"All the better to manipulate you with my dears"

There was a good piece by Henry Giroux at The Smirking Chimp last week (dated 13 February):
Celluloid Heroism and Manufactured Stupidity in the Age of Empire. The author compares and contrasts three recent movies

Citizenfour, a deeply moving film about whistleblower Edward Snowden and his admirable willingness to sacrifice his life in order to reveal the dangerous workings of an authoritarian surveillance state. It also points to the role of journalists working in the alternative media who refuse to become embedded within the safe parameters of established powers and the death-dealing war-surveillance machine it legitimates.

Selma offers an acute and much needed exercise in pubic memory offering a piece of history into the civil rights movement that not only reveals the moral and civic courage of Martin Luther King Jr. in his fight against racism but the courage and deep ethical and political commitments of a range of incredibly brave men and women unwilling to live in a racist society and willing to put their bodies against the death dealing machine of racism in order to bring it to a halt.

The third film to hit American theaters at about the same time as the other two is American Sniper,

...a war film about a young man who serves as a model for a kind of unthinking patriotism and defense of an indefensible war. Even worse, Chris Kyle himself, the hero of the film, is a Navy Seal who at the end of four tours of duty in Iraq held the “honor” of killing more than 160 people. Out of that experience, he authored an autobiographical book that bears a problematic relationship to the film. For some critics, Kyle is a decent guy caught up in a war he was not prepared for, a war that strained his marriage and later became representative of a narrative only too familiar for many vets who suffered a great deal of anguish and mental stress as a result of their war time experiences. This is a made for CNN narrative that is only partly true.

I haven't seen any of the three movies. I'd have been happy to go see Citizenfour and Selma, had they been available locally, but that kind of film - the kind requiring some movement of the grey matter while also chewing on popcorn - isn't carried by our local cinema. The third mentioned movie, American Sniper was here on the day of release though - wouldn't ya know it! 50 Shades of Grey was here, right on the dot too, while movies such as Citizenfour and Selma don't have a chance of showing up. Our town's main cinema has 6 screens, two of which, (sometimes 4) are showing the same juvenile slash-bang movie, in 3D and normal mode. Sex and violence, sex and violence....keep 'em coming eh!?

Mr Giroux wrote:

Citizenfour and Selma made little money, were largely ignored by the public, and all but disappeared except for some paltry acknowledgements by the film industry.

Some part of the blame for the two films' poor returns has to be laid at the door of those dictating who shows what and where, rather than on members of the public who have no option, unless they are willing to take a 90 minute drive to a big city cinema to see an important, serious, thought-provoking movie.

Mr Giroux's last lines:

Maybe the spectacular success of American Sniper over the other two films should not be surprising in a country in which the new normal for giving out honorary degrees and anointing a new generation of heroes goes to billionaires such as Bill Gates, Jamie Dimon, Oprah Winfrey, and other leaders of the corrupt institutions and bankrupt celebrity culture that now are driving the world into political, economic, and moral bankruptcy, made visible in the most profound vocabularies of stupidity and cruelty. War machines and the financial elite now construct the stories that America tells about itself and in this delusional denial of social and moral responsibility monsters are born, paving the way for the new authoritarianism.

There'll be an argument put forward by cinema managers that they have to show the movies most likely to get "bums on seats", otherwise they'd be likely to have to put up the shutters, and get out of town. I guess that is understandable, but it causes a vicious circle doesn't it? If there's never an opportunity to see films like Citizenfour and Selma for people in small-ish towns in semi-rural areas, especially in "red states", those people will remain in the dark about a side of the stories with which they might never have been presented, considering their usual news diet is dished up by Fox News.

Maybe that's the plan though. Corporations running the movie theatre business, no doubt hand in glove with the politicians whose coffers they fill, have a vested interested in leaving certain groups in the dark. "All the better to manipulate you with my dears!".

Eliphas Levi ~ Magic, Mysteries & Man

Noting that transiting Neptune is still closely conjunct my natal Jupiter in Pisces, I decided I should be writing about something, or someone, mystical and magical. How about Eliphas Levi? I didn't find any natal chart for him online - I should remedy that, at least!

Who was he then?

His birth name was Alphonse Louis Constant - but he is better known by his pseudonym Eliphas Levi. He was born on February 8, 1810, in Paris, son of a shoemaker. He died in Paris on 31 May 1875. He studied for the priesthood before becoming a writer, mystic, magician, and prominent name in that foggy realm . He had links to various characters of his time, famous within their own circles: socialist and feminist Flora Tristan; fellow mystic M. Ganneau, "messianic mathematician" Jozef Maria Hoëhne-Wronski; British novelist Edward Bulwer-Lytton; and French sculptress Marie-Noémi Cadiot. He married Cadiot in 1846. He wrote two books on the magical arts, they were later combined and translated into English by Arthur Edward Waite in 1896 and titled Transcendental Magic, its Doctrine and Ritual. Several more books followed, and in the prevailing atmosphere of the times were well received.

Wikipedia indicates that it was Levi who incorporated the Tarot into contemporary practice. He influenced other mystics and magicians of his time and later on, including Aleister Crowley. He was also originator of a famous "Sabbatic Goat" image and the idea that a pentagram pointing upwards represents good, while one pointing downwards represents evil. See HERE.

Natal chart of Eliphas Levi, Paris, France on 8 February 1810; it's set for 12 noon as no time of birth is available.

First thing I noticed was that Levi had no planet in an Earth sign (we can't know whether his rising sign was in Earth without a birth time). The possible absence of Earth translates to a lack of any "feet on the ground" feel in his nature; no small voice at the back of his mind whispering : "but are you sure that's not pure imagination and fantasy?" Manly P. Hall, another mystical character, born some 90 years later, did have a solid Capricorn anchor to his chart, along with a comparable mix of Aquarius and Pisces to that of Levi. I suppose good helpings of Aquarius and Pisces could be considered as "usual suspects" when considering magically mysterious characters: Aquarius' inquiring Airy mind mixed with Pisces' deep, dreamy creativity.

Levi had Neptune conjunct Saturn, so Pisces modern ruler was conjoined with his Aquarius Sun's traditional ruler! He also had his Sun's modern ruler Uranus in Pluto-ruled Scorpio, in harmonious trine to his Pluto/Mars conjunction in Pisces. This might be a pointer to his draw towards "the dark side".

Aries Moon doesn't strike quite the right note. Moon would have been in Aries, whatever Levi's time of birth. Moon could well have been conjunct Jupiter though; Jupiter relates to religion and philosophy - maybe a reflection of his early training for the priesthood? Another reflection of that can be seen in his Sagittarius (ruled by Jupiter) conjunction of Saturn/Neptune.


The illustration which led me to write this post appears in an old book of mine; to save scanning the image from the book I found a version of the illustration on line, this one in colour. My book states that the drawing was produced for Manly P. Hall, astrologer and metaphysician (see my post on him and his natal chart HERE)

 The Grand Man of the Zohar

Text beneath the black and white illustration my book, Best of the Illustrated National Astrological Journal 1933-35

Eliphas Levi thus describes the Great Prototypal Man: “That synthesis of the word, formulated by the human figure, ascended slowly and emerged from the water, like the sun in its rising. When the eyes appeared, light was made; when the mouth was manifested, there was the creation of spirits and the word passed into expression. The entire head was revealed, and this completed the first day of creation. The shoulders, the arms, the breast arose, and thereupon work began. With one hand the Divine Image put back the sea, while with the other it raised up continents and mountains. The Image grew and grew; the generative organs appeared, and all beings began to increase and multiply. The form stood at length erect, having one foot upon the earth and one upon the waters. Beholding itself at full length in the ocean of creation, it breathed on its own reflection and called its likeness into life. It said: Let us make man—and thus man was made. There is nothing so beautiful in the masterpiece of any poet as this vision of creation accomplished by the prototype of humanity. Hereby is man but the shadow of a shadow, and yet he is the image of divine power. He also can stretch forth his hands from East to West; to him is the earth given as a dominion. Such is Adam Kadmon, the primordial Adam of the Kabalists. Such is the sense in which he is depicted as a giant; and this is why Swedenborg, haunted in his dreams by reminiscences of the Kabalah, says that entire creation is only a titanic man and that we are made in the image of the universe.” (From The History of Magic)

And from HERE:

The symbol of Primordial Man, the first being to emerge with the creation of the cosmos is common to a number of religious and philosophical traditions. The Upanishads describe a primal man composed of the very elements which were to become the world. According to the Upanishads this "gigantic divine being" is both infinitely far and deposited near the innermost recesses of the human heart. Indeed, in the Hindu tradition, the Primordial Man is identified both with the entire Universe and the soul or essence of all things.

Interestingly, a similar image is found in Plutarch who relates that the entirety of the heavens is arranged in the form of a macroanthropos, a colossal human being who is conceived as a model for the human world. For Plutarch, the sun is at the heart of this being and the moon, the sun¹s androgynous messenger, is located in between the heart and belly.

The Primordial Man is also an important symbol in Gnosticism. The Gnostics inferred from the verse in Genesis "Let us make man in our own image" that the first earthly man was created on the model of a cosmic Adam on high.

I rather fancy an idea that, originally, before the Big Bang, there was one ginormous humanoid creature who disseminated - either accidentally or on purpose - to become us and our universe. Well...it's as believable as anything else on offer!

Monday Movie ~ 50 Shades? Better = If I Were You

All the chat about Marcia Gay Harden just now centres around her role in a movie currently doing the rounds Fifty Shades of Grey , "an erotic romance" adapted from the novel of the same name by British author E. L. James, first installment in the Fifty Shades trilogy. Sigh - oh another of those. Cinema-going is getting more and more like a dragged-out annual mini-series experience these days.

We won't be seeing Fifty Shades of Grey - we can see 'em every day just by gazing upon the downy covering atop our dearest one's noggin. If this review at The Rambling Curl is a fair assessment, we'd be giving the movie a wide berth anyway!

Marcia Gay Harden is, I understand, one of Fifty Shades' pivotal characters. We watched her a few nights ago doing a great turn in a little known film now available on Netflix: If I Were You. This was a rare occasion when both husband and I enjoyed a film with equal enthusiasm. If I Were You is fun, serious and insightful all at the same time. Oddly, very oddly I thought, is the fact that Rotten Tomatoes' professional reviewers, 12 of them - 11 male, gave the movie a hefty thumbs down. The one exception, by gender and opinion, a single female critic, liked it. Hmm. Thereby could probably hang a different blog post - but I'll not bother.

If I Were You is certainly not a chick-flick in the usual sense of that description. The film has elements of farce and some darkish humour all wrapped around a serious theme of infidelity. Marcia Gay Harden carries the movie as wife of a philandering guy. Opening scenes depict her as a hapless, fairly helpless woman probably in her 40s, whose better half, she discovers, turns out to be less better than expected. She gradually develops a spine in some rather unconventional ways, in the process also teaching her husband's "pretty, ditzy young thing" a few lessons along the way, as she learns some herself. The theme is not the straightforward love triangle plot you might expect from what I've written so far. There are several unexpected twists and turns.

If any passing reader intends to seek out the movie on Netflix or other outlet carrying it, I'd advise to just watch it "cold", without reading up on plot detail. I suspect that's the best way to experience this film. We watched it that way, found it almost accidentally, when searching for a movie without beaucoup guns, violence, and CGI-ridden slam-banginess. If I Were You has no guns, no CGI, no violence, but many laughs and wry, chuckle-worthy moments.

Because sometimes Monday is for music, and I know a song of the same title as the film discussed above, here's "If I Were You", written and sung by a favourite artist, k.d. lang. After her song there's a brief interview with Jay Leno.

Saturday V-Day & Sundrily Mel Brooks & World War II

Let's get V-Day out of the way first ~

Love doesn’t have to be on Valentine’s Day. It doesn’t have to be by the time you turn eighteen or thirty-three or fifty-nine. It doesn’t have to conform to whatever is usual. It doesn’t have to be kismet at once, or rhapsody by the third day.
It just has to be.
In time.
In place.
In spirit.
It just has to be.
~ David Levithan,
"How They Met, and Other Stories"

We've experienced a flurry of Mel Brooks-ness recently. First we saw him as a guest on Bill Maher's Real Time. He had no trouble stealing that show. What struck me, particularly, was the way he acknowledged Maher's three round-table guests, referencing something complimentary about each one - not many of Bill's special guests bother to do more than give t'others a nod. Next, few days later, we saw HBO's presentation Mel Brooks Live at the Geffen - good show! Its star took us through his long and varied career quip by quip. Brooks, born in 1926, still looks well and, as we used to say in Yorkshire, certainly "has all his chairs at home". He's multi-talented, seems like a warm-hearted guy. He acknowledged his pianist, by name, on several occasions throughout the show - another nice, graceful touch, like that during Maher's show, and one that speaks volumes about Brooks' personality.

I ran into Mel Brooks again, a few days later, as I watched this Video at Eschaton blog:

Lots of of LOLth there, it reminded me a lot of Monty Python, but more extravagantly staged.

That video led us to investigate the movie from which it was taken - History of the World Part I. We searched ROKU, but none of the usual suspects, Netflix, Amazon, etc. have it on offer. Strange! Among available movies of Mel Brooks we hadn't already seen, was To Be or Not to Be. We watched it. It's a fun take (who knew there could ever be one?) on the invasion of Poland by Hitler and the Nazis. Mel Brooks stars in the film with his late wife Ann Bancroft.

The theme of To Be or Not to Be coincided with my reading, earlier in the day, an article by Gary Corseri: War is the Failure of Humanity. It's an interesting piece. I wouldn't quibble with its main thrust - that humanity's many failings include its predilection for war and violence. Yet I felt strongly enough about one point to comment.

Corseri's paragraph quoted below rankled:

The destruction of Europe with war enabled the Marshall Plan where US contractors and bankers made billions in profits funding and rebuilding Europe after WWII. England, that escaped invasion by the Nazis, also had a hand in this rebuilding.

England escaped invasion? No it didn't "escape", our Royal Air Force fought the Battle of Britain to prevent it. We didn't escape anything. Our cities were bombed night after night later on! Dang!!

Anyway I commented calmly:

I agree that no war is good, but, as James commented, some wars are necessary - especially World War II. People in the USA might see it differently from people like me; I was born in Britain in the year war was declared. People in parts of Europe over-run by the Nazis will feel the same...we'd all say that WW2 against Germany was absolutely necessary. Hiroshima and Nagasaki - not so much though.

Tom Brokaw tends to be a bit over-enthusiastic about it all, Churchill was right : "Never in the field of human conflict was so much owed by so many to so few", referring to the ongoing efforts of the Royal Air Force pilots who were at the time fighting the Battle of Britain, the pivotal air battle with the German Luftwaffe with Britain expecting a German invasion.
I'm as anti-war, anti-drone, anti-violence as anyone yet cannot ever say that WW2 wasn't necessary.

To which the author of the original article, Gary Corseri, responded:

Thanks for your comment, annui.
Historians have argued these matters for centuries--even millennia. (Was the Trojan War "necessary"? For whom? For what?)

I'll go out on a limb here and say that WWII was NOT necessary! WWII, like most wars, was "engineered" by both sides. The Brits, French, and, to a lesser extent (that time!) Americans set the stage with the punitive Versailles Treaty. While Americans were enjoying the "Roaring 20s," German children were starving to death. While Brits lived in relative comfort, the British Empire was committing all manner of sins in India; and the French were equally sinful in "French Indochina." The Europeans and the Americans had surrounded Japan (with "coaling stations" and then with military bases) and the Japanese were seeking advantages in collapsing China. Meantime, the Brits were playing Russia against Germany, trying to figure how to play murderous Commie Stalin against anti-Zionist Hitler. (The long-delayed Normandy invasion was no doubt delayed so that Germany and our "ally" Russia could do as much damage to each other as possible--i.e., millions killed!)

There is an old Life magazine I have seen, a couple of years before the outbreak of war, in which Mr. Churchill is very laudatory of the accomplishments of Herr Hitler and Signore Mussolini!
Should we suppose that controlling the Middle East after WWII was not a major factor in the way alliances were formed and the war prosecuted?

The fact is, average citizens know little or nothing about the machinations of their "leaders" until it's too late. As General Smedley Butler wrote, "War is a racket."

I wrote a fair bit in my article about the American Revolution--because Americans think they have got a good background on that from their high school days. As an antidote to much of that particular nonsense and to the nonsense of "necessary wars" in general, I recommend, "A People's History of the American Revolution" by Ray Raphael.

I responded again also referencing a very good comment from "johndamos" (well worth a read, by the way).

I'd like to thank Messrs Corseri and Damos for their thought-provoking words, which will propel me to further investigation on this topic.
While there's no denying that manipulations went on behind scenes, without which World War 2 could have been avoided - at least on the scale it reached - due to the kind of leader Germany had, Hitler, it still seems to me that war became inevitable. Hitler, initially, might have appeared reasonable, a man even admired by other leaders in his efforts to pull Germany back from the devastations of World War 1, yet he had horrendous plans and aims. Had Germany's leader been of a very different ilk, World War 2 might not have been necessary.

 See HERE

This isn't the first time I've read opinions such as Mr Corseri's regarding World War II. It's easy to review, revise and criticise from a safe, relatively comfortable place in the late 20th or 21st century. Thinking on the topic over the past few days, I've come to the conclusion that Mr Corseri was mixing two ideas. War is certainly a failing of humanity's innate nature - always has been, always will be. Sadly, though arguments can be made against any war, there are times when it has to be acknowledged that dire failings of humanity have to be confronted, especially so when facing a national leader who plainly had aims to rule the world, rid it of any group of which he didn't approve, and by insanely horrendous means; and when that leader had a powerful military and the wherewithal to bring his aims to fruition. Humans of steadier natures could not simply stand by and let it happen - could they? Manipulations had, no doubt, taken place. Manipulations have been with us always (another dark facet of human nature), but once the manipulated aim bears fruit - what...? It's impossible to say that a war, such as the war against Nazi Germany wasn't necessary, it was necessary for nations to defend themselves, manipulated or not.

There's a point here that I've not quite been able to articulate... what is it? Is it that, due to the human predilection for violence, and their other predilection for manipulation, war, though a failure of humanity becomes inevitable and, for those at the sharp end, regrettably necessary. I guess it comes down to what lies behind the word "necessary".

Arty Farty Friday ~ Sigmar Polke and his "ungraspable logic"

Before the Sun slides out of Aquarius into Pisces there's one more artist with natal Sun in Aquarius who ought to be investigated: Sigmar Polke (pronounced, I think, Polka). I'd never heard of him, but recent exhibitions of his work at Tate Modern and MOMA have spawned numerous reviews and articles, as did the artist's death in 2010 at age 69.

Sigmar Polke was born on 13 February 1941 in Oels, Lower Silesia, once eastern Germany, present-day in Poland. After World War II, Polke and his family fled to East Germany and, in 1953, escaped to Düsseldorf. He trained as a glass painter, later studied at The Arts Academy of Düsseldorf. From 1977–1991, he was a professor at the Academy of Fine Arts, Hamburg. He later settled in Cologne where he continued to live and work until his death in June 2010.

None of the above dry facts tells us anything about the man or his style of artwork. Several reviews and articles offer a better view, for example, in:
The New Yorker, by By Peter Schjelda

Polke was a big man with the twinkle of a gamin. I met him a few times and found him dazzlingly intelligent, funny, and exhausting. As Buchloh says, “You could not have a conversation with Polke without his continuously destabilizing your sense of self, without his suggesting that it rested on some type of oblivion or disavowal.” .........he discoursed on ancient philosophical and technical sources for a suite of stained-glass windows, in the Protestant cathedral of Zürich, which became his last major project. I felt awash in a sea of exotic erudition and ungraspable logic, listening to Polke .........There was a fearless, spooky otherness to his cast of mind, in key with an attraction to mysticism. “Higher Beings Commanded: Paint the Upper-Right Corner Black!” is the title of a canvas in the show from 1969; the corner is black. In the early seventies, he shared a farmhouse with many friends and indulged heavily in hallucinogenic drugs, which caused a dip in his career, but, in contrast to the more commonly dicey toll of such a regimen, plainly nourished the brainstorms of his later work.....

We Love Culture - Sigmar Polke: The Alchemist amongst the Chaos.

Polke ridicules artistic pomposity. For example, he mocks the spiritual claims of abstract artists in “Higher Beings Command: Paint the Upper Right Hand Corner Black” (image on right). In this sense, Sigmar Polke was the "Private Eye" or "Charlie Hebdo" of German post-modernism. He was sometimes abstract, sometimes representational. But there is always a political or philosophical agenda, and always there are layers........But if you really want to get close to Polke you need to work harder, because he doesn’t smash you in the face with his messages. You have to dig. You have to think. Polke’s work is complex, elusive and perpetually in flux, because that’s how the world is. And complexity makes us uncomfortable. What we really want in life are simple solutions to our problems. We look for assurance in a 500 word web-article, or better still, a 140 character tweet.

The Guardian - by Adrian Searle

This unfathomable artist was much more than just another painter. His difficulty is also what is so tantalising. Like many of the unstable, fugitive and light-sensitive pigments he sometimes used, and those layers of brown, resinous murk, as soon as you think you see him clearly, his art takes a turn and eludes you once again. His elusiveness was deliberate, a way to stay free.
Polke’s paintings could be cantankerous and awkward and weirdly ugly, and could also leave you standing on the brink of beauty, wallowing in gorgeous colour. There were surfaces as delicate and ephemeral as scent (using, in one work, a purple dye derived from slugs, painted on silk), and others gloopy with thick polyester resin, which revealed and obscured layers of buried and overpainted imagery, depending on where you stand and how the light falls. Experiment and play were at the heart of his art, but were backed up by an encyclopedic and inquiring mind and a curiosity about how paintings have been and might be made.

Three of Polke's paintings I like, below - couldn't find the titles, sorry!

Rather than adding more images, I'm including a couple of 4 minute videos featuring some of Polke's work, with narration, one from MOMA the other from Tate:






ASTROLOGY

Sigmar Polke born 13 February 1941 in Oels, Silesia, Poland. No time of birth is known, chart is set for 12 noon.

Polke's natal Sun at 24 Aquarius is very close to 3 Fixed stars, all categorised as "fortunate", one of them, Deneb Algedi is a Behenian Star, the others are Sadalsuud, and Sador. His obvious sharp intellect is represented there. His natal Sun is squaring Aquarius' modern ruler, Uranus in Taurus. Saturn, Aquarius' traditional ruler is also in Taurus, conjunct Jupiter, squared by Polke's natal Venus (planet of the arts). Taurus is ruled by Venus, so a tangled, somewhat contrary linkage to art is present. Natal Venus is opposed by Pluto from Leo, and forms, along with the squares to Saturn/Jupiter, what astrologers call a "T-square", a challenging, rather uncomfortable circuit of aspects. Polke's cynical, contrary attitudes to some modern art styles could be reflected in this tangled network.

The elusive element in his paintings could relate to Neptune. If Polke were born late in the day it's possible natal Moon would have been very close to Neptune, which would provide a good fit. We find Neptune in Virgo, in harmonious trine to Uranus in Taurus - and Uranus, as noted already, sits in a scratchy linkage to natal Sun. From one of the snips quoted above: His elusiveness was deliberate, a way to stay free. Staying free, a classic requirement for any true Aquarius-type!

The political and/or philosophical elements embedded in Polke's paintings reflect the Aquarius (politics) and Jupiter (philosophy) tangles within his natal chart.

Other than the above notes, and in the absence of a time of birth, nothing else leaps out to me as translating to the kind of personality indicated in the three snips from articles posted above.

PATTERNS

Speculative fiction writer William Gibson, in his novel Pattern Recognition, wrote :

“We have no idea, now, of who or what the inhabitants of our future might be. In that sense, we have no future. Not in the sense that our grandparents had a future, or thought they did. Fully imagined cultural futures were the luxury of another day, one in which 'now' was of some greater duration. For us, of course, things can change so abruptly, so violently, so profoundly, that futures like our grandparents' have insufficient 'now' to stand on. We have no future because our present is too volatile. ... We have only risk management. The spinning of the given moment's scenarios. Pattern recognition”.

Astrologers use pattern recognition when attempting to predict the future. Future configurations of the planets, similar to configurations which have formed years, decades or centuries before, small patterns and huge ones, are basic ingredients of astrological prediction. Pattern recognition can aid astrological searchers in other ways too. There's an interesting except from Michael Ledo's book The Secret Astrology of the Bible
Snip (click on image for a bigger version). Read more at the link above:

As we watched a TV series, The Bletchley Circle via Netflix last week, the subject of pattern recognition came up.

The series' theme features four women who, during World War II worked together at a secret facility at Bletchley, England, to decipher German military codes for the British military. The series begins in 1952, nine years after the war. The first episode opens as Susan, one of the four, learns about a series of murders in the London area. She soon recognises patterns connecting the murders. This discovery encourages her to use her old code-breaking skills. She contacts her war-time colleagues for support, after unsuccessfully trying to convince the police to investigate her theories about the crimes. Thereby hangs the tale, completed in the first series. We have yet to watch season two's story.

Currently doing the rounds of movie theatres there's a big-screen, factual, story of code-breaking and pattern recognition. The Imitation Game. It hasn't reached our local cinema yet - probably never will. We shall patiently await its arrival to Netflix.

What we call chaos is just patterns we haven’t recognized. What we call random is just patterns we can't decipher.
~ Chuck Palahniuk

Mumbles & Grumbles - Seventh Son

On our local movie theatre's schedule this week is Seventh Son, said to be based (almost imperceptibly as far as I can tell) on English author Joseph Delaney's 2004 Young Adult novel The Spook’s Apprentice ( U.K. style), titled in the USA The Last Apprentice: Revenge of the Witch. The novel was first in The Wardstone Chronicles series; whether the film adaptation will also be first of a series remains to be seen. The movie Seventh Son itself will, as far as I'm concerned, remain to be seen!

"In a time long past, an evil is about to be unleashed that will reignite the war between supernatural forces and humankind. Master Gregory (Jeff Bridges), the last of the Falcon Knights, had imprisoned the malevolently powerful witch, Mother Malkin (Julianne Moore), many years ago, but now she has escaped and is seeking vengeance. Summoning her followers of every incarnation, Mother Malkin is preparing to unleash her terrible wrath on an unsuspecting world. Only one thing stands in her way: Master Gregory. In a deadly reunion, Gregory comes face to face with the evil he always feared would someday return. He has only until the next full moon to do what usually takes years: train his new apprentice, Tom Ward (Ben Barnes) to fight a dark magic unlike any other. Man's only hope lies in the seventh son of a seventh son".
(See here)

Having read a little about the source material, the author and his English Lancashire background, I don't relish sitting through a film with mangled indiscriminate accents and nothing at all to anchor the tale to its origins.

The original story is grounded in historical fact. The area of mid-Lancasire in which the tale was set by Mr Delaney is famous for its medieval witches. Fully documented witch trials in Lancaster in 1612 lend authenticity. Joseph Delaney used real, though slightly adapted, local place names in his books, and culled the bare bones of his themes from local legends and ghost stories.

Half a century before Joseph Delaney's book was written, Robert Neill wrote his locally famous novel, Mist Over Pendle, first published in 1951, reprinted several times since. Now, there's a novel which ought to be made into a movie! It'd have to be done by the BBC for TV though, not by Hollywood! This a serious novel, dark and brooding in atmosphere - yet entertaining too. I read it long ago, when I lived, for almost a year, in the very area of Lancashire where witches once did what witches do. My parents, at the time, had a small cafe/snack bar in a town where Pendle Hill was nearby, clearly visible. Around 1959/60, between my stints working in hotel offices, I went to live there with my parents for a while, found a job as secretary/telephonist in a Rolls Royce Gas Turbine engineering factory in town, and was made familiar with the area's colourful local history. That part of Lancashire, around a town called Clitheroe, has the warmest, nicest set of inhabitants I've ever found, some gorgeous, rich Lancashire accents too. If locals do retain bits of witchy DNA, it has worked out well!

Back to Seventh Son. Knowing the land in which the film's source material was originally set, and the accent that goes with it, I could not stomach hearing Americans Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore using mangled hybrid accents, nor any of the younger, London born actors doing the same.

Films hardly ever portray their source novels closely, some even change the entire setting of a tale - but there are certain lines that ought not to be crossed, for me anyway. Among Rotten Tomatoes' reviews Variety's film critic Peter Debruge describes Seventh Son as: "An over-designed, under-conceived fantasy epic in which even topnotch contributors can't get the chemistry right, leaving Jeff Bridges and Julianne Moore looking silly". I suspect even that critcism is way too mild.

Astrology's Quirks and Stretch Marks

Gary Phillipson's book Astrology in the Year Zero (published 2000) has been mentioned a couple of times before in archived posts. It's a book of interviews with astrologers and researchers into astrology. I often pull it from the shelf, open it randomly, there's always something there to tickle the ol' grey matter .

In a section considering "how far astrology can go" - for example, how far in being able to identify a murderer? Mike Harding responded with something I see as very important as a general astrological rule of thumb, and something easily overlooked on occasion:

"...the chart is not the chart of a person, it's the chart for a moment in time....the chart is about 'the nature of time', whatever that turns out to mean." (page 113)

That remark is kind of, sort of, related to something I commented a few posts back, that Aquarius (or any zodiac sign) is a zodiac sign, not a person. Keywords for each sign relate to the reputed "atmosphere" of that particular segment of the ecliptic.

Obliquely related to those thoughts, a few pages further on in the book, there's a conversation about astrologers coming up with what seemed to be a good, reasonably accurate reading for a client, then finding out they had interpreted the wrong chart.

Geoffrey Cornelius said

"[Astrologers] get correct readings from wrong maps on sufficient occasions for it to be, clearly, an astrological phenomenon. One has to be very sparing with that, because it is so ruthlessly undermining of the status of astrology...... "

As embarrassing as it must be for a professional astrologer to find herself/himself in that situation I, as a pain-in-the-ass amateur dabbler in the art, could argue that producing a "correct" reading for a person, while using a wrong chart, needn't be seen as such a calamity.

While astrology could never be considered a "one-size-fits- all" kind of thing in relation to the natal chart, there is certainly a fair amount of stretch, mix-and-match, and variability going on. A metaphor - maybe a poor one, but the one that sprang to mind first: ten people arrive all dressed slightly differently. They are issued robes to wear after removing all clothing. Shortly thereafter they are called back, blindfolded and asked to choose from the various piles of categorised clothing (underwear, skirts, trousers, tops, coats, socks, shoes). Wouldn't it be likely that the folks would pick some, maybe even all, pieces that were not their own, but which still afforded a reasonable fit? I think so - but not in every case. A heavily built person or a petite one would be more likely to find themselves in difficulty - as would the average sized person who inadvertently picked up pieces belonging to the non-average sized. The non-average sized among the group would be aware beforehand of the very obvious pitfall for them, for they had always "stood out from the crowd", and only certain pieces provided a good fit.

Each person's natal chart is unique, but in spite of that, there are going to be similarities, often many of 'em between charts of any random group of people. I suspect there are are, indeed, possibilities of being able to cull a seemingly right reading from a wrong chart in certain cases, especially in cases where there is no obvious distinctive chart feature.

Looping back to the first quote in this post: "how far can astrology go?" It can go quite a long way, seems capable of a certain amount of flex and stretch. Rather than being an embarrassment if a decent reading has come from the wrong chart, wouldn't it be better to consider it just another crazy thing that astrology's flexibility is capable of throwing up? Nobody, even the most erudite of astrologers, knows for sure what astrology is all about. Astrological lore isn't carved in stone. Texts ancient and modern tend to indicate differently, but in truth, nobody knows - nor as far as we can tell has ever known the answers to the what, the why or the how of astrology. In matters astrological we feel around in the dark - just like those blindfolded individuals in a previous paragraph.

Music Monday ~ Holst, Jupiter, Hymn, and surprise, surprise...Rugby!

The only radio I listen to these days is music from BBC Radio 2 via internet, sometimes live sometimes "on demand". While listening to one such show the other day I heard a song with a very familiar melody but unfamiliar lyrics. Its title: World in Union. The song's melody originates in Gustav Holst's The Planets suite, is part of its 4th movement, Jupiter, the Bringer of Jollity. The melody, known as "Thaxted", was originally adapted by Holst for its use in the patriotic hymn, I Vow to Thee My Country, based on a poem by Sir Cecil Spring Rice.

So...that was the reason the melody was so familiar to me. We sang "We Vow...." in school assemblies, long ago, back in England, and it pops up regularly at almost every state funeral, royal wedding and other such events in the UK.

If in the right sort of mood, I'll enjoy a stately, full blast version of I Vow to Thee My Country, but I do like this gentler version by Beck Goldsmith - a recent use of the old hymn is as theme to a British TV series, The Village, which I intend to search for on Netflix. (Update: not yet available).




World in Union, with lyrics by Charlie Skarbek, uses the same melody, its words present a more all-encompassing loyalty, envisioning a time when people of the Earth might embrace our whole world rather than one individual nation. This is far more appropriate to Jupiter's astrological association with philosophy and expansive good feeling; music dedicated to that planet surrounds these lyrics.

World in Union is theme song of the Rugby World Cup. These lyrics attempt to capture a spirit of international friendship which, it is said, pervades rugby union culture the world over. (Rugby Union is something like American football - but not really, or so I'm told. I'm a complete ignoramus on sport). The song was commissioned by the sport's governing body in 1991, it has become synonymous with the "gathering of the nations" that the four-yearly tournament represents. 2015 is a Rugby World Cup year, as it happens.

New Zealand's Dame Kiri Te Kanawa's superb rendition of World in Union
~ Holst would be proud!



World in Union

There's a dream
I feel so rare, so real
All the World In Union
The world as one

Gathering together
One mind, one heart
Every creed, every colour
Once joined, never apart

Searching for the best in me
I will find what I can be
If I win, lose or draw
It's a victory for all

It's the World In Union
The world as one
As we climb to reach our destiny
A new age has begun

We face high mountains
Must cross rough seas
We must take our place in history
And live with dignity

It's the World In Union
The world as one
As we climb to reach our destiny
A new age has begun

Build a world
A World In Union
A new age has begun

Saturday & Sundry Thoughts

It's odd that once one becomes aware of something of which previously unaware, it pops up unexpectedly sometimes to silently wave:
"Hello - remember me?"

I mentioned Fuseli's The Nightmare's appearance in the TV series The Fall in my post yesterday - that was the phenomenon in reverse: first the painting then, as I was preparing yesterday's post. its creator popping in to say "Remember this?" This week I was reminded of my January post on Brion Gysin, William S. Burroughs and their creation, the "cut-up" method in art, literature etc. (See HERE). In the midst of watching the first season of British TV police detective series Luther, in episode 3 (or maybe 4) the detective is seen surrounded by pieces of text, photographs and bits of newspaper cuttings. When asked by a colleague what the heck he was doing he replied, "Trying out "Bowie's cut-up method". David Bowie did use the Gysin/Burroughs cut-up invention in writing some of his lyics during the 1970s.

A conversation with mike, in comments following last Monday's post, got me further thinking about Britain's wide range of accents and dialects, and in particular how often a single term can pinpoint where its user hails from. I'm not sure of the correct term for the particular "place-marker" I have in mind. A term of endearment? No - that's far too intimate. Pet name? Still too intimate. What I'll refer to is the casual mode of address sometimes used by warm-hearted people to strangers or near-strangers (often to females and children but not always). For instance, a waitress to a customer, a bus driver to a passenger, a store-keeper to a customer, casual acquaintance to a casual acquaintance....that kind of address.

If blindfolded on a tour of Britain you could almost guess where you were by the type of casual, warm address being used. In the north-east of England you'd hear "pet" ("Would you like tea or coffee pet?"); in Yorkshire it'd be "luv" ("Hey, you've dropped yer ticket luv!"). In parts of West and South Yorkshire it's "flower" ("Don't forget yer bag flower!")

In the Scottish borders and parts of Scotland it'd be "hen" or "hinney"; down in the beautiful south-west of England you'd hear "my lovely" "lover" or "my 'andsome".
In the middle area of England it'd be "duck" or "mi (my) duck" ("How are you feeling now mi duck?")

I always enjoyed these warm terms of... whatever they were. I've heard women complaining about these modes of address, considering them sexist, demeaning (or something). It's an attitude that strikes me as feminism at its most churlish.

If you enjoy a horror-tinged movie now and again, give The Machinist a whirl via DVD, Netflix or similar. (Beware spoilers at the Wiki page).

Christian Bale (Sun + Mercury/Jupiter in Aquarius) plays the lead brilliantly well, and for this role he lost what would seem like a very unhealthy amount of body weight - probably even more than Matthew McConaughey lost for his role in Dallas Buyers Club. Looking at Bale's usual photographs it's hard to believe he was The Machinist.

We saw ZumaZuma a travelling group of performers from the continent of Africa, on stage at our local theatre on Monday evening. Those taking part came from Zimbabwe, Kenya, Tanzania, Ethiopia, Guinea and Senegal. All performed together in an elaborate acrobatic dance, circus and song event.

Huge energy was expended, non-stop, with super African rhythms, and colourful regional costumes, singing, dancing traditional to each region, and some very skilful juggling and acrobatics. Lots of audience engagement - especially enjoyed by the many children in the audience, who had met the travelling group earlier in the day. Zuma Zuma is well worth making the effort to go see, should they happen to be performing in your area.

Arty Farty Friday ~ Henry Fuseli and His Nightmare

 Henry Fuseli - portrait by James Northcote (1778)

Certain composers, singers and musicians have been termed "one hit wonders" - the same label could be applied to painters. Looking through a list of arty births in early February, I spotted Henry Fuseli (1741). First thought, "he's too 18th cenury for an Aquarius-type Arty Farty Friday". A quick look at some of his works via Google Image reminded (or rather informed) me that it was he who painted The Nightmare - a painting featured twice in a TV drama series we've watched recently , via Netflix: The Fall (see my post HERE). In that series a serial killer managed to place an image of The Nightmare painting onto the laptop of leading detective Stella Gibson (Gillian Anderson), and had left a print of the painting at one of the murder scenes. The painting has, according to Wikipedia and others, been used in various novels, films, series, and cartoons over the years. A hit it was, and is! Its value today is said to be in the region of $4 million.

Fuseli may well have influenced a whole new generation of artists, living through a period of traumatic social, cultural, and political revolution, but it is a single painting by which he is remembered best.

 Self portrait

Henry Fuseli, originally Johann Heinrich Füssli, was born in Zurich, Switzerland on Feb. 7, 1741. Some sources give his date of birth as 6 February 1741. He died April 16, 1825 in London, England. He came from an artistic and intellectual family background, initially studied theology. He was ordained as a pastor in the Swiss Evangelical Reformed Church. However, political entanglements (he denounced a dishonest magistrate) forced him to flee Zürich for Berlin, and later, in 1764, he settled in London, England. Sir Joshua Reynolds encouraged and inspired him to take up painting. He left England for several years to study in Italy. During time spent in Rome the works of Michelangelo and classical art, became major inspirations and influences.

On returning to England, he renamed himself Henry Fuseli. Soon critical successes brought international acclaim. He painted tragic or violent situations from literature, particularly Shakespeare and Milton, populated by stylised figures with overblown, exaggerated attitudes and a feeling of theatrical intensity over all.

In 1799 Fuseli was named a Royal Academy professor of painting. He was reported to be a popular teacher and much-respected figure.

 In front of him is a small round box, inscribed with 'I.C. box'. On the margin of the book, a later hand has added in pencil John Cartwright. This drawing was originally identified, on the evidence of the inscriptions, as a portrait by Fuseli of John Cartwright (1763-1808), a minor painter and friend of the artist. Comparison with other self portraits by Fuseli, and the directness and intensity of the image, make it plain that the subject is Fuseli himself. The initials on the box suggest that the drawing was made in Cartwright's house and given to him. (National Portrait Gallery, UK)

Fuseli wrote extensively on art and is said to have influenced a generation of painters. His work was neglected for about a century after his death, until the Expressionists and Surrealists found in him a kindred spirit. His friend William Blake described him as
"The only man that e'er I knew who did not make me almost spew."

A former student of Fuseli's described him thus: "...used to dab his beastly brush into the oil, and sweeping round the palette in the dark, take up a great lump of white, red, or blue, as it might be and plaster it over a shoulder or face... I found him the most grotesque mixture of literature, art, scepticism, indelicacy, profanity, and kindness."

Fuseli's Greatest Hit - click on the image for a bigger, clearer version:

The Nightmare. An icon of horror since it was first exhibited at the annual Royal Academy exhibition in London in 1782. Fuseli wanted the painting to shock and intrigue, as well as to make a name for himself - he succeeded! Images of the work have been used and lampooned many times. (TATE)


From visualarts.com

The Nightmare (1781; Detroit Institute of Arts) was an immediate success. It has become Fuseli's most famous painting, and was a landmark in the development of Romanticism. The Nightmare owes its enduring popularity to 2 main factors: it was one of the first paintings to successfully portray an intangible idea, rather than an event, a person, or a story. Second, the exact intentions of the artist remain obscure. The creature squatting on the woman is an incubus or mara. It is this demon who is causing the nightmare rather than the horse (or "night-mare") that peers through the curtains. Alternatively the painting may have been conceived as an act of romantic revenge. On the back of the canvas, there is an unfinished portrait of a girl who may have been the object of the artist's unrequited attention.

Painting Style...The characteristics of Fuseli's mature style were well defined before his departure from Italy. They included dramatic foreshortening of figures, strong chiaroscuro, extravagant gestures and distortions of scale, and a preference for new, often obscure, literary subjects which stressed the demonic side of human nature. In his works, the aesthetic of the Sublime was given its most extreme visual articulation. He also had a special line in pictures of female cruelty and bondaged males. In addition, he was obsessed with women's hair.

Sources:
Getty
Britannica
BBC

For a quick look at many of Fuseli's other paintings, see Google Image, and click on any of interest for enlarged views.


ASTROLOGY

 Fuseli's study for a self portrait

The doubt about Fuseli's date of birth will not be too important for this very general view of him. 24 hours would change Moon's position, and ascending sign - as would the exact hour he was born on either date. Dictionary of Art Historians gives 6 February as his date of birth and states: Date born: February 6, 1741 [Fuseli often gave other dates]. 7th February is more generally stated as his date of birth. Could it be that he was born close to midnight on the 6th (London time), but in Switzerland (+1 hour) it'd be 7 February? Just a wild guess!



A look at charts for both 6 and 7 Feb., Zurich, Switzerland, at 12 noon (as no time of birth is available):

6 FEBRUARY

7 FEBRUARY

Moon in Scorpio (on 7th Feb, at noon) seems the better bet, bearing in mind his fascination with "the demonic side of human nature", nightmares, and suchlike - as well as those distinctive eyes in his self-portraits. But Moon being in Scorpio would depend on his exact time of birth on 7th. He'd have to have been born after 8:00 AM on 7th for Moon to have reached 0* Scorpio. That would knock on the head my theory about the London/Switzerland time difference.

Venus, planet of the arts, conjunct Uranus in Capricorn, sextile Pluto in Scorpio, semi-sextile his Aquarius Sun and opposing Mars in Cancer is a contrary, irritable and itchy kind of mix! Looking back to the quote from a former student of his: I found him the most grotesque mixture of literature, art, scepticism, indelicacy, profanity, and kindness...it does fit the astrology rather well!

Jupiter conjunct Moon's north node, and probably in trine with Moon itself reflects Fuseli's seeming need to continually express exaggerated attitudes and excess of intensity in his art.

Stepping back from detail, simply viewing Fuseli's natal chart (for either day), its shape depicts someone of an overtly 2-sided nature, somewhat held together by natal Moon, his inner emotional core, which could have been either darkly Scorpio-tinged, or more lightly and artistically coloured by Libra.

Fuseli's friendship with William Blake who, remember, described him as "The only man that e'er I knew who did not make me almost spew" isn't hard to understand. See Blake's chart at my archived post on him from 2009. Blake's natal Venus in Capricorn conjoins Fuseli's Venus/Uranus; Blake's Saturn in its traditional sign of rulership, Aquarius, conjoins Fuseli's natal Sun there.

A final spotlight on the personality of Henry Fuseli, and from this we can discern his Uranian eccentricity, his Plutonian darkness and Jupiterian excesses: a self portrait of himself as a Faun (he seemed to enjoy drawing himself) is accompanied by this tidbit at the Tate Gallery:

Fuseli made this portrait of himself as a sculpted faun when he was in Italy during the 1770s. By this time Fuseli already had a reputation for studied eccentricity. As a friend in Rome noted:
"He is everything in extremes - always
an original; His look is lightning, his
word a thunderstorm; his jest is death,
his revenge, hell. He cannot draw a
single mean breath. He never draws portraits, his features are all true
yet at the same time caricature..."

Any copyrighted material on these pages is included as "fair use", for the purpose of study, review or critical analysis only, and will be removed at the request of copyright owner(s).

Born 5 Feb: Adlai Stevenson & William S Burroughs ~ Similarly Different

Two men born on this day, 5 February, early in the 20th century:
Adlai Stevenson (1900) and William S. Burroughs (1914). So different were this pair of Sun Aquarius-types, yet with a few similarities which must be acknowledged.

I'm not going to dive into full bios or extensive chart interpretation, just a few lines on each and my view on the astrology which painted these two men in such different shades of the same colour.

Adlai Ewing Stevenson, born 5 February, 1900 in Los Angeles, California. He was a member of a famous Illinois political family, became a political leader and diplomat who helped found the United Nations, where he served as chief U.S. delegate (1961–65); mainly remembered as the eloquent, witty, stylish but unsuccessful Democratic candidate for the presidency in 1952 and 1956. Noted for his intellectual demeanor, and promotion of liberal causes in the Democratic Party. Republicans and some working-class Democrats ridiculed what they perceived as his indecisive, aristocratic air. He died July 14, 1965.

Quotes of Adlai Stevenson

My definition of a free society is a society where it is safe to be unpopular.

All progress has resulted from people who took unpopular positions.

William Seward Burroughs born on February 5, 1914 in St Louis, Missouri into a prominent and wealthy family. Burroughs was a novelist, short story writer, essayist, painter, and spoken word performer. A primary figure of the Beat Generation and counterculture. He is considered to be "one of the most politically trenchant, culturally influential, and innovative artists of the 20th century". After being turned down by the Office of Strategic Services and U.S. Navy in 1942 to serve in World War II, he picked up the drug addiction that affected him for the rest of his life.

Much of Burroughs' work is semi-autobiographical, drawn from his experiences as a heroin addict. Drugs, homosexuality and death are common ingredients in his novels and stories. Due to the repressive context where he grew up, and from which he fled, he kept his sexual orientation concealed well into adulthood. His novel Naked Lunch, published in 1959, brought him international notoriety. The novel was prosecuted as obscene in some American states.

Burroughs died on August 2, 1997.

A quote of W.S. Burroughs

I am not one of those weak-spirited, sappy Americans who want to be liked by all the people around them. I don’t care if people hate my guts; I assume most of them do. The important question is whether they are in a position to do anything about it. My affections, being concentrated over a few people, are not spread all over Hell in a vile attempt to placate sulky, worthless shits.

Adlai Stevenson born on 5 February 1900 in Los Angeles, California at 11.55 AM (Astro.com)

William S. Burroughs born on February 5, 1914 in St Louis, Missouri at 7.40 AM (Astro.com)

Even standing far back, a passing glance at the shapes made by planetary positions in the two natal charts indicates that Burroughs will be a wee bit more...strange, a more out of the ordinary character than Stevenson. Inching a little closer, using astrological Elements (my favourite reliable "go -to") we see that while Stevenson has a nice mix: planets and ascendant spreading through Air, Earth, Water and Fire, Burroughs has planets and ascendant in Air and Water only - not "grounded" and tending towards a certain coldness of attitude.

Taking a few more steps forward, and there's no getting away from the fact that these two men were both seriously intellectually gifted - Aquarius Sun and planets working well! Both also had Gemini input. The owners of these charts would be highly likely to turn out as communicators, of one sort or another!

Look to their natal Sun's rulers, modern and traditional: Uranus and Saturn - Stevenson's Uranus sextiles his Aquarius stellium (cluster) from warm, philosophical Sagittarius; Saturn lay in its other sign of rulership, Capricorn, in trine to Stevenson's natal Taurus Moon - his Earthy grounding. In Burroughs' chart Uranus is hooked up within that Aquarius multi-cluster of personal planets, while Saturn conjoins his natal Moon in Gemini - Air and even more Air ...and yet more Air comes via his Aquarius ascendant!

Their similarities come from a common ability to communicate, albeit in wildly different flavours to a largely different audience. Both men, from their words quoted above, had similar feelings about being different and not universally popular - not one of the crowd.

Putting the charts under closer scrutiny, several other significant differences and similarities would become apparent.

There's a rather odd commonality too that's worth a mention, but it's of no astrological significance that I can see. I noticed this from their Wikipedia biographies: both men accidentally killed another person:

Stevenson, on December 30, 1912, at the age of twelve, accidentally killed Ruth Merwin, a 16-year-old friend, while demonstrating drill technique with a rifle, inadvertently left loaded, during a party at the Stevenson home. Stevenson was devastated by the accident and rarely referred to it as an adult.

Burroughs accidentally killed his second wife, Joan Vollmer, in 1951 in Mexico City, and was consequently convicted of manslaughter. In the introduction to Queer, a novel written in 1952 but not published until 1985, Burroughs states, "I am forced to the appalling conclusion that I would have never become a writer but for Joan's death ... [S]o the death of Joan brought me into contact with the invader, the Ugly Spirit, and maneuvered me into a lifelong struggle, in which I had no choice except to write my way out".