Book of Mercy #20-24

Debate on Leonard Cohen's poetry (and novels), both published and unpublished. Song lyrics may also be discussed here.
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Manna »

I.20

Like an unborn infant swimming to be born, like a woman counting breath in the spasms of labour, I yearn for you. Like a fish pulled to the minnow, the angler to the point of line and water, I am fixed in a strict demand, O king of absolute unity. What must I do to sweeten this expectancy, to rescue hope from the scorn of my enemy? The child is born into your world, the fish is fed and the fisherman too. Bathsheba lies with David, apes come down from the Tower of Babel, but in my heart an ape sees the beauty bathing. From every side of Hell is my greed affirmed. O shield of Abraham, affirm my hopefulness.
David is revered for lots of things, but when he saw her bathing from the roof it was the situation of a man seeing another man's wife naked. He went about getting her in the way an ape would. He was powerful enough to do such things to get the beauty he desired, and he displeased the Lord.
wiki wrote: "The Midrash portrays the influence of Satan bringing about the sinful relation of David and Bathsheba as follows: Bathsheba was on the roof of her house, perhaps behind a screen of wickerwork. Satan is depicted as coming in the disguise of a bird. David, shoots at it, strikes the screen, splitting it; thus Bathsheba is revealed in her beauty to David (Sanhedrin 107a). Bathsheba may have been providentially destined from the Creation to become in due time the legitimate wife of David, but this relation was prematurely precipitated by David's impetuous act."
There are apes and there are gods, and people are somewhere in between – apes with angel glands? It may have been that if a young David had simply delivered the food to his soldier brothers, then returned to his sheep with no blood on his hands that fateful day, maybe he wouldn’t have had to go roaming the whole desert trying to avoid Saul. Maybe things could have been better for him.

Supposedly, God didn’t even want Israel to have kings. It was something the people wanted and made happen. Maybe doing things that landed him in the throne were other sins of David’s, and sins of those who helped put him there. I don’t know if we can learn from others’ mistakes. I generally hold that I learn best when I screw up myself, but that isn’t necessarily true either. I think I learn best when I think about things. So it may be possible to learn from others’ mistakes. Maybe the Bible is full of heroes who screwed up in ways to educate us.

We seem to be going backward in time in this sprayer. First the child is born, then Bathsheba lies with David, then the ape sees the bathing beauty. It may be that God has a plan for us, and that if we allow ourselves to be guided and to live in a way that avoids sin, then those plans will actualize. But the world also acts on us, and it’s difficult to know which way we’re supposed to go. If David had not flung a stone at Goliath, maybe his brothers would have been killed. What suffering would have been worse for David, the slaying of his brothers, the death of his child? And who suffered for the death of Uriah? Would David have become that military pugilist? Maybe he would have done better to be a diplomat.

And since he was a war-guy, and since he did cleverly evade Saul all over the desert, and since he did become king, did he still have to drool from his rooftop? Maybe David could have talked to Uriah. Uriah didn’t want to leave his fellow servicemen and go home for a romp with his wife. What does this tell us about Uriah? Maybe that Uriah was faithful to the mores of combat, or maybe that he wasn’t in love with Bathsheba. Of course, I don’t know. Once Bathsheba was pregnant, David talked to Uriah, he said, “Please, go home and bang your wife.” and Uriah said, “Why me? Naw, man, I’m cool on the lines with the guys.” He said this to his king.

I don't know if they were meant to be together, and no one will ever know if they would have gotten together some other painless way. But the potential for lots of things was there.

We always think we have some kind of control, and when we exercise that control, we’re liable mess it all up. Then we have to go through the pain of trying to get things back on track. But how are we supposed to know when we're doing what we should and when we're taking control and making decisions we shouldn't? Looking back, David might have said, "Dang it, you know, if only I'd stayed with Dad’s sheep, I would have met Bathsheba and married her as a young man and lived happily ever after." But at the time when he decided to go help his brothers and ended up killing Goliath, it was because it seemed like helping his brothers was the best thing he could have done. But, you know, maybe God had some other plan in the works for smoking Goliath. Samuel had been around to anoint David by then, so little Davey knew that God was with him, and maybe that put some boldness in his heart. If going after Goliath was his first mistake, how was he supposed to know? This is the kind of problem I tend to run into with a personified God.

He says "In my heart an ape sees the beauty bathing," and he says this after referring to David lying with Bathsheba. Maybe this shows us how he looks back on the experience, now able to see that ape his heart, lusting after all that smooth skin and graceful movement that is femininity. An ape that looked on in want at the way she moved her hands over her skin, put her elbow over the edge of the tub and relaxed so her head rolled back a little, her neck showing in that bluish-yellow moonlight. Look, now look at the way she raises herself from the concealment of the tub. There’s a towel on the floor, and she bends to reach for it. Are you apes all drooling yet?

In Leonard’s BoM he seems to be turning back time. The Lord really does care for music; David was singing all the time in the Psalms. That pesky evil spirit that God put into Saul even liked music. Go back, go back. Be that boy with the harp, go back. Be the one who had never killed, never cheated, never stole.

If David had had the story of David to read, if he could turn back time, would he have stayed in the fields with his sheep and harp? Would he have been content to play delivery-boy to his brothers in battle? Would Goliath suddenly have suffered a heart-attack at the hand of God? Maybe the Lord does care for music, but man cares for power. And when he uses his power, he doesn’t have the power to undo his mistakes.

Wasn’t there earlier mention of “The one who found David in Hell?” Maybe turning back time is a way out of Hell.
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Manna »

Psalm 51 pertains to David's adultery. It doesn't quite go exactly like this.

You desire truth in the inmost places, and you taught me wisdom from when I was in the womb. My sin is before me, and it is against You alone that I have sinned. Put it out of your sight and make me whole again. The sacrifice to God is not a burnt offering, or I would offer one. Rather it is a broken spirit, a broken and contrite heart. Let the bones you have crushed rejoice. Renew a steadfast spirit within me; do not take your Holy Spirit from me; grant me a willing spirit to sustain me.

Maybe breaking is another way out.
DBCohen
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by DBCohen »

Manna,
Thanks for your contribution. Let me just point out again the amazing fact that the story of David’s adultery, and worse, murder, is actually told in the Bible and not suppressed. In spite of the fact that perhaps the main aim of the books of Samuel and Kings is to establish David and his house as the only legitimate monarchs of Israel, the writer looks the ugly reality square in the face without flinching. Apparently, for later Jewish sages this was too much, and they tried to invent all kinds of lame excuses for David, but it doesn’t work. LC is another one who looks reality in the face without fear, as we can see very clearly in this book, as well as in the rest of his work.
lazariuk
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lazariuk »

Manna wrote:In Leonard’s BoM he seems to be turning back time.
Hi Manna

This turning back time seems very valid.
Like a baby stillborn
Like an unborn infant swimming to be born
Bathsheba lies with David
but in my heart an ape sees the beauty bathing

In another place Leonard writes "I see the future and brother it is murder"

If you see something it means that there is the observer and the observed and so that follows well on your observation of wondering if David would have acted like David if he was able to consider David's story and the idea that maybe we can learn from other's mistakes.

And you do so well at going further back and considering David before he decided to fight with Goliath but then you consider :
maybe God had some other plan in the works for smoking Goliath.
What do you have against Goliath that you think he should be smoked?

Who was Goliath other than a strongman? What do we know about him? Did he have a wife, children, mother and father? Did he love God?

If we are going back with David I think we can take a pointer from leonard when he wrote:
She broke your throne and she cut your Hair.
With "she cut your hair" he is pointing to the Jew's own strongman: Samson, and we know a little bit about Samson.

It was after the experience with Samson that the Jews started clamoring for a king (the intended king of the Jews was God).

The story of Samson also contains some interesting encounters with women. Going back as far as the story is told about Samson we find him in love with a Philistine woman whose name is never even told.

Maybe we don't need Goliath's story because we have the story of Samson. What are we to make of his story if we consider the possibility that his first wife was the true love of his life?

Warning ! Warning! Warning!
Cognitive shift ahead
Beware of mental whiplash
[/size]

A few years ago I went through an experience that led to a considerable amount of physical pain. One day in the midst of the the pain a thought came to me. I considered that if we lived in a world where pain was finite and the fact that I was experiencing pain meant that everyone else had that much less pain to experince then it would mean the pain was just pain and it wouldn't be suffering. It would make everything OK. The fact is though that it doesn't seem to be that way and we cetainly are not born with an operating manual saying that things are so. Still the thought lingered until I thought that maybe it is our option to make it so, to figure out a way that the fact that we experience pain can lead to others experiencing less and that was a sweet thought.
Manna you have me thinking about that again when you consider that maybe the story of David is primarily a story of showing others the direction that we shouldn't take. We experience less pain because he made us aware of his. It might be worth considering that Leonard is doing the same.
Last edited by lazariuk on Sun Jul 08, 2007 2:16 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Everything being said to you is true; Imagine of what it is true.
Christine
Posts: 271
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 8:30 am

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Christine »

Like an unborn infant swimming to be born, like a woman counting breath in the spasms of labour, I yearn for you. Like a fish pulled to the minnow, the angler to the point of line and water, I am fixed in a strict demand,
There's so much intertwining of everything here - it's absolutely fascinating to me. First I wanted to say how it struck me that these words are so like 42.1 that they're almost interchangeable (thanks for sending me there, DB). Like the deer panting for the water brooks, like a fish pulled to the minnow.....
Psalm 42: To the chief Musician, Maschil, for the sons of Korah.
1 As the deer panteth after the water brooks, so panteth my soul after thee, O God.

2 My soul thirsteth for God, for the living God: when shall I come and appear before God?

3 My tears have been my meat day and night, while they continually say unto me, Where is thy God?

9 I will say unto God my rock, Why hast thou forgotten me? why go I mourning because of the oppression of the enemy?

10 As with a sword in my bones, mine enemies reproach me; while they say daily unto me, Where is thy God?

11 Why art thou cast down, O my soul? and why art thou disquieted within me? hope thou in God: for I shall yet praise him, who is the health of my countenance, and my God.
DB, if in 1.19 the main issue was language, then I think I am beginning to understand this pairing with 1.20. Especially because of 1.19's "You drew the tears back to my eyes" (1.19)... and 42.3's "my tears.... continually say unto me, Where is thy God?" I found you again, God, and my tears were placed back in my eyes.

I understand much of P42 to be about spiritual disquiet or questioning, amplified by the "scorn of my enemies" -- Where is thy God? So how do I "sweeten this expectancy" -- how do I find my God and elevate my carnal desire to a more spiritual love? That's how my little pea brain wrapped it anyway. And maybe since it's rumored that David suffered from depression, Leonard felt a close connection to him, especially since they both struggled with their sexual natures.

This psalm's also interesting to me since you bring up Goliath, Manna. And David took 5 stones from the "brook"...... while the deer was panting for the water from it. So is everything so very connected? Like your thoughts on your pain, Lazariuk? I'm glad you're better and thanks for the whiplash (it woke me up). I can remember being about 14 and it was a beautiful day and I was walking home from school and feeling (not thinking) that I am part of this whole, I am part of everything. What happens here is felt or changed there, like your pain. One of those big moments, you know?

And finally a (bubbling brook) Babel explanation that really makes sense to me, DB, thank you. I'm a firm believer in diversity, in all aspects of life. So it's difficult for me to truly understand that it scares some or leads to prejudice.

Speaking of Babel, it was almost one of the 7 (ancient) Wonders of the World.... archaeologists believe they found the foundation of the tower. Right down the road from those fabulous Hanging Gardens.

http://www.unmuseum.org/babel.htm

Have a lovely Sunday, everyone.
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Manna »

:lol: Well, man, stick another star on my dispreachment chart.
Goliath had never seemed like a real person to me. He was an uncharacterized fictional-ish character. I don't have anything against him, aside from his being a braggart and probably a killer himself. I don't feel a need to go around killing all the braggarts I meet, neither all the killers. But, since it was the only story I'd ever heard, I had always gone along with the story that Goliath was a bad guy, and that God had something against him, and that David did the right thing by popping his head open. This was easy to do since Goliath never seemed real. It would have been something if David has used his alliance with God to unite.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lizzytysh »

The most and the best I can say here is how enriching it is when people gather and bring their differing perspectives in their views of a single, albeit a complex, 'unit.' Seeing all the directions this has led is fascinating. To think that Leonard has managed to condense all of these possibilities and probabilities into those relatively few lines 8) . I love what I'm reading from you, Manna, and from Christine, adding to what Doron and Mat write.

Now, I'm going to go off on my own tangent with some thoughts I've had about this. I likely won't make it all the way through the verse, but hopefully [unlike that which you sent into the ethos, Christine :) , which I fully understand when it comes to analyzing Leonard's work :wink: ], I'll click Submit before I make it to Delete. Please forgive any redundancies in what I'm saying with what's already been said or covered by others. This is my own, humble [and, believe me, I do mean humble] contribution to this discussion, with a few thoughts. Please forgive my own repetitiveness and redundancies.

One of the things I noticed about Leonard's analogies here:
I.20

Like an unborn infant swimming to be born, like a woman counting breath in the spasms of labour, I yearn for you. Like a fish pulled to the minnow, the angler to the point of line and water, I am fixed in a strict demand, O king of absolute unity. What must I do to sweeten this expectancy, to rescue hope from the scorn of my enemy? The child is born into your world, the fish is fed and the fisherman too. Bathsheba lies with David, apes come down from the Tower of Babel, but in my heart an ape sees the beauty bathing. From every side of Hell is my greed affirmed. O shield of Abraham, affirm my hopefulness.
... is that Leonard seems to be stressing and emphasizing the naturalness of the [his] longing and yearning for that which brings [him] life. Yet, these are interspersed with the conscious thought processes that accompany these life-giving activities.

His longing and yearning are occurring simultaneously on two levels... conscious, as well as unconscious and intuitive. He seems to be focusing on instinct[s] and including the seeking for G~d as one of them, at the same time that he is hoping for the validation of ['permission for'], perhaps, a lesser one... yet, one that leads to the birthing process, so one that has a value, too. It seems he doesn't want to be considered by G~d as an ape... and he wants true union with the ultimate, life-giving entity. The nature of this life would be the ultimate both physically and spiritually. He seems to be saying he is doing everything he can to get there, with both his sub-conscious, instinctual drive, and consciously, through study and meditation and focus and whatever else... yet, he feels deterred and blocked by other instincts and by the discouragement of his enemies.

An unborn infant doesn't need to be given directions. The infant 'knows' which way to go down the birth canal toward the outside world and the fullness of 'official' life. The woman is immersed in the birth process with her labour, yet has learned to count and is doing so consciously, in her quest for a more successful birthing of her child... less pain and greater ease... to bring her child into life.

A fish is pulled to the minnow as naturally as gravity [a force he mentioned awhile back]. The fish is drawn to that which will bring life and the seeking occurs without conscious thought. At the same time, the fish which in turn serves as food for the angler [I like that Leonard chose an asexual term here, with angler being man or woman], is caught via the fishing process which does involve conscious thought... selection of the bait and best fishing spot, the throwing of the line, the proper technique for landing the fish, and so on. Still, not every unborn infant makes it out of the birth canal successfully; not every birth is a success, no matter how the mother may help; not every fish catches the minnow; nor every angler the fish; still none of them stop trying.

Even though there exists variables within each of these what they all have in common is seeking and obtaining that which brings and sustains life... and they do it both unconsciously and consciously. So, it seems to me, Leonard is locked into this same process with G~d. He can't stop his natural seeking, nor can he stop his thinking about what he's doing and how best to do it. With the woman doing her counting in the labour process, Leonard also seems to say that this process is not without pain, but he continues.

After his listing of other forms and means of unity, Leonard addresses G~d, as "O king of absolute unity," as being the form of unity which he seeks, "fixed in a strict demand". With "fixed" meaning immovable, and "strict" giving emphasis to "demand," Leonard seems to have created a rock of Gibraltar here regarding the quality of his intention and quest, with these three, extremely strong words. He seems to reiterate and underscore that his passion and commitment to this process is as natural and as thought-filled as any naturally occurring in life. He's steadfast in his determination and feeling absolutely compelled to seek. He seems to say that he equates G~d with the food that gives and sustains life, and that the unity he seeks with G~d would exceed all unities, even the aforementioned ones, G~d is the "king of absolute unity" and that we are inexorably drawn to that which brings and sustains life. The same as hunger and thirst are natural processes, he hungers and thirsts for G~d and the absolute unity. Yet, he seems to feel ambivalent about exactly what is natural and irrevocable [and, therefore, 'forgiveable'?]. Is his desire in the natural world any less natural than that of the unborn infant or the fish? Since they are part of G~d's created world, might not his desire be as well, and just as legitimate? It seems that he feels desperate to have his sincerity [even though it may appear otherwise] in his authentic quest for unity with G~d confirmed.

This is where I want to just say, "And you guys took care of explaining all the rest," but I won't. I'll continue in my confusion, as though I hadn't read anything already said here. I have a hard time with the meaning of this line... "What must I do to sweeten this expectancy, to rescue hope from the scorn of my enemy?"

It seems others are challenging him in his quest, in his belief that this unity is even possible, maybe telling him he's wasting his time. So, he prays for wisdom in how best to answer them and to not be swayed by their naysaying, as he asks G~d to give him some signs of hope, so strong that his enemies won't be successful in souring his attitude and may even silence them, or if not that, at least make their words and scorn powerless, so that he may continue with his own hope, without giving them any further thought, time, or energy.

Now, this is where I really get lost, as I'm not schooled in Christianity or the Bible and certainly not in Judaism. Still, for me, there seems to be an ambivalence regarding carnality and lust from this point to the end. It seems he could be likening lust and carnality to what is natural and irrevocable and life-giving, as well. They certainly have the 'judgementalized' side; yet, they are parts of our nature, too, that which draw us to each other with the specific, 'natural' purpose of giving life and to perpetuate us as part of G~d's world.

It seems he may be making this point when he introduces these references with, "The child is born into your world, the fish is fed and the angler too," as if to say, "These are part of your world, with purpose and intent, too, the same as the unborn child and fish and angler; yet, I'm feeling consumed by guilt." Perhaps, this is even one of the tactics his enemies are using against him... like "Yeah, look at you, oh great spiritual seeker, as you still desire and sleep with women... what a hypocrite and a fool to think you'll ever find unity with G~d." I know Leonard has been criticized by some for what appears to them to be an 'obvious' contradiction... like he's trying to play both sides of the fence. It seems he may be praying for his hope for unity with G~d to be rescued from his enemies, who seem to want to convince him of its impossibility, given his desires. It seems he may also be amongst his enemies, as his own, worst one.

He seeks a quality of life through G~d that exceeds all others. The fish and the minnow and the fisherman represent the physical sustenance of life. The infant swimming to be born and the mother assisting seem to go a step higher and then unity with G~d is the highest, the ultimate. Yet, it is the desire and lusting after the woman, the beginning of the process that results in the child, that he seems to fear is holding him back from the ultimate he seeks.

It seems he may be asking for some kind of confirmation that can 'rescue' him from his guilt for how he feels this compelling desire for women, and somehow be assured that this longing is natural, too; and, in fact, that it replicates that for his ultimate union with G~d. Yet, he seems to need to assurance and confirmation from a higher place that he is not as 'guilty' as what he's feeling. He's asking for deliverance from this self-made Hell of thought and guilt regarding it all [reenforced by his enemies], so that he might continue even stronger in his quest, free from the crippling guilt he's feeling at this moment. His hope for unity with G~d seems to need rescuing, so he won't just give up and descend into his self-made and enemy-made Hell.

I've rarely tried to analyze any of Leonard's very elliptical and deep work, so it's a very intimidating process for me. I generally just leave it alone, and leave it to others for me to read, appreciate, and enjoy.

I'm probably way out in left field with a number of these thoughts, but that's okay... at least I finally got the nerve to express some. Gotta start somewhere. Thanks for reading.


~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
User avatar
blonde madonna
Posts: 984
Joined: Mon Mar 19, 2007 7:27 am

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by blonde madonna »

Thanks everyone, the discussion on this thread has helped me further my understanding of this BoM verse. Something Mat said comes close to encapsulating it for me.
Mat wrote: So I suggest Leonard is pleading for his faith to overpower his reason (which continuously points out his monkey nature).
The psalm connections from DB, Manna and Christine were interesting and I found this particularly enlightening about the Shield.
Christine(from the Holy Beggars' Gazette) wrote: The Gemora says that Abraham walks around at the gates
of Hell and he doesn't let anybody in. What does it mean? It means
that Avraham is shielding one deep little corner of our souls, so that
Hell cannot touch it. It means you can corrupt yourself so much, but
when it comes to certain deepest depths of your soul where Avraham
is standing as a shield you can't get through -- Hell cannot touch there.
And thanks Lizzie for getting back to the words of the verse itself and the myriad meanings and ambiguous allusions.

It is the allusion to the apes that I keep coming back to. The only mention of apes in the Bible are (with gold, silver, ivory, and peacocks) being amongst the precious things imported by Solomon from Tharsis (1 Kings 10:22; 2 Chronicles 9:21). Apes are linked to Hell (as I mentioned in an earlier posting) and there is a reference in Isaiah 13 to the fate of Babylon being over-run by apes (another facet of Hell is concupiscence :wink:).

Outside of the Bible an ape is also someone who copies the words or behavior, imitates or caricatures another. Is this relevant here? Also, is it a coincidence that the Creationist project wishes to prove that man did not descend from the ape?

In BoM Cohen uses the language of the psalms, then he injects something foreign, like the ape, that is loaded with Biblical and secular associations that throw this verse off kilter. Meaning, for me, can not be satisfactorily pinned down and I am left with still more questions. :?
lazariuk
Posts: 1952
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 5:38 am
Location: Vancouver

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lazariuk »

lizzytysh wrote: he feels deterred and blocked by other instincts and by the discouragement of his enemies. ~ Lizzy
Hi Lizzy

I enjoyed so much reading everything that you wrote and it was so very interesting. In the above I am not so sure that you should have changed enemy to enemies. As enemy it seemed to follow well his previous prayer about the self conspiracy. My feeling for Leonard is that he lets everyone off the hook and that there is only one enemy and that is the enemy within. Just a thought and I could be wrong.

Again that was very thought provoking writing Lizzy.
Everything being said to you is true; Imagine of what it is true.
DBCohen
Posts: 623
Joined: Thu Nov 02, 2006 8:31 am
Location: Kyoto, Japan

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by DBCohen »

BM,
I wonder if you’re aware of our discussion of the ape in I.2. If you haven’t done so yet, please look up what Simon and I have said about it on p. 3 of the “Book of Mercy #1-5” thread, and what Joe and I said about it on p. 4 of the same thread. This may shed some light on the problem. To make it easier, here are the respective pages:

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7801&p=75799&hilit=ape#p75799

viewtopic.php?f=10&t=7801&st=0&sk=t&sd= ... e&start=45
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lizzytysh »

Hi Jack ~

Thanks for your welcoming response here... this, for me, is like walking a field filled with land mines, unarmed of any religious or spiritual texts. Just me and my bare feet. Very very intimidating. So, a friendly face and a voice saying step a little to the right, right there, is welcome.

Yes, I agree on keeping enemy singular, as Leonard did. I pluralized it to allow for what I've seen others say in a somewhat scorning fashion about Leonard's spiritual quest aligned alongside his relationships with women and his ill-deserved [in my opinion] reputation as a "ladies man" ~ from what I've seen, they don't tend toward long-term relationships and remaining friends with their formers. It seems these type comments may have been made by some jealous of Leonard's irrevocable appeal to women, which has been evident all his life and continues unfettered. That, however, does not make him a ladies man and does not lessen the veracity of his spiritual pursuits. Still, I would think it's discouraging for him and I wonder how far back it began, that people were making asides about him in that way, and trying to undermine him in his genuineness that we see in Book of Mercy.

All that said, I shouldn't add more to a singular, when he kept it singular, and it does follow better with the previous. I agree about the self-conspiracy that the enemy within is the real threat with Leonard... whereas, others go free. No matter what direction I go in my thoughts with the text, though, I ought to at least stick to the text :shock: , instead of adding to what he actually said.

Thanks for the gentle reminder :wink: . I got more than a little carried away. Thanks, again, for your support here, too.


~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Manna »

Wow, Lizzie. The things you say come to me in a time when I've been thinking about "original sin" a little. I heard Pete Seeger on the radio the other day, and I think he attributed it to someone else, but I can't remember whom, so I'll just credit Pete. He said, "We're descended from good killers." We're also descended from people who like sex. Good killers who like sex... That's us!

The fact that you're alive, your very existence, everything you've been able to do for being alive is the result of some sin, and that sin has had a genetic effect on you. (I don't think I'm stretching that too far. There are behaviour genes.) I still fall short of placing the guilt on anyone alive or dead, but I think our drive for survival is our original sin. And the things you're saying about this prayer are connected to these ideas for me.

Oh, I just had an idea: maybe the going back in time is an attempt to get back and address that original sin.

(edited because I couldn't leave my misspellings alone.)
Last edited by Manna on Mon Jul 09, 2007 11:18 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lizzytysh »

Thank you so much for your positive feedback, Manna. That's a very interesting line of thought that Pete provided and your extension of it. I think you and he may be on to something there :) . " . . . our drive for survival is our original sin" ~ a very innovative [I would say creative, except my intention here isn't to pun] turning of a perspective. If you understand that last sentence, let me know. I don't have time right now to force it into compliance for understanding.


~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
Manna
Posts: 1998
Joined: Fri Feb 09, 2007 6:51 am
Location: Where clouds go to die

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by Manna »

I got it. :wink:
I don't think I know what the other perspective may be - the turning?
User avatar
lizzytysh
Posts: 25531
Joined: Thu Jun 27, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Florida, U.S.A.

Re: Book of Mercy #20-

Post by lizzytysh »

Ha. How funny. I've kept checking this thread without opening the door, looking to see if anyone has contributed. Finally, decided to come in, cough a little, check my watch, mention the date of the last posting, and well you get the picture. I had completely forgotten that this left off with you asking me a simple question, Manna :lol: . Sorry to have gotten so distracted :roll: .

Anyway, I knew you got and understood the bypassed pun. What I meant about the last sentence was just the convolution I got caught up in with adding the bracketed portion and then still trying to make my point. The turning of the perspective that I meant was how "original sin" is generally considered to be "Adam and Eve's" going against G~d's instruction to not eat the apple, the shame that caused them to cover themselves after noticing their nakedness... that whole scenario at the beginning of "Time." However, to consider our ongoing instinct seen in our drive for survival takes the "original" aspect and turns it to 'perpetual' ~ that's the turning of a perspective. Does this make sense?


~ Lizzy
"Be yourself. Everyone else is already taken."
~ Oscar Wilde
Post Reply

Return to “Leonard Cohen's poetry and novels”