Showing posts with label d. h. lawrence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label d. h. lawrence. Show all posts

5 Oct 2023

The Tiger's Bride

Rachel M. Esposito: The Tiger's Bride
 
 
"Like the tiger in the night, I devour all flesh, I drink all blood, until ... in sensual ecstasy, 
having drunk all blood and devoured all flesh, I am become again the eternal Fire ..." [a] 
 
 
I. 
 
I love the above lines from D. H. Lawrence. 
 
But Lawrence wasn't the only English writer to evoke the feline spirit and dream of becoming-tiger. Angela Carter also fantasised about entering into unholy matrimony with a tiger and losing her all too human skin, and it's Carter's short story 'The Tiger's Bride' that I'd like to look at here ... [b]
  

II.

Essentially, 'The Tiger's Bride' was Carter's reimagining of Beauty and the Beast [c]
 
A beautiful young girl moves in with a mysterious masked figure, known as the Beast, after her father loses her to him in a game of cards. The Beast is eventually revealed to be a tiger masquerading as a man. Having fallen in love with him, the young girl agrees to become his mate and transforms into a beautiful tigress; the suggestion given that this is as much her true nature as it is his [d].  
 
Usually, this tale is discussed in the familiar terms of power, identity, and otherness; often from a feminist, psychoanalytic, or postmodern perspective [e]. There's nothing wrong with that, but neither is there much point in simply offering another analysis in and on the same terms and seen through the same critical lens.
 
And so, here, I'll at least try to say something vaguely novel, whilst, at the same time referring to work first presented at Treadwell's back in 2006 [f]
 
 
III.
 
Carter's perversely sensual fantasy of animal transformation raises one key question: is there a fundamental and non-negotiable human nature, or a fixed type of being that is uniquely human and therefore not open either to evolutionary change or magical metamorphosis? 
 
For essentialists of all kinds, the answer to this onto-theological question concerning being and becoming will be a very definite Yes. But for those who reject all such idealism and happily affirm shape-shifting and parahuman hybrids, preferring as they do to conduct their thinking in terms of constant mutation and change, the answer has to be No. 
 
Personally, my sympathies are with the latter; i.e. those who believe in the the dynamic and interchangeable nature of forms. I'm also sympathetic to those who, like Carter, put forward the shocking idea that even virgins born on Chistmas day might prove to be as amoral and as savage as any beast. 
 
Having been handed over by her father to the Beast, Beauty can't help wondering what the exact nature of his beastliness might entail and, prior to her first meeting with her husband-to-be, she recalls the stories her English nanny used to tell her when she was young in order to frighten her. She remembers too how she first discovered the secret of the sexual mystery from watching farmyard animals copulate. 
 
When Beauty first sets eyes on La Bestia she is struck by his size and crude clumsiness, as well as his odd air of self-imposed restraint; "as if fighting a battle with himself to remain upright when he would rather drop on all fours" [155-56]. For all that, he is not much different from any other man, although wearing a mask "with a man's face most beautifully painted on it [… and] a wig, too […] of the kind you see in old-fashioned portraits" [156]
 
The Beast has but a single demand to make of Beauty when she is brought before him; "to see the pretty young lady unclothed nude without her dress" [160]. Shocked and insulted, Beauty laughs scornfully at the request and tells him that if she is to be treated like a common whore then she expects not only to be fucked, but also given "the same amount of money that you would give to any other woman in such circumstances" [161]
 
This hurts the Beast and he sheds a tear, which, Beauty hopes, is one of shame. However, this doesn’t stop him from making the same request for a second time - with the same results: "Take off my clothes for you, like a ballet girl? Is that all you want of me?" [163], cries Beauty, and again the Beast is forced to shed a tear. 
 
Eventually, when one day out riding, the Beast decides that since she will not reveal herself naked to him then she must be prepared to see him undressed. As he starts to remove his human disguise and finery, Beauty's composure deserts her and she finds herself on the brink of panic as the Beast reveals himself to be: "A great, feline […] whose pelt was barred with a savage geometry of bars the colour of burned wood” [166]
 
Beauty can't help noticing the subtlety of his muscles, the profundity of his tread and the "annihilating vehemence of his eyes, like twin suns" [166]. She feels her breast ripped apart as if she had suffered a marvellous wound and she realises that since the tiger will never lie down with the lamb, then she, Miss Lamb, must learn how to run with tigers

Having come to this fateful conclusion, Beauty finally decides to strip: 
 
"I therefore, shivering, now unfastened my jacket, to show him I would do him no harm. Yet I was clumsy and blushed a little, for no man had seen me naked and I was a proud girl. Pride it was, not shame, that thwarted my fingers so; and a certain trepidation lest this frail little article of human upholstery before him might not be, in itself, grand enough to satisfy his expectations […]" [166]
 
Continuing with the narration of her tale, Beauty says: "I showed his grave silence my white skin, my red nipples, and the horses turned their heads to watch me, also, as if they, too, were courteously curious as to the fleshy nature of women." [166] 
 
Having finally conceded to his original request of her, the Beast informs Beauty that she is free to return to her father. But, of course, she now finds herself so taken with the Beast's inhuman nobility that she doesn't want to leave him. Rather, she wants to stay and learn how to feel happy in her own nakedness; for the idea of living without clothes still left her troubled and she rightly connected it to a loss of her humanity: 
 
"I was unaccustomed to nakedness. I was so unused to my own skin that to take off all my clothes involved a kind of flaying. I thought the Beast had wanted a little thing compared with what I was prepared to give him; but it is not natural for humankind to go naked, not since first we hid our loins with fig leaves. He had demanded the abominable. I felt as much atrocious pain as if I was stripping off my own underpelt […]" [168]
 
Still, despite the cost, Beauty gives herself to the Beast of her own accord. He, in turn, abandons his human disguise and no longer wore strong perfumes to mask his own distinctive animal scent. Beauty is still concerned about his ferocity and the fact that he might yet gobble her up, but perhaps, she reasons, his appetite need not mean her death. 
 
The story concludes with a very lovely and highly erotic scene that any zoophile or therianthrope must surely treasure; a scene typical of Angela Carter in that it profoundly disrupts "both our expectations […] and our customary moral and aesthetic response" [g]
 
"I squatted on the wet straw and stretched out my hand. I was now within the field of force of his golden eyes. He growled at the back of his throat, lowered his head, sank on to his forepaws, snarled, showed me his red gullet, his yellow teeth. I never moved. He snuffled the air, as if to smell my fear; he could not. 
      Slowly, slowly he began to drag his heavy, gleaming weight across the floor towards me. 
      A tremendous throbbing […] filled the room; he had begun to purr. […] The reverberations of his purring rocked the foundations of the house […] I thought: 'It will all fall, everything will disintegrate'. He dragged himself closer and closer to me, until I felt the harsh velvet of his head against my hand, then a tongue, abrasive as sandpaper. 'He will lick the skin off me!' 
      And each stroke of his tongue ripped off skin after successive skin, all the skins of a life in the world, and left behind a nascent patina of shiny hairs. My earrings turned […] to water and trickled down my shoulders; I shrugged the drops off my beautiful fur." [169] 
 
 
IV.
 
What, then, are we to make of this zoosexual fantasy of transformation? 
 
Clearly, it challenges traditional moral understandings of the human, the animal, and the relationship that exists between them. Of course, some might dismiss it on the grounds that in being a magical as well as a sexual fantasy, it has nothing to tell us about the so-called real world. And Carter herself concedes that the tale, unlike the more respectable short story, makes no attempt to imitate life or faithfully record everyday experience. 
 
But for Carter, this is precisely the strength and importance of the tale; in transfiguring the mundane via the extraordinary, the tale challenges our usual assumptions and beliefs about the world and doesn't betray its readers into false certainty and common sense. Tales are always of the unexpected and set in a world wherein the rules governing the boundaries between the true and the false, or concerning identity, are not entirely suspended, but made far more fluid than in ours. 
 
As a matter of fact, Carter's reimagining of La Belle et la Bête is not actually all that radical. It's violence, amorality, and sexual content is found in many of the earliest folk versions that pre-date the more sanitized fairy tales written in the 18th and 19th centuries. Essentially, Carter is reviving an oral tradition in which girls and women are far from helpless or submissive; in which they are, on the contrary, shrewd, quick-witted, and highly skilled. 
 
But as significant as this aspect of the tale is, for me, what really fascinates is that it belongs to a tradition concerning metamorphosis or animal transformation fantasy. Carter too is clearly intrigued by the dialectic of continuity and change and to what extent our humanity is simply skin-deep; if not merely a matter of clothing. 
 
We are obliged to ask the following questions: In stripping naked, and in then stepping out of her very skin, has Beauty realised or lost an essential self? Has she been effectively raped and devoured, or sexually fulfilled via a becoming-animal? It's because such questions make many people uncomfortable - particularly as they are raised within a zoosexual context - that, strangely enough, the overtly bestial content of this and other such tales is often entirely overlooked. 
 
Indeed, it almost makes one wonder if the idea of sex between young girls and beasts isn't something inconceivable to them. But, probably, it simply shows fear; either the fear that our humanity is not so essential and determined after all, or the older, more irrational fear that bestiality will result in the birth of monsters ... [h]
 
 
Illustration by Aleksandra Waliszewska [i]
  
Notes
 
[a] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Lemon Gardens', Twilight in Italy, in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays, ed. Paul Eggert, (Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 117.
 
[b] 'The Tiger's Bride' can be found in Angela Carter's astonishing collection of short fiction published as The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories, (Golancz, 1979). 
      In this work, Carter doesn't so-much offer us her own versions of traditional fairytales, as reactivate the latent violence and sexual politics at the heart of such well-known stories as 'Little Red Riding Hood' and 'Beauty and the Beast'. Some have described Carter's writing style as a form of queer gothic feminism, although more usually it is considered to be magical realism. Concerns with female identity and female empowerment are pretty much present throughout, as are supernatural elements often involving metamorphosis. 
      The Bloody Chamber and Other Stories remains one of my favourite books by any author and I would encourage torpedophiles to read (or re-read) it. It can be found on the Internet Archive: click here. However, please note that page numbers given here refer to Angela Carter's collected short stories, published as Burning Your Boats, (Vintage, 1996). 
 
[c] La Belle et la Bête is a fairy tale written by Gabrielle-Suzanne Barbot de Villeneuve and published in 1740. It was rewritten and published in the form most people now know it by Jeanne-Marie Leprince de Beaumont in 1756. Scholars have traced the origin of the story back over 4000 years, although, ultimately, it's impossible to know where or when a story was first told.   
 
[d] I will offer a closer reading of the text in Part III of this post.
 
[e] See for example a series of online articles by Ana Isabel Bugeda Díaz under the heading 'Postmodern Retellings 101', which includes a discussion of Angela Carter's 'The Tiger's Bride': click here
      The author cheerfully condemns Western dualism, anthropocentrism, rationalism, patriarchal society, the denial or exclusion of Otherness, etc. whilst speaking positively of desire, animality, emotional intelligence, and the need to subvert traditional narratives. Again, I've no problem with this, it's just that it now strikes me as formulaic and a bit old-fashioned.     
 
[f] I'm referring to the six-part series of essays Zoophilia (published as Vol. III of The Treadwell's Papers, Blind Cupid Press, 2010). In particular, I will be referring to the fifth of these essays, on animal transformation fantasy.  
 
[g] Caroline Walker Bynum, 'Shape and Story: Metamorphosis in the Western Tradition' (Jefferson Lecture, 1999): click here to read online.
 
[h] As a matter of biological fact, human-animal hybrids, or parahumans, cannot be bred sexually; attempts to mate a human and a chimpanzee have been made, but they inevitably failed. However, synthetic biology and genetic engineering does potentially open the way for a world in which such inter-species hybrids become possible.
     
[i] To find out more about this Polish artist visit Marta Lucy Summer's blog Women, Fire, and Dangerous Things: click here.  


4 Oct 2023

You'll Never Turn the Vinegar Into Jam: On the Figure of the Tiger in the Philosophy of D. H. Lawrence

Most of their time, tigers pad and slouch in burning peace.
Yet they also drink blood. [1]
 
 
I. 
 
Although I wouldn't name it as one of Lawrence's totemic animals, nevertheless the tiger often appears within his work and held an important place in his philosophical imagination as one of the great realities of reality; i.e., a living thing that has come into its own fullness of being: 
 
"The tiger blazed transcendent into immortal darkness." [2]
 
"The tiger is the supreme manifestation of the senses made absolute." [3]
 
For Lawrence, in other words, the tiger is physical perfection and counters the bodiless idealism of those who, like Shelley, sought pure spiritual consummation
 
"The tiger was a terrible problem to Shelley, who wanted life in terms of the lamb." [4]  
 
 
II. 
 
In the the first essay of the Genealogy, Niezsche argues that it's perfectly natural for lambs to hate and fear tigers, wolves, and eagles. But mistaken to believe that they are morally superior to those animals that prey on them; the latter are not evil and act out of instinctive necessity, not cruelty.    
 
To expect fierce and powerful carnivores to lie down with meek and mild herbivores is as absurd as thinking you can turn the vinegar into jam; "a tiger is a tiger not a lamb, mein herr" [5] and cannot behave otherwise (and nor can the lamb - a creature which acts from weakness, not goodness).   
 
What's more, Lawrence argues that just as the tiger requires the lamb for sustenance, the lamb needs the tiger; for only the juxtaposition of the tiger "keeps the lamb a quivering, vivid, beautiful fleet thing"  [6]
 
Take away or exterminate the tiger, and all you're left with is a flock of letzte Schafe; happy, but little more than woolly clods of meat. Fear and suffering are vital principles; they help concentrate the soul, in man as well as lamb. 
 
Thank God, says Lawrence, for the tigers who liberate us from the "abominable tyranny of these greedy, negative sheep" [7]. And not only does he affirm the spirit of the tiger, he dreams of becoming-tiger and of making the tiger's way his own:
 
"Like the tiger in the night, I devour all flesh, I drink all blood, until [...] in the sensual ecstasy, having drunk all blood and devoured all flesh, I am become again the eternal Fire ..." [8]   
 
 
III.
 
Lawrence being Lawrence, however, he soon starts to oscillate from one pole of delirium to another and concede that the tiger's way - the way of the flesh and becoming "transfigured into magnificent brindled flame" [9] - is not the only form of ecstasy. 
 
Man can also become-deer, become-lamb, or, indeed, become-Christian, and move beyond the tiger, finding consummation not in the devouring of those who are weaker, or even in the negative ecstasy of offering non-resistance and being eaten oneself, but in acknowledging otherness:
 
"The Word of the tiger is: my senses are supremely Me, and my senses are God in me. But Christ said: God is in the others, who are not-me. In all the multitude of others is God, and this is the great God, greater than the God which is Me. God is that which is not-me. 
      And this is the Christian truth, a truth complementary to the pagan affirmation: 'God is that which is Me.'
      God is that which is Not-Me. In realising the Not-Me I am consummated, I become infinite. In turning the other cheek I submit to God who is greater than I am, other than I am, who is in that which is not me. This is the supreme consummation. To achieve this consummation I love my neighbour as myself." [10]
 
But then, having said that, Lawrence warns of the danger of pushing this ideal too far; of becoming too selfless whilst, somewhat paradoxically, identifying oneself with all that is other, like Walt Whitman, who aches with amorous love and insists with false exuberance on grasping everyone and everthing to his bosom, believing as he does in One Identity as the great desideratum [11]
 
For this path ends in nihilism and the triumph of the Machine and it's a "horrible thing to see tigers caught up and entangled in machinery [...] a chaos beyond chaos, an unthinkable hell" [12].   
  

IV. 
 
Ultimately, Lawrence's sharp-clawed feline philosophy can probably be best construed as tragic in the Nietzschean sense; one which understands according to the desire of death as well as according to the desire of life and is true for all things that emerge from the matrix of chaos, including "the tiger and the fragile dappled doe" [13].  
 
The former is a blossom of pure significance, born of the sun. But the tiger, like the leopard, needs to quench herself with the blood (or soft fire) of Bambi, so that she too might know tenderness when nursing her young and dreaming her dreams in stillness:
 
"For even the mother-tiger is quenched with insuperable tenderness when the milk is in her udder; she lies still, and her dreams are frail like fawns." [14]
 
 
Notes
 
[1] A misremembered couple of lines from 'Glory', by D. H. Lawrence; The Poems, Vol. I, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University press, 2013), p. 430.   
 
[2] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Crown', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays, ed. Michael Herbert, (Cambridge University Press, 1988), p. 270. 
 
[3] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Lemon Gardens', Twilight in Italy, in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays, ed. Paul Eggert, (Cambridge Univrrsity Press, 1994), p. 117. 

[4] D. H. Lawrence, 'Fenimore Cooper's Anglo-American Novels', in Studies in Classic American Literature (First Version: 1918-19), ed. Ezra Greenspan, Lindeth Vasey and John Worthen , (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 214.
 
[5] I'm quoting here from the brilliant Kander and Ebb song 'Mein Herr', from the musical Cabaret (1966). 
      To expect a tiger or leopard or lion to lie down with its prey is, says Lawrence, as vain as hoping "for the earth to cast no shadow, or for burning fire to give no heat". See 'The Reality of Peace', in Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays ... p. 49. 

[6] D. H. Lawrence, 'Fenimore Cooper's Anglo-American Novels', in Studies in Classic American Literature ... p. 214. 
 
[7] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Reality of Peace', Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays ... p. 42.
 
[8] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Lemon Gardens', Twilight in Italy, in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays ... p. 117.
 
[9] Ibid.
 
[10] Ibid., pp. 119-120. 
 
[11] I have discussed Walt Whitman and his fatal idealism elsewhere on Torpedo the Ark: click here.
 
[12] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Lemon Gardens', Twilight in Italy, in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays ... p. 121.
 
[13] D. H. Lawrence, 'The Reality of Peace', Reflections on the Death of a Porcupine and Other Essays ... p. 38. 
 
[14] Ibid., p. 48. 
 
 
For a related post which anticipates this one and in which I evoke the spirit of the Champawat Tiger, click here.  
 
 

2 Oct 2023

Evoking the Spirit of the Champawat Tiger

Head of the Champawat Tiger
 
Tyger Tyger, burning bright, / In the forests of the night; 
What immortal hand or eye, / Could frame thy fearful symmetry? [1]


You might think that due to the enormous size of Russia, China, and India there would still be plenty of room for the tiger in this world. But you'd be wrong. Over the last century, tigers have lost more than 93% of their historic range and have been eradicated from Western and Central Asia, the islands of Java and Bali, and large areas of Southeast Asia and China. 
 
What remains of their range is cramped and fragmented and, thanks to habitat destruction and human encroachment - not to mention poaching - the global wild tiger population is now estimated to number a pitiful 5,500 individuals, with most populations living in small isolated pockets [2].
 
So, good news then, that in the Buddhist Kingdom of Bhutan native tiger populations are currently thriving due to a concerted effort to safeguard their habitat and create so-called wildlife corridors allowing them to roam about with a degree of freedom. From subtropical jungles to subalpine forests, tigers in Bhutan seem to have been given a fighting chance. 
 
However, despite this, their long-term survival is by no means guaranteed and one must keep things in statistical context. Thus, whilst celebrating a 27% increase in Bhutan's tiger population since 2015, it's important to recall that the starting figure was only 103 adult animals, meaning there are now still only 131 tigers in Bhutan. 
 
And - surprise, surprise - local farmers worried about their precious fucking livestock are not happy even with this tiny number. 
 
And whilst our friends in China continue to believe that various tiger parts have magico-medicinal properties, the illegal killing of tigers will continue. Snared, shot, and butchered by poachers for their bones, skins, and other body parts, tigers remain big business. 
 
Just as depressing is the fact that there are now more captive-bred tigers than wild creatures; living in zoos for our entertainment and on factory farms where they are reared for slaughter and human consumption as if they were cattle rather than majestic beasts of prey. 
 
If I could, I would summon the spirit of the Champawat Tiger to come and strike fresh terror into the heart of Man and gobble up his children [3]. Shelley, for whom the tiger was a terrible problem, wouldn't like it, but, as D. H. Lawrence pointed out, we can't live life exclusively in terms of the lamb [4].
 
 
 'A tiger knows no consummation unless 
they kill a violated and struggling prey.'
 
Notes

[1] William Blake, 'The Tyger', Songs of Experience (1794): click here
      According to D. H. Lawrence, the spirit of the tiger, burning bright in the forests of the Blakean night, is "the supreme manifestation of the senses made absolute". See 'The Lemon Gardens', in Twilight in Italy and Other Essays, ed. Paul Eggert, (Cambridge University Press, 1994), p. 117.
 
[2] A century ago, that number was probably closer to 100,000. Thus, not suprisingly, the tiger is officially listed as endangered on the IUCN Red List.
 
[3] The Champawat Tiger was a beautiful Bengal tigress responsible for an estimated 436 human deaths in Nepal and the Kumaon district of India, during the late 19th century and early 20th century. Famed for her bloodlust, she is credited in the Guinness Book of World Records with preying upon more people than any other single animal. 
      Sadly, she was shot and killed in 1907 by the great white hunter Jim Corbett. However, before damning him to eternal torments in some hell ruled by felines, let us remember that Corbett eventually put down his rifle and picked up a camera, becoming an outspoken naturalist who advocated for the protection of India's wildlife, particularly its endangered big cats. In 1968, one of the five remaining subspecies of tigers was named after him: Panthera tigris corbetti
 
[4] D. H. Lawrence, 'Fenimore Cooper's Anglo-American Novels', in Studies in Classic American Literature (First Version 1918-19), ed. Ezra Greenspan, Lindeth Vasey and John Worthen, (Cambridge University Press, 2003), p. 214.  
      Lawrence goes on to say: "We must admit that only the juxtaposition of the tiger keeps the lamb a quivering, vivid, beautiful fleet thing. Take away the tiger and we get the sheep of our pasture, just clods of meat."  
 
 
 For a follow up post to this one in which I expand upon Lawrence's tiger philosophy, click here. 


21 Sept 2023

On the Flintiness of Language in D. H. Lawrence's The Daughter-in-Law

Ellie Nunn as Minnie Gascoyne in D. H. Lawrence's 
The Daughter-in-Law (Arcola Theatre, 2018)  
 Photo by Idil Sukan
 
 
Read almost any review or commentary on D. H. Lawrence's The Daughter-in-Law (1913) and you'll be struck by the repetition of the following claims: 
 
(i) the play is a much neglected and underrated tour de force of English theatre ... 
 
(ii) Lawrence is superior to Chekhov as a dramatist and storyteller ... 
 
(iii) the language used has not only great lyrical beauty, but also an elemental potency best described as flinty ...
 
The first of these points can be swiftly dealt with. For whilst it's true that Lawrence never saw this work performed in his own lifetime and that the text of The Daughter-in-Law wasn't even published until 1965, ever since Peter Gill's celebrated production at the Royal Court Theatre two years later, it has been staged - and positively received - on numerous occasions. 
 
Most recently, for example, a 2018 production at the Arcola Theatre in London, directed by Jack Gamble, was described by Michael Billington writing in The Guardian as "arguably the best account of working-class life in British drama" [1]
 
It has also been adapted for radio and filmed for television and its reputation has, as Lawrence biographer John Worthen correctly says, gone from strength to strength. So it’s really something of a myth or popular misconception that The Daughter-in-Law remains neglected and underrated: we've all seen it and we all agree; it's a masterpiece of twentieth-century English drama. But it's certainly not unsung. 
 
As for the subsequent claim that Lawrence is a superior playwright to Chekov and that The Daughter-in-Law pulls feathers from The Seagull (1895) and flattens The Cherry Orchard (1903), well, that's a matter of opinion. Lawrence himself was rather fond of the Russian author and found in his work something new and important. Personally, however, I think Chekov even more boring than Ibsen and find almost anything preferable to his sub-textual theatre of mood
 
As for the third point; the flintiness of Lawrence's dialogue, we might ask what it even means to describe language in this manner ...
 
Flint is a hard, sedimentary, cryptocrystalline form of the mineral quartz and is categorized as a variety of chert. It is chiefly found in rock such as chalk and limestone and is usually dark grey or black in colour, often having a smooth, rather waxy surface. 
 
But when critics like Charles Spencer, writing in The Telegraph, refer to the "marvellously flinty vernacular" used in The Daughter-in-Law [2], they don't mean that Luther and Minnie sound as if they belonged like Fred and Wilma to the Stone Age (although, the Midland’s mining community they inhabited is, to us, over a hundred years on, almost as alien and far-off as that of Bedrock). 
 
Rather, they mean that their speech has a down-to-earth solidity and directness
 
Further, I think they also wish to imply that the words have an elemental potency and/or some kind of primordial authenticity. This is particularly true of the almost incomprehensible words and phrases spoken in dialect which, if Lawrence is to be believed, directly articulate the body and its strange forces and flows; not so much as signifying units of meaning, but as units of sound. 
 
Thus it is that, in The Daughter-in-Law - as in the novel Son and Lovers (1913) to which it is closely related - Lawrence skilfully combines elements of naturalism, kitchen sink realism, and his own often transgressive philosophy. Like Nietzsche, he attempts to write in blood and doesn't want to be simply read, so much as passionately experienced. 
 
For whilst Lawrence often regarded the emotions as counterfeit, he always believed in and attempted to solicit the genuine feelings of those who bothered to engage with his work. And, like Heidegger, Lawrence seemed to think it was his duty to safeguard the power of the most elementary words. For, just like our favourite Nazi, Lawrence was prone to a form of linguistic mysticism in which certain words and phonemes have greater essential value than others. 
 
Such a belief is deeply rooted in the Judeo-Christian tradition, which posits that the earliest form of language was that spoken by Adam in the Garden of Eden. Whether this language was also used by God to address Adam and is therefore divine in origin, or whether it was invented by Adam in order to name all things, including Eve, is open to debate. Either way, this notion of a forgotten, sacred language has fascinated many occultists, poets, and philosophers, including Lawrence and Heidegger, both of whom seemed to suffer from a kind of nostalgia for a time when we didn't speak words, but, on the contrary, they spoke us. 
 
Rightly or wrongly, Lawrence seemed to imagine that via a use of dialect, regional slang, and archaic terms he might somehow tap into this language of Paradise, thereby expressing mankind's deepest feelings and highest hopes. It's not without reason that the Cambridge edition of his plays contains a fifteen page glossary of such terms. 
 
Amusingly - and controversially - by the time he came to write his final novel, Lady Chatterley’s Lover, (1926), Lawrence had added several expletives to his elementary vocabulary in order to startle us out of what he calls our mob-selves
 
Now, if I'm honest, there was a time when, like many Lawrentians, I happily bought into this idea of a flinty, obscene ur-language of the feelings inscribed in our hearts via which we might speak the truth and not merely pass the word along. Keith Sagar, for example, never abandoned his faith in words such as sluthering and slikey to be sufficiently powerful to not only charge Lawrence's dialogue with magical force, but also re-vitalise audience members. 
 
Now, however, I have certain doubts and reservations about this - although, fortunately, these doubts and reservations needn't get in the way of one's enjoyment of The Daughter-in-Law as a rip-roaring piece of theatre [3].
 
 
Notes
 
[1] Michael Billington, 'The Daughter-in-Law review - is this the best British working-class drama?', The Guardian (29 May 2018): click here to read online. 
 
[2] Charles Spencer, writing in a piece for The Telegraph in September 2006, after watching a performance of The Daughter-in-Law (dir. Kirstie Davis) at the Watford Palace Theatre. Spencer went on to argue that Lawrence was, in fact, a far finer playwright than novelist (or, at any rate, that his plays have lasted rather better than his novels). 
 
[3] This post is an edited version of a review of the opening night performance of The Daughter-in-Law, directed by Kirstie Davis, at the GBS Theatre, Royal Academy of Dramatic Art, London, on 5 Feb, 2014, and featuring five final year students: Eliza Butterworth as Mrs. Gascoigne; Tom Varey as Joe; Anna Krippa as Mrs. Purdy; Lianne Harvey as Minnie; and Joe Blakemore as Luther - all of whom were excellent.
      Indeed, for such young actors, they seemed more than capable of rising to the challenge of the often complex and intense nature of the play's sexual politics and class concerns and even managed to make what are not particularly likeable characters seem sympathetic. That's the magic, I suppose, of having youth, beauty, and talent on your side.
      Finally, mention should also be made of Isobel Power Smith for her set and costume design; Peter Small (lighting design); Harry Butcher (sound); and dialect coach Helen Ashton - although I couldn't really tell (and didn't really care) how authentic the East Midland's accents were on the night.       


14 Sept 2023

Was D. H. Lawrence a Primitive Communist?

Top: Quetzalcoatl by Hunt Emerson in Dawn of the Unread (Issue 7)
Bottom: Communist red flag with classic hammer and sickle design
 
 
I.

The concept of primitive communism is often credited to Marx and Engels and advances the idea that hunter-gatherer societies were traditionally based on egalitarian social relations and the common ownership of resources, distributed in accordance with individual needs. 
 
It seems that Marx and Engels took the notion from the pioneering anthropologist Lewis H. Morgan - best known for his work on kinship and social structure amongst the native peoples of North America (particularly the Haudenosaunee) - although it might be argued that the idea of primitive communism can also be traced back to Rousseau and his celebration of the noble savage.    
 
Wherever they picked up the idea, it obviously excited the imagination of Marx and Engels and they developed it broadly, applying it, for example, not only to wild hunter-gatherer societies and indigenous peoples, but to barbarian societies formed by the ancient Germanic tribes beyond the borders of the Roman Empire.
 
Marxist scholars and theorists - perhaps embarrassed by the romanticism of all this - attempted to downplay the significance of primitive communism in the work of their idols [1]
 
However, the madmen of the Khmer Rouge, looking to build on the revolutionary fantasies of Marx and Mao, really ran with the idea. Indeed, the party's General Secretary was so impressed with the self-sufficient manner in which the mountain tribes of Cambodia lived that he relocated the urban population to the countryside and forced it to work on collective farms. This resulted in approximately a quarter of Cambodia's population dying from malnutrition and disease, but at least he gave it a go.   
 
Still, never mind Pol Pot - what about D. H. Lawrence? Was he too someone seduced by the fantasy of primitive communism?

 
II. 
 
According to John Pateman, The Plumed Serpent can be read as an allegorical work that isn't so much concerned with ancient Aztec gods as promoting a political vision of a possible future Mexico based upon a model of primitive communism. 
 
For Like Marx, argues Pateman, Lawrence was interested in how human development might involve a radical return to pre-modern social relations. Thus, the hymns which Lawrence writes for his fictional neo-pagan religious movement should be heard as a revolutionary call to action, comparable to The Communist Manifesto (1848).
 
I have to say, I think there are problems with this reading of Lawrence's novel. And, push comes to shove, I'm with the German hotel manager who describes Ramón's Quetzalcoatl movement as another form of national socialism - not primitive communism [2].  
 
However, as I don't have advance access to the paper that Pateman is due to present to the D. H. Lawrence Society next month, I shall refrain from offering any criticisms here and now. Instead, let me just remind readers of my own readings of The Plumed Serpent, which can be found in several posts, including here, here, and here
 
In sum: The Plumed Serpent is - for me at least - Lawrence's rather frantic attempt to create what Deleuze and Guattari would call neo-territorialities based upon old fragments of code and the invention of new forms of jargon and myth [3]
 
Unfortunately, such neo-territorialities are, at best, artificial and archaic and, at worst, fascistic and malignant. As Kate's dead husband once told her: "Evil is lapsing back to old life-modes that have been surpassed in us." [4]  
 
 
Notes
 
[1] There was very little research into primitive communism among Marxist scholars and would-be revolutionaries beyond the 1844 study by Engels until the 20th century when some, like Rosa Luxemburg and the anarchist Peter Kropotkin, took up the idea and developed it. 
      Non-Marxist scholars of pre- and early-history did not take the term seriously, although it was occasionally examined if only then to be swiftly dismissed; for it soon became clear that Morgan's work was flawed (to say the least). 
      Today, there are still those who insist that we could learn much from (matriarchal) societies that practice economic cooperation and communal ownership, but they rarely (if ever) use the term primitive communism. For such thinkers, it is the dominant culture's bias against any alternative to capitalism (and the patriarchy) that is the problem - and if it hadn't been for Western colonialism and imperialism, we'd still find many peoples living happily and peacefully in a non-alienated manner.   
 
[2] See D. H. Lawrence, The Plumed Serpent, ed. L. D. Clark, (Cambridge University Press, 1987), p. 103. 
      It's interesting to recall that Kate, the middle-aged Irishwoman at the centre of the novel, refuses to accept this estimation of Ramón and his followers; for her, they were real men who wanted something more than modern pettiness: "She would believe in them. Anything, anything rather than this sterility of nothingness which was the world, and into which her life was drifting", writes Lawrence. But this, surely, is one of the great dangers of nihilism (and helps explain the attraction of fascism); one searches desperately for something or someone to cling on to. Even the most dangerous political invalids and the most fanatic of religious lunatics can suddenly seem attractive and find their ideas taken seriously - something that Nietzsche explicitly warns of.   
 
[3] See Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, Anti-Oedipus, trans. Robert Hurley, Mark Seem, and Helen R. Lane, (The Athlone Press, 1994), p. 257.
      Of course, it wasn't just Lawrence who oscillated from one pole of delirium to another and it's not just fascist society that works in this way. For as Deleuze and Guattari go on to point out, liberal capitalist societies - born of "decoding and deterritorialization, on the ruins of the despotic machine" - are also "caught between the Urstaat that they would like to resuscitate as an overcoding and reterritoriaizing unity, and the unfettered flows that carry them toward an absolute threshold." [260]
      In other words: "They are torn in two directions: archaism and futurism, neo-archaism and ex-futurism, paranoia and schizophrenia [...] They are continually behind or ahead of themselves." [260]
      Having said that, sometimes  an unexpected force of radical change can erupt "even in the midst of the worst archaisms" [277], whilst, on the other hand, a revolutionary line of flight can quickly lead into a black hole of some kind. Thus, we can never say in advance with absolute certainty where a literary experiment or political revolution might take us.    
 
[4] D. H. Lawrence, The Plumed Serpent, p. 137.
      In a sense, this was also Lawrence's conclusion: you can't go back or cluster at the drum. See 'Indians and an Englishman', in Mornings in Mexico and Other Essays, ed. Virginia Crosswhite Hyde, (Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 119-120. 
 
 
Musical bonus: Killing Joke, 'Primitive', from the debut studio album Killing Joke (E. G. Records, 1980): click here for the remastered version (2005).    
  

11 Sept 2023

On the Manufacture of Good Little Boys (The D. H. Lawrence Birthday Post 2023)

Arthur Fleck as played by Joaquin Phoenix in Joker (2019) 
Click here for the relevant scene on YouTube.
 

In one of his late articles, D. H. Lawrence - who was born on this day in 1885 - complained of the manner in which modern men - himself included - have been enslaved by civilisation to the detriment of their own instinctive feelings and individuality:
 
"Little boys are trundled off to school at the age of five, and immediately the game begins, the game of enslaving the small chap." [a]
 
Mostly, Lawrence blames this on women; mothers and schoolma'ams and old maids, who know nothing about manhood and suspect that the latter is something "uncalled-for and unpleasant" [156]
 
On the very first day in class, young Johnny is told he must sit still "'like all the other good little boys'" [157], even though this is the last thing on earth that he wants to do: "At the bottom of his heart, he doesn't in the least want to be a good little boy ..." [157].       
 
The entire education system, says Lawrence is established to manufacture obedient little boys:
 
"School is a very elaborate railway-system where good little boys are taught to run upon good lines till they are shunted off into life, at the age of fourteen, sixteen or whatever it is. And by that age the running-on-lines habit is absolutely fixed. [...] And it is so easy, running on rails, he never realises that he is a slave to the rails he runs on. Good boy!" [157]  
 
"But to be a good little boy like all the other good little boys is to be at last a slave, or at least an automaton, running on wheels. It means that dear little Johnny is going to have all his own individual manhood nipped out of him, carefully plucked out, every time it shows a little peep." [157]
 
Some describe this as the civilising of the wild young boy. But Lawrence insists it's a "subtle, loving form of mutilation" [157] and bullying. And goodness ultimately just means conforming to a universal morality and being like everybody else without any feelings or ideas to call your own.
 
So what, then, is Lawrence suggesting here? 
 
He says that "nobody wants Johnny to be a bad little boy" [158]. But, having said that, I can't help suspecting that he would sympathise with someone like Arthur Fleck [b] who, after years and years, of being expected to sit and take endless bullshit from the po-faced finger-wagging moralists who have control over his life, finally snaps and starts to werewolf and go wild ... 
 
    
Notes

[a] D. H. Lawrence, 'Enslaved by Civilisation', in Late Essays and Articles, ed. James T. Boulton, (Cambridge University Press, 2004), p. 156. Future page references to this work will be given directly in the text.
      What is remarkable about this short text is that it anticipates Freud's famous work of 1930 - Das Unbehagen in der Kultur - translated into English as Civilization and Its Discontents. 
      In this pessimistic work, Freud theorised the fundamental tension between civilisation and the individual; the latter desiring instinctive freedom, whilst the former requires conformity to the law and the repression of natural (often violent) instincts. 
      Unlike Lawrence, Freud thinks the non-satisfaction of man's most powerful instincts is not only necessary, but positively a good thing; that man is much better off tamed in the name of Love than allowed to give free expression to those primitive feelings and dangerous passions derived from and representative of the (so-called) death drive. The suffering and distress caused by this loss of instinctive freedom is ultimately a price worth paying as it secures the advance of civilisation. 
 
[b] Arthur Fleck is the aspiring stand-up comic and professional clown protagonist played by Joaquin Phoenix in the 2019 film Joker (dir. Todd Phillips). Fleck’s tale demonstrates what happens when negative thoughts and feelings are not tolerated. The individual, denied the opportunity to express suffering in a legitimate form, either self-harms or goes on a killing spree. In other words, psychic disturbances and psychotic behaviour can often be traced back to an excess of positivity.  
 

9 Sept 2023

In Defence of Isis Veiled: What a Practice of Occultism Might Mean in an Age of Transparency

Cover art for the Treadwell's Paper 
Occultism in the Age of Transparency (2023)
by Stephen Alexander (shadowy version)
 
 
This post is a slightly revised extract from a paper presented at Treadwell's Bookshop, on 7 September, 2023. The event was graciously hosted, as ever, by Christina Harrington, and marked my return to the store as a speaker after an absence of eleven years [1]
 
 
**************************************************
 
 
The Veil of Isis is a metaphorical and artistic motif in which nature is personified as a goddess, covered by a veil or mantle representing the inaccessibility of her secrets [2]
 
Illustrations of Isis with her veil being lifted were extremely popular from the late 17th to the early-mid 19th century and were usually intended to show the triumph of Reason. However, even occultists were happy to play this game of indecent exposure; Madame Blavatsky, for example, used the metaphor of Isis unveiled when expounding the spiritual teachings of Theosophy [3]
 
According to Blavatsky, whilst scientists and philosophers revealed only material facts and superficial forms, she would penetrate further to the most hidden truths. That, to me at least, is a shameful ambition.
 
And I don't much like it either when practitioners of modern ceremonial magic also attempt to unveil Isis, or command demons hidden in darkness to make themselves apparent and obedient to the will of the one who has summoned them forth. 
 
For me, occultism - particularly in this, the age of transparency - should be a defence of concealment and anonymity, not making visible and naming those beings who stand dark on the threshold of the Unknown. 
 
I don’t want to violently drag everything out into the open - least of all some poor demon - so it can be subject to our x-ray vision. For even gods and demons die when they shed all negativity (all shadow, all darkness). That’s why Goethe’s Faust encouraged us to hold tight to the veil of Isis, even if we can never embrace the goddess, or catch anything other than a glimpse of her [4]
 
Occultism is ultimately not about revelation, but mystical initiation. And this involves closing your eyes and shutting your mouth; for it's an attempt to maintain the silence and stillness. Thus, when casting a spell, for example, whisper it in a voice that is lighter than breath. For magic, like poetry, is an event of stillness (i.e., a phenomenon of negativity) that enables us to listen to the silence (to be attentive to the darkness). 
 
In other words, magic is about tuning in to intensities; about forming a sensitive relationship with the world "that is not characterized by representation (that is, by ideas or meaning) but by immediate touching and presence" [5]. Only in silent stillness "do we enter into a relation with the nameless, which exceeds us" [6].
 
Silence, stillness, secrecy, and shadows are the fourfold of terms at the heart of occultism. 
 
And I would suggest to any would-be wiccans or neo-pagans here this evening that, instead of trying to move with the times and making secret rituals open to everyone, you stay concealed, hidden, and withdrawn. 
 
And, above all, stay still: for just as we can only ever catch a glimpse of the gods, they can only cast their gaze upon those who "linger in contemplative calmness" [7]
 
In sum: occult practices and magical rituals are symbolic techniques of becoming-imperceptible [8] and I’m hoping, that via a form of occultism, we might learn how to stage our own disappearance and darken the world, giving it back its shadows, its secrecy, and its silence. 
 
For whilst people talk a lot about plastic in the seas and worry about their so-called carbon footprint, I would suggest that light pollution and noise pollution are far more threatening to our ontological wellbeing. 
 
 

Photo by Paul Gorman 
(as posted on Instagram)
 
 
Notes
 
[1] Readers can find a full list of previous Treadwell's papers by clicking here.
 
[2] The motif was based on a statue of Isis located in the ancient Egyptian city of Sais, which was said to have an inscription reading: I am all that has been and is and shall be; and no mortal has ever lifted my mantle - which admittedly sounds like a challenge. For an interesting philosophical study of this topic, see Pierre Hadot, The Veil of Isis (Harvard University Press, 2008). 
      Taking the allegorical figure of the veiled goddess Isis as a guide, and drawing on the work of both ancient and modern thinkers (the latter including Goethe, Rilke, Wittgenstein, and Heidegger), Hadot traces successive interpretations of a cryptic phrase which has long intrigued the Western imagination and is attributed to Heraclitus: Phusis kruptesthai philei (Nature loves to hide). 
      Hadot concludes that there are essentially two (contradictory) approaches to nature: the Promethean, or experimental-questing, approach, which embraces technology as a means of tearing the veil from Nature and revealing her secrets; and the Orphic, or contemplative-poetic, approach, according to which such a denuding of Nature is a grave trespass. 
 
[3] Blavatsky’s most famous work - Isis Unveiled:A Master-Key to the Mysteries of Ancient and Modern Science and Theology - was published in 1877. For some, a seminal text; for others, a work largely plagiarised from the writings of other occult authors. 
 
[4] Whilst most people understand a glimpse simply to mean a brief or partial view - to catch a quick look, perhaps in passing, of something or someone - it has a more poetic and philosophical resonance for those with ears to hear. D. H. Lawrence, for example, was fascinated by the word and often used it in his late poetry to describe how aspects of divinity are seen in the faces and forms of people when they are momentarily unaware of themselves. It's this glimmer of godhood which gives human beings their more-than-human beauty; which makes the flesh gleam with radiance or the bright flame of being. See the related group of verses on pp. 579-582 of The Poems, ed. Christopher Pollnitz, (Cambridge University Press, 2013). 
      Heidegger also privileged the word Blick, which I would translate as glimpse. For Heidegger, a glimpse is a kind of lightning flash which provides an insight into that which is, whilst, at the same time, guarding the hidden darkness of what remains forever withdrawn. See 'The Turn', from the 1949 Bremen Lecture series Insight Into That Which Is, trans. Andrew J. Mitchell, (Indiana University Press, 2012), pp. 64-73.
 
[5] Byung-Chul Han, 'Stillness', in Non-things, trans. Daniel Steuer, (Polity Press, 2022), p. 77. 
 
[6] Byung-Chul Han, 'The Magic of Things', Non-things, pp. 56-57. 
 
[7] Byung-Chul Han, 'Stillness', Non-things, p. 83.
 
[8] See Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari, A Thousand Plateaus, trans. Brian Massumi, (The Athlone Press, 1996). According to the above, there is one becoming towards which all other becomings rush, marking the immanent end of becoming and providing the process with its cosmic formula; the becoming-imperceptible (279). 
 
 
Readers who are interested might also like to see two earlier posts that acted as previews to the talk at Treadwell's: 
 
'In Memory of Anne Dufourmantelle: Risk Taker Extraordinaire and Defender of Secrets' (14 May 2023): click here 
 
'On Georg Simmel's Sociology of Secrecy and Secret Societies' (10 August 2023): click here
 
 

1 Sept 2023

Memories of Killing Joke (1984 - 1987)

Killing Joke in their mid-80s splendour
(L-R: Geordie Walker / Paul Raven / Jaz Coleman / Paul Ferguson) 

 
A correspondent writes: 

I got the impression from a recent post [1] that you were something of a Killing Joke fan back in the mid-1980s and I was hoping you might expand on this - did you, for example, ever see them live in this period, when, in my view, they were at their very best? 
 
Well, as a matter of fact, I did see them live on at least three occasions; as attested to by the following entries in the Von Hell Diaries (1980-89) ...
   
 
Sunday 1 Jan 1984

Hammersmith Palais: felt a bit like a hippie event with people sitting on the floor. Having said that, there were some fantastic looking individuals amongst the assembled freaks and morons. The support band were the March Violets: who were shit. An inferior Sisters of Mercy (who are also shit, by the way). Is there something in the water in Leeds?
      There was also a young male stripper prior to Killing Joke making their entrance on to the stage. All the punks began to pogo as if on cue (to the latter, not the former). To be honest, the set got a bit dull half-way through; I suspect that all gigs are at their best in the first ten minutes with the initial release of energy. 
      Mostly, the group played old songs and I was a bit miffed that they didn't play any of my favourite tracks from Fire Dances (although they did do a rousing version of 'The Gathering' as an encore). Jaz Coleman [2] is a captivating performer. The rest of the band are essentially just solid musicians (albeit ones who look the part and know how to create a magnificent noise). 
 
 
Sunday 3 February 1985
 
Off with Andy [3] to see Killing Joke at the Hammersmith Palais once again ...
      Lots of punks out and about on the streets of West London - and lots of police to keep 'em in line. Felt like a mug having to queue up for tickets. Met Kirk [4] inside as arranged, though he fucked off to watch the show from the balcony with some video director friend of his. A couple of support bands: Heist and Pale Fountains; neither of whom were much cop. Killing Joke came on to all the usual fanfare - and Gary Glitter's 'Leader of the Gang'. 
      The set was made up of tracks from the new album - Night Time - and the first two albums (nothing from Revelations or Fire Dances). Became separated from Andy and made my way to the front. Got so hot that I seriously thought I was going to spontaneously combust (though probably sweating too much for that). Brilliant night: almost tempted to describe it as a (neo-pagan) religious experience - song, dance, and Dionysian frenzy. Even Andy enjoyed it (I think).   
 
 
Sunday 28 September 1986
 
Back to the Hammersmith Palais for what seems to be becoming an annual event in the company of Killing Joke. Not a bad show, but nowhere near as good as last year. It also felt like a much shorter set; one which opened with 'Twilight of the Mortal' and closed with 'Wardance'.  
      Most - if not all - of the songs were from the first, fifth and (yet to be released) sixth album. The new tracks sounded great - and Jazz looked amusingly grotesque as he blew kisses to his brothers and sisters - but the performance never really took off. And so, I went home feeling a little disappointed.      
 
 
Finally, it might also interest my correspondent (and other readers) to know that I once met Jaz Coleman, at Abbey Road Studios:
 
 
Friday 7 August 1987
 
Lee Ellen [5] rang this morning: she said if I got over to Virgin by 1 o'clock, then she'd take me with her to the studio where Killing Joke were recording and introduce me to Jaz Coleman (having reassured him that I wasn't some lunatic fan). 
      Jaz was much smaller in person than expected and had strangely feminine hands, with long, slim fingers. He also dressed in a disconcertingly conventional manner. Geordie, the good-looking guitarist, was there, but the rest of the band, apparently, had been fired.
      Jaz played tapes of the new material (just the music - no vocals); sounded good (quasi-symphonic). He said the new album would be called Outside the Gate - which is a great title [6] - and that it would bring the Killing Joke project to perfection. After completing it, he planned to emigrate to New Zealand. 
      Mr. Coleman also took great pride in showing me parts of a book he'd been working on for eight years and we talked, very briefly, about D. H. Lawrence's Apocalypse (which he liked) and Yeats's Vision (which he didn't like). 
      Before leaving, Jaz expressed his desire to converse at greater length one day and I very much look forward to that (should such a day ever in fact arrive) [7].   

 
Notes
 
[1] I'm guessing the post referred to was 'Musical Memories' (30 Aug 2023): click here - although I do mention Jaz Coleman and Killing Joke in several other posts on Torpedo the Ark. 
 
[2] Jaz Coleman; lead singer with post-punk British band Killing Joke.
 
[3] Andy Greenfield; friend and, at this time, a Ph.D student at St Mary's Hospital, Paddington.
 
[4] Kirk Field; friend and, at this time, lead singer and lyricist with the band Delicious Poison. 
 
[5] Lee Ellen Newman; friend and, at this time, Deputy Head of Press at Virgin.  
 
[6] In fact, I thought this was such a great title that I later borrowed it for my Ph.D - although the phrase outside the gate can be found in Nietzsche and D. H. Lawrence, and is also often used in occult circles.
 
[7] It hasn't so far. 
 
 
Although there were bootleg audio recordings made of all three gigs discussed above and these are now available on YouTube, they are of such poor quality that they don't give a fair representation of just how good a live band Killing Joke were (and to diehard fans still are). Readers are therefore invited to click here to watch a performance recorded live in Munich, at the Alalabamahalle, on 25 March 1985, for broadcast on German TV.