" could be significant beyond their obvious, cotton-mouthed appeal to adolescent mental masturbation, the intellectual equivalent of jerking off to National Geographic. "It's kind of subversive that way," explains one of the devout, "because what you see is not necessarily what was originally intended as the viewing experience." That's the best they can do? Even psychic networks give you lotto numbers. Early this century, Jane Ellen Harrison proposed that Greek myths were really after-the-fact attempts to explain older, cruder rituals. (In this way, we can see the Floyd stories as attempts to explain renting the relentlessly clean-cut Wizard of Oz to one's jaded pot-head friends.) She argued that in the story of Persephone and her abduction into the underworld, Demeter's laments for her lost daughter as imitated by the women of Athens were really covers for an archaic fertility practice of squatting on the bare earth in order to transfer generative power. (Coincidentally - or not - her work has also been cited by those who theorize that the Greeks, too, used "consciousness-altering drugs" in their interpretive rites.)
The idea that myth is the libretto for ritual finds an echo in the absurd confrontation of these secular classics: Which story goes with which set of acts? Which songs accompany which scenes? The old set of scenes (weeping, genitals over dirt; Oompa-Loompas) gets a new reading. In The Wizard of Oz, however, old and new are really both the same. When Oz was first written, department-store promoter and evangelist of Pollyanna-ism L. Frank Baum was trying to create a mythology for downtown shopping. The move from boring Kansas to the big, shiny Emerald City where everyone's wishes were fulfilled by getting new things is hardly accidental. The druggy, portentous Dark Side of the Moon, the best-selling rock album of the '70s, seems eminently suited to play alongside Dorothy's trip.
It's important, then, to remember the differences between Harrison's Greeks and today's divination via technowizardry. She imagined the Athenians inventing or applying stories creatively: A fertility ritual had been imagined into something else. In the case of modern mythological interpretation, the rituals are barren and exclusive. As one researcher noted, not only does the Torah itself forbid fortunetelling, but the code-breaking practiced by Drosnin isn't prognosticating so much as summarizing: "The future long ago embedded in the Torah must become our past before it can be retrieved." Similarly, the juxtaposition between Floyd and Oz, while it may have spilled some bong water when first discovered, is a much more limited instance of reinterpretation because it's a connection between two texts that are also already closed: Dark Side has already been recorded; Oz has been filmed. The discovery of networks of trivial overlaps is ultimately the weakest way to fulfill our need to bring certain texts to life - prophecy's faint shadow, Dada for suckers. courtesy of Hypatia Sanders |
|
|
||
|
|
||
|
|
|
|
![]() |