Thursday, August 31, 2006

The Prince's Pride: Metaphors And The War On Words

I again find myself in that curious place of doubting everything I do here. I struggle against an overwhelming sense of futility. Fatalism knocks at the door; when I attempt to escape through a window, I find that doubt has screwed closed the sash. You see, there are just too many fronts on which I fight. On the one hand, I fight myself; on the other, I fight those who, from all sides, want to keep me from thinking. There is death in the air, and I am breathing hard.

George Soros reminds some of us why we hated those large group discussions in high school: there was always that set of lobotomists, somehow popular, who pronounced with confident clarity the rot that should have left them banished to the back of the bus. For Mr. Soros engages us, like the good linguist he suddenly has suddenly become, with a lesson in language. That Mr. Soros, a ruthless (or so I believe) billionaire who perhaps owns the Democratic Party, is a known numbers man, is not the sort of fact that might stay this man's hubris; for he presumes, in a recent Wall Street Journal essay, to lecture us on the complexities and dangers of metaphors. It is a true relief to learn that a billionaire can find an audience these days, especially one who moonlights as an armchair George Lakoff.

Soros begins his pedagogy with this bold statement: "The war on terror is a false metaphor …" Immediately one finds oneself mesmerized by his dizzying intellect: His mastery is inconceivable. But the first question we must ask is not whether Mr. Soros is right about whether the war on terror is a false metaphor, but whether the war on terror is a metaphor at all. Is it?

Defining A Few Things

What is a metaphor anyway? Here's one definition (from the Oxford American Dictionary):
Metaphor: a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable
Is the phrase "the war on terror" a figure of speech†? What parts of it are figures? Is something other than "war" meant; is there something figurative about "on" or "terror?" Has the assumedly prosaic President of the United States meant it as a poetic image? Is President Bush going about the country speaking in figures; is he artfully crafting turns of phrase that are not to be taken literally?

Any good linguist knows that meaning is not determined by something static; what a word means is not based on the authority of a dictionary. A word's meaning is determined by how it is used. That is why dictionary publishers are built around usage panels, those collections of scholars who determine a word's many uses (by writers and speakers). It is such usage panels that say yea or nay to a word's various connotations. With this in mind, we must ask whether it is at all likely that President Bush has ever once uttered the phrase in question in any manner than a literal one. But wait! Why bother? Mr. Soros has handed us something truly mind-bending in only his second sentence:

"…a misleading figure of speech applied literally has unleashed a real war …" [italics added]

OK. Confused? I hope so.

Here is metaphoric language: I married a fox. Here is more: George Soros is a sinkhole. Of course, neither of these is to be taken literally. I did not marry a feral vixen; and though Mr. Soros might be depressing, he is no sinkhole. You get the point.

Here is something literal and straightforward: The war on terror.

How Is The Phrase Used?

President Bush has not for one second (or so it seems) thought there was not a real war against real terrorists. (Some may accuse me of equivocation here, changing "terror" to "terrorists", but I have not. Even critics of Mr. Bush, critics like Mr. Soros, use the terms interchangably. In fact, "terror" is really just a shorthand for "terrorism" or "terrorists." But since usage determines meaning [though not solely], we know what is meant when such interchanges occur: Bush and others LITERALLY mean there is a war on terror, terrorism, and terrorists. Smart people get that part.) Apparently, Mr. Soros thinks all our woes are due to obfuscation, or to linguistic laziness. That Mr. Soros offers us no other linguistic framework than to suggest that calling this conflict "war" limits us is all so much nothing. If there is after all a false metaphor at work here, what is Soros' idea of a true one? President Bush has constantly argued that this "war" is NOT like other wars and therefore is to be fought differently; he gets the nuance his critic argues he does not get. Thus, the only person abusing language here is Mr. Soros. He wants us to take the President figuratively (sort of) and him literally; even when the President has been quite literal from the start and nuanced enough to know that "war" is not constrained by the narrow definition Soros and his supporters appear (which is important) to want to give it. Or is Soros really making a different mistake? Is he actually arguing that the President has been literal when he should have been metaphorical? In part, I think that is what he is arguing.

Plus, that Soros calls terrorism an "abstraction" is utterly useless. Every word is an abstraction. Even the name "George Soros" is abstracted from the totality of the man; he cannot ever be known in a completely concrete way. None of us can, and none of us will (except by God). But it is equally true that terrorism is not a total abstraction, just like no other word (except ones like hobbit and fairy) is a total abstraction: We know what terrorism is; we know who terrorists are; we know what terror feels like. If we knew none of these things, we'd have nothing to discuss and we would not have the words terror, terrorism and terrorist.

In the strictest linguistic sense, the President has been demonstrably clear: the war is real and it is against Islamofascists. They may not be in uniform, they may not stand on certain battle lines, but that does not mean they are invisible, vague, unknown or fictive. We know, to some degree, who our enemy is; we know where he lives and how he generally operates. It is not like we are battling a predator in an action movie that moves in some other fantastic dimension from our own.

All this to say that Soros is wrong in his first eight words: the war on terrorism is not only not a false metaphor, it isn't even a true one. It's never been a metaphor except in Soros' essay. Hence, everything else Soros argues is built to justify a false conclusion (which serves as a false premise in a truly circular way). But this all further points out something radically important: the language of Mr. Soros, if adopted as an alternative to Mr. Bush's pugilism, is also pugilistic; it also could lead to more conflict and suffering. There is nothing gained by reframing things in better, more nuanced language. This conflict is not merely due to a battle of words. It's due to a clash of worlds.

Peace.

BG

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.
†I am all for arguing that in the final analysis all speech is figurative. But if I accept this, do I contradict my argument here? I don't really care. For it is Mr. Soros who makes the distinction between metaphorical and literal speech. His whole argument hinges on this separation.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Tuesday, August 29, 2006

One Totally Polished Dude

In the spirit of candor I offer a picture of myself for the great archives of Contratimes. I do so merely because I made a promise some time ago to share another photo other than the one which graces my profile (see far right column >>>>>>). I do not think it necessary at this point to replace my other mugshot, since that is a true image of me after a day of skiing. There is no false persona there, just a guy with sunglasses interested in concealing his baldness (and the fact that he has braces on his teeth). Here, in this new photo, I am finally unplugged, so to speak, with all apologies to you men out there who have hair plugs covering your crown and glory. Someday, hopefully soon, I will be able to show off my straightened albeit tea-stained teeth in one glorious post-orthodontic smile. And in case you are wondering, I prefer tea to coffee (though I do love coffee).

If you would like signed copies of this image, please contact my son, since he has all photo rights to the picture. I guess I could just copyright my own image, but that feels too graven and rather damnable.

Anyhow, I pray this revelation relieves you of any doubts about my image: I am not at all frightening.

Peace.

Gnade

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Monday, August 28, 2006

(Gassed) Up And Running

How disappointing to have had a computer failure in the midst of the week's most important story! We're talking impeachment, no doubt: The president of the United States is known to find flatulence -- his own or even perhaps others' -- rather amusing. Gas gives Bush the giggles. He chuckles in the wake of a small abdominal cramp. He delights in the cacophony† of lower intestinal clatter. He finds merriment in the breaking of wind; a hoot in a toot. He is the fart boy of frats, the frat boy who farts. He befouls his oval office with something like offal; and he does so, if it is true, to disarm and charm his newest aides. (†Can I resist noting that in the cacophony Bush finds caca funny?)

Some bloggers find this all rather indecorous. Some find it rather vulgar (this guy even sounds squeamish); one woman finds in Bush's toots proof that he is a bully (though how she descries through the fumes such malice I do not know. I personally can make no sense of the scents of scatology). But Bush is clearly a low-brow frat flea with a Yale degree (which is curious, since I was told by someone who really is low-brow that Bush is a descendant of the Saudi royal family). Bush apparently is just a blue-blood with a red neck. He is not a dictator on the throne; he is just an adolescent laughing himself right off the presidential stool.

What is amazing is that the Bush obsessors scrutinizing his every blemish believe his potty humor is somewhat too indecent for the pure White House air. Bush is bad for expelling flatus with a giggle and wink of the eye; whilst it was a "private affair" in the "personal life" of a president when Mr. Bill Clinton ejaculated on the dress of an aide in the Oval Office; or when he inserted a cigar in the vagina of that aide as he discussed via telephone certain war scenarios in Kosovo. Bush is a bully for billowing out secondhand methane; Clinton was merely a private person who was not abusing a woman's body and soul on the nation's dime on the nation's time in the nation's office. Bush is a cretin; Clinton was just a frustrated man with certain understandable needs. (Curiously, the current President fascinated by the rumbles of excretion will some day be the White House's ex-cretin.)

How about the wild possibility that both behaviors are inappropriate for any president? How about Bush coming up with a slightly wittier way of passing off his charms; how about Mr. Clinton trying to win the heart of his wife rather than manipulating the fellating favors of an underling? What do you think?

But at least let's keep things in perspective: Passing gas is a common human function. I have had doctors tell me that I must let myself break the great wind or else I might break something else. In other words, it is good and healthy to be human, biological, natural, even an animal. But there are ways to be more politic, even discreet, without being crude or a prude; there are ways to manage one's gas pains without dropping bombs on dignitaries' proper noses. Propriety surely has its place in the White House; but surely sexual propriety is far more important than olfactory peace. Accusations of nasal rape will rarely come from those consumed by flatulence; and few will find fellatio from an underling in the Oval Office a laughing, chuckling matter. One is surely just a bad smell in anyone's book of etiquette; the other truly approaches the criminal.

Anyhow, my computer is fixed; I am back from a long, forced hiatus. I am suffering from something that might be described as mental constipation. Pray that I don't have to get up and run. But you should brace yourself for a full flow of words. I mean, I intend to let a few good ones -- words, of course -- rip.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: , , , ,

Wednesday, August 23, 2006

Cruising With Technical DiffiCULTies

You know I would not be quite so reticent if I could help it. I have no working computer at the moment by which I can access this site. Somewhere, right now, my Apple laptop is in the grips of DHL; no doubt there are competent hands carrying it to an Apple repair center somewhere in Memphis. I thought the only thing that could render me mute would be the end of the world (which some prognosticated for August 22); instead, a mere byte or two out of my Apple made me fall silent (how that problem seems so ubiquitous, the bite and an apple). My hope is that I can return to garrulity by the weekend or early next week. Of course, the end of the world may have happened indeed, and I am merely speaking to all that's left of me. Please let me know if I am too late to issue fair warning.

If there is one thing I have thought during this period of cyber-silence it is this: if Tom Cruise is indeed some sort of rarefied overlord of the infinitely high realm of Scientology's pantheon, then he ought to tell us who killed JonBenet Ramsey and even John F. Kennedy; and he should save his career by finding Osama bin Laden. Why has he been wasting his mystical talents in the risky business of film-making when he could be saving the world from extinction? Or would such derring-do amount to an admission of humility -- where he is not the world's leading man in love solely with himself? Is humility an admission impossible for such a falling deity?

Look for Cruise to walk on water -- his own tears -- in the future. Tonight, I shall pray for him.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Wednesday, August 16, 2006

A Promise, A Guest, And A Winner (So To Speak)

Today marks the fulfillment of a promise. In all deference to my own words, I publish blogger extraordinaire EMAW_KC's defense (which could not be better) of his choice of "Born To Run", by Bruce Springsteen, as the greatest rock song of all time. Those of you who have read through all the comment threads which followed my initial post, On The Turntable, are familiar with EMAW_KC's position. But it deserves further consideration. I hope those who have not read it will enjoy it.

As an aside, EMAW_KC had very convincing words posted at his site regarding my choice for best rock song of all time. I am of course too willing to concede; for we all know there is no right answer (except mine). Besides, I am all too amenable to caving in to the pressure of forceful polemics. Read my exchange with EMAW_KC; witness a strong mind make me second guess myself. But I would also point out that tonight, as I began my nightly skim through the TV channels beginning at PBS's Channel 2, I instantly landed on "The Australian Pink Floyd Show," a concert performed by a head-shakingly good cover band touring in tribute to Pink Floyd; this band sounds more like Pink Floyd than Floyd itself. Anyway, what was interesting was that at the end of the show the lead singer shouted to the packed house in Liverpool, England, "Should we play one more?" and, as the crowd screamed for another, the band launched into "Comfortably Numb". It was amazing to hear how loudly the audience sang along with the band. Here, at least, is evidence that a tribute band and its audience believe that "Comfortably Numb" is Pink Floyd's greatest song. But enough of me. Here's the man of the day, EMAW_KC.


***
Asking what is the single best Rock and Roll song is like asking for the single best poem. It’s probably an impossible task with no correct answer. But in this case it’s the journey that counts, not the destination.

So my nomination is Bruce Springsteen’s Born to Run. I think this song embodies several elements inherent to the Rock and Roll genre.

It is high energy. I defy anyone to keep their foot off the accelerator as they drive down the highway listening to this song. Musically, it builds from a fast low rumble in the beginning to a furious crescendo at the end. It has a driving base line backed by rapid fire drums.

And yet it’s simple. I think there are about 4 chords in the entire song. It's lyrically simple as well, which is not to say that it's unsophisticated. It includes the requisite subtle (by today's hiphop/Top40 standards) sexual references ("Just wrap your legs round these velvet rims/And strap your hands across my engines")

It embodies the rock and roll ideals of youth culture using the automobile as metaphore. Rock and roll is about rebellion and youth, and this song has it in spades.

"Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap
We gotta get out while we're young
`cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run"


And yet it has a sense of hope:

"Together Wendy we'll live with the sadness
I'll love you with all the madness in my soul
Someday girl I don't know when we're gonna get to that place
Where we really want to go and we'll walk in the sun
But till then tramps like us baby we were born to run"


Finally, and most importantly, it totally kicks ass.

In the day we sweat it out in the streets of a runaway American dream
At night we ride through mansions of glory in suicide machines
Sprung from cages out on Highway 9,
Chrome wheeled, fuel injected and steppin' out over the line

Baby this town rips the bones from your back
It's a death trap, it's a suicide rap
We gotta get out while we're young
`cause tramps like us, baby we were born to run

Wendy let me in I wanna be your friend
I want to guard your dreams and visions
Just wrap your legs round these velvet rims
And strap your hands across my engines
Together we could break this trap
We'll run till we drop, baby we'll never go back
Will you walk with me out on the wire
`cause baby I'm just a scared and lonely rider
But I gotta find out how it feels
I want to know if love is wild, girl I want to know if love is real

Beyond the palace hemi-powered drones scream down the boulevard
The girls comb their hair in rearview mirrors
And the boys try to look so hard
The amusement park rises bold and stark
Kids are huddled on the beach in a mist
I wanna die with you Wendy on the streets tonight
In an everlasting kiss

The highway's jammed with broken heroes on a last chance power drive
Everybody's out on the run tonight but there's no place left to hide
Together Wendy we'll live with the sadness
I'll love you with all the madness in my soul
Someday girl I dont know when we're gonna get to that place
Where we really want to go and we'll walk in the sun
But till then tramps like us baby we were born to run

***
Let EMAW_KC know what you think. After all, shouldn't someone show him who really is the boss?

Peace,

BG

Technorati tags: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

Monday, August 14, 2006

Quarks Of Joy

I sit here with a borrowed computer, my fingers complaining as if they were touching borrowed underwear. It all feels rather unseemly. But I press on, fingering the home row into submission, wondering if home is where the heart is and whether you'll cause a row in response to my lengthy absence.

During the inexplicable dyspepsia to which my computer annually succumbs -- so it seems -- this round has me suspicious that computer manufacturers intentionally build into their products problems that ensure that, by a specific date, any given computer shall need repair or replacement. Who's to know? Perhaps it is the way of the computer-driven world; perhaps my car's anti-anti switch needs fixing precisely because it was programmed to fail. Of course, I am not really prone to this sense of conspiracy so prevalent these days. But it is worth a wonder.

***
In the midst of a cease fire along the Israel-Lebanon border, let me break the silence of that front by pointing the reader away from all that. Let me point you instead to a book I am reading about C. S. Lewis called The Narnian. Now I have read several biographies of Mr. Lewis; this one is on an equal footing with the best of them, and I must say it is thus far my favorite. Alan Jacobs, its author, has such mastery over the important things that I can't even begin to defend my position that you should read it. It is beautifully written and thoroughly researched; it addresses precisely those things that interest me most, i.e. Lewis' conversion to Christianity and how that conversion influenced his literary work.

What sold me on the book came after a quick perusal of the book's index while I was standing in Borders just before Christmas last. The index showed a goodly number of G. K. Chesterton references which proved, at least to this Chesterton fan, not only to be new to me, but that the volume possessed considerable merit. (That the book ended up in my hands Christmas morning speaks of the considerable merit possessed by my dear and attentive wife.) Please permit me to pass along one passage from The Narnian about dear old GKC; the context is whether a young Lewis should enlist in the British military and take up a place in the trenches of the Western Front:
It is true that there was great social pressure on men to enlist: the writer G. K. Chesterton, though he was forty years old and weighed well over three hundred pounds, during the war was accosted on a London street by a woman who asked, "Why aren't you out at the front?" (Chesterton replied, "My dear madam, if you will step around this way a little, you will see that I am.")

It is this sort of quick wit that endears Mr. Chesterton to me. It is wit that is pure, jolly, and thoroughly without guile. There is nothing mean or petty; it is waggish, droll, playful. Then there's this passage:
One of Lewis' favorite writers in these days was G. K. Chesterton, that indefinable man. ... Chesterton was an enormous man ... and claimed to be suspicious of "hard, cold, thin people." He loved nothing better than arguing, and Chesterton's public debates with a wide range of opponents were one of the great spectator sports of early-twentieth-century England. One of his opponents, a dramatist and (later) screenwriter with the delightful name of Cosmo Hamilton, was, like most people who knew him, simply overwhelmed: "To hear Chesterton's howl of joy ... to see him double himself up in an agony of laughter at my personal insults, to watch the effect of his sportsmanship on a shocked audience who were won to mirth by his intense and pea-hen-like quarks of joy was a sight and a sound for the gods. ... It was monstrous, gigantic, amazing, deadly, delicious. Nothing like it has ever been done before or will ever be seen, heard and felt like it again."

Quarks of joy, monstrous and gigantic. Those of you who have read Chesterton's wonderful The Man Who Was Thursday will instantly recognize what sort of man he was: He was a man as big and fun and mirthful as the Sabbath.

Why tell you this here? I don't know. Perhaps it is that I long for better days; for doubling over in laughter in the face of insults; of enjoying the lively and lovely row, and of loving my enemies with a contagious and spiteless guffaw.

Peace to you,

BG.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes - All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: , , , , ,

Saturday, August 12, 2006

Tuesday, August 08, 2006

Ex-Dreams: Thoughts On Sports, Sort Of

If you don't know the name of Travis Pastrana then consider yourself not a seeker of thrills, but of the bland. For Travis Pastrana, at the very least, is a legend in this household, even if my wife has no idea who he is or what he's done. And mentioning Mr. Pastrana here is not to single him out as if there are no other legends; Kevin Robinson is a legend, as is Danny Way.

OK. If you didn't catch any of this past weekend's X Games/12 events I will not tar you as either a fool or a seeker of basic blandness. Trust me when I admit that watching most of the events requires an Rx for Valium; it's TV watching with clammy palms and one eye closed. But the one open eye surely enjoyed spectacular athleticism: Pastrana landing the first ever double-backflip on a motorcross (MX) bike for a gold medal, then winning gold in the MX freestyle and the Rally Car events (too cool); Kevin Robinson winning the Vert (vertical) Best Trick on a bicycle (a crazy double flip with a corkscrew called a double flare); or Danny Way clearing a 70-foot gap on a skateboard -- backflipping -- during the skateboard Big Air contest, only then to shoot up a vert ramp (about 25-feet deep) and launching 22-feet into the air to a perfect gold-medal landing.

Call me silly, but I love this stuff.

What moves me when I watch these events is how fellow competitors celebrate the accomplishments of their peers. For example, when Kevin Robinson completed the first ever double flare in the BMX competition -- a trick he had never successfully landed (even in practice) in THREE years of trying -- his fellow competitors swooped down and piled on him as if they were all victors in a World Cup final. That the young star then leapt to his feet, grabbed photos of his little children and held them up to the camera, shouting, "This is why I do this, for my wife and my babies!" shattered all my preconceptions about the extremities of the X Games: the games are decent to the core.

Just for a moment imagine that a slugger for the Philadelphia Phillies has just hit a walk-off home-run -- wait, scratch that as preposterous. Imagine instead the Boston Red Sox legend David Ortiz hitting a game-winning home-run against the New York Yankees and the Yankees rushing over to celebrate his achievement. It is hard to imagine such a thing because team sports do not permit this sort of affection (though I will say that the college-level sports I have photographed show a distinct difference between the way women react to losing and the way men react: women are much more gracious). But team sports and their fans rarely permit athletes to publicly and duly cheer their opponents' accomplishments (at least in the moment).

But what I saw at the X Games was almost biblical: I saw weeping with those who weep and rejoicing with those who rejoice. It was refreshing.

In most instances, I prefer individual over team sports. Obviously the attraction of individual sports is that one's greatest opponent is oneself: you compete against your fears, your lack of concentration, your envy, your lack of discipline -- and the very physics of the cosmos. Of course, team players also must play against themselves; but it is rare to hear any coach say to a team that one person lost a tournament for them (unless the loss is the result of that "!*@!!?! referee"). "We all lost this one," is more often heard than not in a team's locker room or during a sideline interview. But Tiger Woods has only himself to blame for losing, as does Bode Miller or Venus Williams. In individual sports the winner wins, and loses, on his or her own.

But of all the major team sports the world plays (or is beginning to play) -- baseball, football (American), soccer (or European football), basketball, ice hockey, lacrosse and perhaps even rugby -- baseball is unique. It is the only major team sport in which it is impossible to be a ball hog (or puck hog). There are no players shouting "Just give me the damn ball!" or some such conceit, as is too often heard from basketball or football players. Baseball does not lend itself to that sort of presumption; it is truly about the team.

Perhaps that is why Americans love baseball, for its elegance and its equality. Perhaps politically it is the most American of all team games; like America's form of governance where there is no king but a Chief Executive who presides, there is in baseball but a simple manager (not even a coach) presiding over a bunch of players given special tasks.

Of course, all this leads to the most important point of this entirely meaningless essay: baseball is the only team sport in which the leader of the team, the manager, is in uniform. I have often had a fancy that I would mandate all coaches and managers arrive on the pitch, field or court "ready to play." Surely New England Patriots coach Bill Belichick should be expected to wear a jersey, pads and helmet while pacing the sidelines; as it would befit L.A. Lakers coach Phil Jackson to arrive in tank-top and shorts and Philadelphia Flyers coach Ken Hitchcock dressed to leap the wall with the third line. Wouldn't it be great to watch Bill Parcells slam helmets with Andy Reid during the coin toss?

But back to individual sports (where you can pretty much wear whatever uniform you want). Such games as the X Games are clearly also essentially American (at least), where the individual is celebrated above the collective. Politically speaking such games are even rather Libertarian, with the individual struggling without fetters to live a life full of free expression and exploration. Perhaps Danny Way's colossal skateboard leap last year over the Great Wall of China -- the first person to do so on a self-propelled vehicle -- was not just a mere stunt but an act of radical foreign policy: an individual soaring over a grand symbol in a communist country committed to the whole rather to any single part. Perhaps it is not the World Cup or the World Series or the Super Bowl that will unite the worlds. Perhaps the ambassadors of freedom are those extremists back-flipping on bicycles, ripping snowboards down subway handrails, rolling wheels up the sides of statues of Chairman Mao, grinding through Red Square, or doing backside 360s over the Washington Mall. You know, the radicals like Travis Pastrana who, after sticking the world's first double back-flip on a motorcycle, ran up to his (stressed out) mother and threw his arms around her, saying, "I'm sorry, mom, I'm sorry!"

For me it is all rather humbling, watching the dreams of the young change how I see.

Have a lovely day.

Peace.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.

Technorati tags: , , , , , , ,

Thursday, August 03, 2006

The Greatest Rock Song Of All Time: My Choice and Defense

[What follows is the culmination of a conversation that started here. Also, I notice quite a few internet searches for "analyzing [insert title of song discussed below]" leading people here. That is wonderful. However, I hope that readers intend on doing their own analysis, and do not intend to lift my words for use in some term paper.]


It is now time for me to finally get around to fulfilling a promise. Today I offer my selection for the best rock song of all time. In getting here I have led some of you astray by changing rules or criteria in the course of making our selections. I asked, in a rather unsteady way, what readers thought was their single favorite song, or the one they’d have – if they could only have one – while stranded on a deserted isle. And I also asked, thinking it was the same question, what song readers thought the best irrespective of whether it was a favorite. Lastly, I asked readers, if they felt so led, to defend their choices. What follows, then, is my defense.

Let me quickly name a few of your nominees: “Born To Run”, “A Whiter Shade of Pale”, “Sweet Home Alabama”, “Sweet Child Of Mine”, “Bohemian Rhapsody”, “Wish You Were Here”, “We Just Disagree,” “Where The Streets Have No Name”, “God Save The Queen”, “Hey Jude”, “Lawyers, Guns and Money”. Great tunes, all!

My choice, as I hinted, is not the sort of song one would dance to, nor is it a product of any American band. It is a deeply philosophical tune, full of sorrow, beauty, alienation; the loss of innocence, passion and even compassion. And yet it is rife with yearning, with pleading for grace, mercy, redemption, hope. In it there are two of rock’s greatest guitar solos; the second one has consistently won kudos, often listed as one of the top solos ever. In short, it is a song that lasts, that lingers.

FIRST: What Is This? 

What is rock-and-roll? Is it not more than mere music; isn’t it a lifestyle, a chosen attitude? Is it not about sex, love, even careless or just unrequited love, or even just casual love and the love of the casual? Is it not about drugs, about doing what feels good, about life in the moment (“Live For Today” by the Grass Roots comes to mind)? Is it not about protest, about liberation from moral and social constraints; about non-conformity, rebellion against "the man" or "the system"; of raging against the machine? Is it not a kick in the teeth of formality, of procedure and protocol and expectation? Is it not about alienation and estrangement; about nuclear and climatic annihilation; about the search for meaning – or the denial of it? Is it not about the death of God, about liberty self-defined; about doing one’s own thing free of guilt drummed into a soul by Church, state or even the public school? Is it not about being “Born To Be Wild”, about being “Born To Run”, about being like a free bird, like a rolling stone, like a kite, like an eagle flying high; like a Yellow Submarine on a Tuesday Afternoon winding down the road, our shadows taller than our souls; looking to the east, our spirits crying for leaving?

Is it not, in the end, about independence, about “Me and You and A Dog Named Boo”, two young lovers with nothing better to do, living in a “shanty, mama, and put[ting] a good buzz on”?

I think it is all of these things, and more. But I believe it is essentially about protesting against expectations and consequences, even against responsibility. It is a middle finger jammed in the face of convention, even if convention is just physical health. And I think each genre and sub-genre of rock-and-roll is some form of protest against rock’s own tendency towards conformity: metal protests folk rock’s apparent passivity; Southern rock rejects northern coolness toward good old southern ways; disco protests music that does not inspire movement; Christian rock protests rock’s penchant for nihilism or hedonism; one artist protests that too few are angry, while another protests against the many who have no joy; U2 protests injustice, faithlessness, the loss of hope; the Sex Pistols even protest conventions of beauty.

Ironically, in the heart of much rock-and-roll is the hope for a better world, a utopian dream: John Lennon is perhaps the very flag-bearer of rock’s noblest aspiration: if we all would just party, love, and give peace a chance, we’d find that we are not the un-Grateful Dead, but the grateful living.

In this maelstrom of protest and the search for meaning; in the claustrophobia of alienation and the battle of the sexes; in the search for love in all the wrong places, in all of the wrong ways; in the abandonment of convention for pleasure in lust, drugs, materialism, hedonism; in the dreams for a rock-and-roll utopia based on Aquarius and free love; in the midst of ALL of this is just one song, the one song that perfectly captures what is the incarnation of the rock-and-roll spirit. For if one were to fully live the rock-and-roll life -- from fast women and fast cars and fast yachts and smashing TV sets and burning the Union Jack; from berating power and wealth and warmongering and capitalist greed -- one would become, as so many of us know all too well, “Comfortably Numb” (by Pink Floyd). This monumental work, I believe, is rock's greatest song.

Are not many of us (though surely not all), in fact, Comfortably Numb right now, numbed by work, war, the humdrum, the day-to-day grind? Many of us are sexually sated to the point of boredom, while others are sexually dissatisfied, left so by the sexual impossibilities shaped into idolatry by the marketplace. We are numbed by newsreels and sundry horrors; road kill gets nary a notice or even a light tap on the brake pedal. We are numbed by the mind-killing rhetoric of politicians, pundits, poets and even priests. In short, we have found our freedom and indulged in it; we have followed impulse and intuition; we have given into our muses and our drug-fed demons; we have followed ourselves and all that we (and others) promise to those very selves, and we have become lukewarm, indifferent, even insipid. We are numbed by countless prescribed narcotics or some other sedative.

Now, what I think you should do here is download the tune, if you don’t have it already. Get the track from Pink Floyd’s “The Wall” or “Echoes (Greatest Hits)” [my choice]. Don’t listen to a live version, since no live track has the full complement of sounds I think are important. And then put on your headphones. Get the volume right, and proceed.


Analysis: Comfortably Numb


Study the lyrics and the structure of the song as we analyze this tremendous work. The lyrics themselves are presented in two voices. The first is the voice of everything false that is OUTSIDE us, begging to control and command. It is the voice of evil dressed in a doctor’s white jacket; if not, it is that dulling voice trying to prod us, offering a salvation -- a salve or booster shot -- that will keep us fit for the machine that is grinding us to death. It is the voice of alleged health issuing from a very sick corpus. Perhaps it is our own “adult” voice, the voice of convention, duty and responsibility. Maybe it’s the voice of Madison Avenue – a truly distorted parent if there ever was one -- promising joy in a bottle, or a new automobile: tell us where it hurts and we will fill your void. Surely it is at the very least the voice allegedly from outside of us, beyond our grief, fear, anxiety and misery, and yet it is a voice still trapped within a fallen world.

First, note that there is a preamble, a preface. Random (?) noise and voices are blended in a mantra-like rhythm: fading seashore sounds, gulls calling on the wing. Then, a knock on the door, repeated. Someone say’s “Time to go!” over and over. A woman’s voice, distant, maternal, young: “Are you feeling OK?" (also repeated). Other sounds, like distant laughter, a telephone operator hinting at infidelities. Slowly, from deep underneath, there’s an almost groaning thunder, and then a voice, loud, full of doubt: “Is there anybody out there?” The most important question of all. Then – silence (3 seconds). Then the music begins. (While listening to the whole song, please note the instrumental layering -- perhaps done on a synthesizer -- with strings hinting at playfulness and youth, and horns suggesting loss, fear. Listen to the bass guitar weaving through, at times pointing upward, then downward, like a leaf on the wind.)


Voice One (the outer voice, perhaps):


“Hello? Is there anybody in there? [Contrasting with the big question asked earlier.]

Just nod if you can hear me

Is there anyone home?

Come on, now.

I hear you’re feeling down.

Well I can ease your pain

Get you on your feet again.

Relax. I need some information – first.

Just the basic facts.
Can you show me where it hurts?”


And then, the second voice, the inner voice. Ohh, what sorrow! What loss!


Voice Two:


“There is no pain you are receding

A distant ship’s smoke on the horizon

You are only coming through in waves

Your lips move

But I can’t hear what you’re sayin’.

When I was a child I had a fever

My hands felt just like two balloons.

Now I got that feeling once I again.

I can’t explain, you would not understand,
This is not how I am.
I have become comfortably numb.”


Think of the image of a fevered boy whose hands feel like two balloons, his hands sailing upwards, reaching for help, a help that does not come, leaving him with nothing to hold. Think of the innocence in a child’s need for purpose, meaning, safety. Think of the much-needed comfort of a parent who does not come or the God who does not hear. All have drifted out of reach, lost over some far horizon. Innocence, too, is lost. Think of feeling that same way “once again," trapped in an adult world where childish things – like permanent fidelity and hope and love -- are rejected, disdained as so much wishfulness. And think of this sad admission offered by a voice estranged from its very self: This is not who I am. Oh!

And then a stunning guitar solo, nostalgic, gentle; the guitar acting as the deepest inner voice where language is not spoken. It is all a looking backwards, a longing for home, for youth, for being loved unconditionally; and of finally being dulled to that longing:


Again, second voice, repeating:


“I have become comfortably numb.”


Voice One continues:


“Ok.

Just a little pinprick.

There'll be no more ...Aaaaaahhhh! [Voice two’s cry of pain]

But you may feel a little sick.

Can you stand up?

I do believe it's working. Good.

That'll keep you going for the show.

Come on, it's time to go.”



Voice Two responds:


“There is no pain, you are receding.

A distant ship's smoke on the horizon.

You are only coming through in waves.

Your lips move but I can't hear what you're sayin'.

When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,

Out of the corner of my eye.

I turned to look but it was gone.

I cannot put my finger on it now.

The child is grown, the dream is gone.
I have become comfortably numb.”


Let me admit to you that usually at this point (if I am paying attention) my eyes well up with tears:


When I was a child I caught a fleeting glimpse,

Out of the corner of my eye.

I turned to look but it was gone.

I cannot put my finger on it now.

The child is grown, the dream is gone.


My very first memory, or so I believe, is of waking up in the late afternoon in my New Jersey home. The shades are drawn. In the far right corner of the room, on a bureau, sits a little nightlight. It is a tiny glass lamb. The light inside of it is on, casting a warm glow. I am sick, fevered, waiting for the doctor (Dr. Canavan, I’d learn later) who is coming on a house call.

What is the fleeting glimpse in the corner of the eye, the one a little boy cannot fix his eyes on? Is it heaven? Is it God? Is it any hint of the permanent, the lasting, the enduring, the real? Is it the fading image of a father lost to war who will never come home? Is it the loss of a mother who disappears into alcoholism or depression? Is it the loss of innocence, and the loss of an innocent love?

It is all of these things, and more. But it is clearly the loss of the permanent; it is a glimpse that is but fleeting. But what it ultimately is the singer no longer knows: the child and dream are both gone; comfortable numbness is all that lasts.

And then the most harrowing guitar solo of all time, introduced by a deep downward slide on the bass guitar and a short scream from the lead guitar itself; surely it is also one of the most beautiful guitar solos ever recorded. For again we return to that innermost, language-less voice carried through the guitar, but now the soul's voice deep within, affected by that ‘little pinprick” from outside, the drug or lie that keeps him going, looks forward from a past that is forever gone.

What do you hear in this solo? Do you not hear the soul’s descent into hell and its screams for help? Do you not hear the soul cry out for change -- for release! -- from its descent into loneliness, hopelessness? Listen closely. Hear the anger, the bitterness of loss. Hear the cynicism of life’s broken promises, of the accumulated resentment, and regret for things unsaid. Hear all of this: hear a soul looking straight at the end of meaningless Life; see the soul fight against this fact, hear it scream that this can’t be all there is to living. Hear the fight with demons and lies and disappointments; hear the smashing of furniture in a hotel room and in an empty heaven. Hear the struggle for freedom; hear the scratching inside the coffin. Hear that numbness which is neither real nor comfortable. And then, at minute 6:21, hear the height the soul can reach, such beautiful desperate heights; hear the soul’s clear worth, its furious fight, its clear plea to live a life with purpose, and yet hear it weaken again, perhaps slipping into one final, contentious resolve. Finally, hear the guitar’s voice drift passed you, and away, as if you are on the same descent, only you’re watching something wailing, distorted, in great struggle, move beyond your reach, falling faster than you. Or are you just standing there, staring, mouth agape?

Since I've been listening to the song while writing this, I can say that, again, it has left me weeping. I do not know where to go. I feel myself falling to my knees. I hear my own soul cry out as the song concludes, and I fear I’ve witnessed, in sound and the images such sound invokes, the very crucifixion of Christ, his body writhing and fighting on the cross, the wailing guitar at minute 6:21 nothing other than Christ looking heavenward: Father, why have you forsaken me?


Closing Remarks


Here ends my foray into rock’s greatest, and most important, song. This song completely captures all that the rock-and-roll world, nay, the world alone, stands for, creates, if indeed, there is Nobody “out there.” Our life, or our search for meaning IN life, is in vain if there is no God, if all is ephemeral, passing, fleeting. And even the Christian’s life is in vain if there is indeed no Body out there, no crucified and risen Christ, offering hope of an afterlife. This song captures, with real beauty, the need for something beyond us, but something that is also beyond this world and its ephemera.

This is why this is the greatest of all rock songs. This song stares at the flight downward and asks, “Is there anybody out there?”; and it unflinchingly looks at what follows if the answer is, “No.” As such, the song shatters all pretensions, all ambitions of those who do not ask the great question; or who are content with nihilism, narcissism or hedonism, the very marrow of the rock-and-roll ideal.

My goal, if I have one, is to fight for all souls; it is to give all souls hope that there is no need to fall into the abyss. The hope is that comfortable, even uncomfortable numbness, is NOT the final end of life.

Peace. And thanks for playing with me over the past week.

©Bill Gnade 2006/Contratimes -- All Rights Reserved.


Tuesday, August 01, 2006

"In vino veritas––In wine there is truth"

Re: Mel Gibson: I want to point readers to the following incisive article written by a conservative Jewish man who publicly supported Mr. Gibson's "The Passion Of The Christ." It is a very revealing piece, showing us that Mr. Gibson is not getting a pass by conservatives for being an anti-semitic alcoholic (as has been suggested in a recent comments thread at Contratimes). Let me assure everyone that Mr. Gibson has not gotten a pass with me. But I will offer Mr. Gibson exactly what I try to offer everyone else here: cupfuls of grace and baskets full of mercy.

There are indeed conservatives, like myself, who are not glad that Mel Gibson is finally getting his stripes and lashes for bigotry. Instead, we are sad that he is anti-semitic; we grieve for him (and others like him). This is not a laughing, cheering or high-fiving matter. This is news that is profoundly sad and disappointing. And it is also news demanding -- like so many things -- profound grace. This is not the sort of time for gloating.

Please read Don Feder's essay at the conservative website, Frontpagemag. com. You can find "Mel Gibson Unplugged" right here.

Let me know what you think.

UPDATE: According to Fox News, Mel Gibson has reached out to the Jewish community for help regarding his acid tongue and alcoholism. How, I wonder, shall that be received?

Pace. BG