This is lovely. Do you think he was singing about Joan? Poor, sometimes guilty, Dylan. He is a tragic figure. A genius.
Title: Ballad in Plain D
by Bob Dylan
Quote:I once loved a girl, her skin it was bronze.
With the innocence of a lamb, she was gentle like a fawn.
I courted her proudly but now she is gone,
Gone as the season she's taken.
Through young summer's breeze, I stole her away
From her mother and sister, though close did they stay.
Each one of them suffering from the failures of their day,
With strings of guilt they tried hard to guide us.
Of the two sisters, I loved the young.
With sensitive instincts, she was the creative one.
The constant scapegoat, she was easily undone
By the jealousy of others around her.
For her parasite sister, I had no respect,
Bound by her boredom, her pride to protect.
Countless visions of the other she'd reflect
As a crutch for her scenes and her society.
Myself, for what I did, I cannot be excused,
The changes I was going through can't even be used,
For the lies that I told her in hopes not to lose
The could-be dream-lover of my lifetime.
With unknown consciousness, I possessed in my grip
A magnificent mantelpiece, though its heart being chipped,
Noticing not that I'd already slipped
To a sin of love's false security.
From silhouetted anger to manufactured peace,
Answers of emptiness, voice vacancies,
Till the tombstones of damage read me no questions but, "Please,
What's wrong and what's exactly the matter?"
And so it did happen like it could have been foreseen,
The timeless explosion of fantasy's dream.
At the peak of the night, the king and the queen
Tumbled all down into pieces.
"The tragic figure!" her sister did shout,
"Leave her alone, God damn you, get out!"
And I in my armor, turning about
And nailing her to the ruins of her pettiness.
Beneath a bare light bulb the plaster did pound
Her sister and I in a screaming battleground.
And she in between, the victim of sound,
Soon shattered as a child 'neath her shadows.
All is gone, all is gone, admit it, take flight.
I gagged twice, doubled, tears blinding my sight.
My mind it was mangled, I ran into the night
Leaving all of love's ashes behind me.
The wind knocks my window, the room it is wet.
The words to say I'm sorry, I haven't found yet.
I think of her often and hope whoever she's met
Will be fully aware of how precious she is.
Ah, my friends from the prison, they ask unto me,
"How good, how good does it feel to be free?"
And I answer them most mysteriously,
"Are birds free from the chains of the skyway?"
Lola:-
This is more like it babe.This is on thread.Staying focussed.Ignorance is a killer.
I came across a book once that traced the history of Barbara Allen back as far as they knew.It goes back further I'm sure.It has evolved as if it is organic.Dolly Parton does it very well.She does the Dylan version more or less.I once saw The Everley Bros sing it.Would you believe they only did 4 verses.That's a pitiful assessment of their own audience.A very strange version was broadcast last Sunday on BBC Radio 3 which is a nice station to listen to if you can get it.It was more or less the Dylan version but the singing was quite wierd.I've seen Dylan do it live a couple of times.Have you seen him live?He really is something else.
On Balled in Plain D Dylan has admitted that he regrets it and quite rightly too.It's the biggest blot on his landscape.The general feeling is that it was about Suze Quatro who is the young girl on the cover of an early album.BOB DYLAN maybe.Boots of Spanish Leather was for her too when she went to live in Italy and deserted Bob in cold New York.
That's a great song.Joannie came later.
Wuthering Heights has Barbara Allen themes.You must have read that.I have sat on the couch on which Emily died.Seen her tomb too.I must have 100 books about that scene.Her father buried the whole family.The curse of Patrick Bronte.Emily,my darling Emily,died at 29.That whole village in Yorkshire has one industry catering to the pilgrims who come from all over the world.Totally commercial.I've sat on the stool in the pub where Branwell killed himself with drink and drugs.And James Joyce's chair in Dublin.Did you point your daughters at his take on hell in Portrait.You should have.Laugh it off.It's in an old post.
You miss things you know.It's all that distraction over the two factions of the bourgeois party.It is all a waste of time unless you are in the swim for the purpose of self-enrichment.Mrs Foxy doesn't know what conservative means and if she did she'd jump right out of her skin.
Yes, I can see you're quite right. Suze came first, then Joan. Suze's mother never liked him, but she and Suze's sister came to hate him as he went along. Suze's response was probably the best one for her. Dylan, bless his heart, couldn't seem to stop pissing in his own post toasties. He was often cruel, especially to the women he loved.
But he was ridiculed early in his life for his own genius. And he wasn't helped by his parents who gave him every material thing he wanted, but lacked the capacity to give what he needed. He lived his early youth isolated in his room. True, he entertained himself and learned enough about music to later transform himself from Zimmerman into the Bob Dylan we've had the privilege to enjoy.
But I can't quite forgive him for his GOD period. However, I guess when the weight of one's own mistakes comes on full, it's tempting to blame GOD.....rather than learn from them oneself.
Barbara Allen and sweet William, Emily Bronte's Catherine and Heathcliff, (oh dear, you'll hate me for this) Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet and Jesus and his followers are not my favorite character types. Actually they disgust me. I, like Dylan, can hardly stomach a suffering self-made victim. It makes me want to torture them further. It's my weakness. I like stories in which the characters generally have their own way. All the bigger shame that Dylan resorted to evangelical fundamentalist Christianity. Yuck. But I can see how he could fall for it. He didn't get an early exposure to it in his youth, as I did. I'm immune to the disease. But I can see that he was overly exposed during a period of extreme narcissistic injury and fell under the pressure. Many do.
The Bronte sisters, however have written some books which I, when I was young, enjoyed. I liked Jane Eyre and the delightful Emma. Charlotte Bronte, it seems understood the problems of her time. She could see that human society/interaction was hampered by the narrow and repressive attitudes toward women, and the hammer-will authority maintained by evangelical religion. She had the number of the Pharisees. As Jane Eyre, CBronte, spoke many revolutionary ideas. I would say these were revolutionary for her time or in the past, but given the present resurgence of Evangelicals, I'm sorry to say, I have to include present day.
One of my favorites:
"Conventionality is not morality. Self-righteousness is not religion. To attack the first is not to assail the last." (from the preface to Jane Eyre)
But my favorite of my teen years was George Eliot. Middlemarch, of course. And I have to admire Evans' attitude on evangelical Christianity. And her unwillingness to be frustrated by the marital conventions of the day. Perhaps it was she who launched me into my present rejection of religion inspired oppression. No self inflicted victimhood for her.
These writers suited me as a young, developing girl.
That was after I had read every Nancy Drew mystery novel I could find.......when I was ten, I read almost, if not all of them. Later, I developed a curiosity about Agatha Christie, reading all her books (including, actually starting with one of her pseudononomous novels.....which wasn't good, but inspired my curiousity) and two biographies. (I think I was attracted by the special relationship with a loved and benevolent father.........Agatha in real life, with her affable, yet passive father who was brought up so rich, he never learned to work, and Nancy in fiction.) I also seem to love a good mystery. Actually, that father relationship theme seems to be behind most of my favorites, in one way or the other........hummm, behind my relationships with men as well.
Later, in my thirties, while my children were young, there came Hemingway......all his books and biography; then Truman Capote, the same and then Dylan, all his poetry, and biographies. But these are only a few writers that influenced my fleeing from my roots.
Others, in my twenties, which remain my favorites are Mark Twain, especially in Huckleberry Finn; J.D. Salinger, Catcher in the Rye; Philip Roth, Portnoy's Complaint and some of James Joyce. You can see that all these writers speak from inside a specific character and it's always about the hypocrisy of the self appointed moralist, of which Mrs.F is only one example. And it all started with George Eliot. She understood the internal life, and the influence of the early life experiences of her characters and managed to write about it in in a new way. I also love the works of Henry James, I don't know why.
Lola;-
I busy today but I'll try between times.
I don't think you have Bob's youth quite right.What have you read?Toby Thompson was it ?Nah-it couldn't have been.
I have another take on what you call the God period.I can make it fit in.You have a bit of a hang up about religion don't you?It isn't worth it luvvie.
Let them get on with it.You are too smart for it.We have to make allowances.Like me you are your own comforter.If they start burning books I'll get going.They do disappear books though.I once got a shot of a big libraries cellar.You should have seen the stuff they had taken off the shelves.But if you asked for anything you got it.Veblen was in there.
I know what being Saved means.
Can you allow that your disgust of "self-made victims" was formed by those things you mentioned.How do you know that wasn't the intention.You can learn what not to do from books as well as what to do.As when Dylan says in In The Garden-"why didn't he just slip away to a quieter place instead."Did you not like Wuthering Heights?
Oh Lola-how can anybody not love that?Mystical.
You might love Stendahl you know.There's a man any man can look up to.I'm not too keen on the other Brontes.I once invented a story where Emily didn't die.She faked it to escape her horrible Dad and got tangled up with a Rider Haggard type.Some of her poems are dreamscapes.She was a dreamer just like I am.They call me Mitty in the pub sometimes but Mitty's dreams were corny.Too materialistic.Too American if you don't mind my saying so.Irony is my bag.
I'd agree with your quote from Charlotte.
But what suits a "young developing girl" ('scuse me a moment while I run myself under the cold tap) is not what suits a young developing country lad (your turn).Oh-the passing aways.
I like guys who tell as many good lies as possible like Frank Harris.Cav loved him you know,Generally if an author kills a character he's providing you with a warning if he is a good author.
Emily read a lot when a kid.You seem to have something in common.There's nothing nicer than a country girl of,say,15,sitting in a bay window all afternoon totally absorbed in a book.Any book really.Nancy Mitford was pretty good.Bit hard to handle but what man doesn't like a challenge.That Sophie Western that Tom Jones chased around.
You like the father figure do you?Ms Greer did a book about her father.I haven't seen it though.You might be better focussing on amusement potential.
Fathers are a bit tiresome really.You can understand it.The responsibility for someone like you seem to be must have been a bit scary.I read all Hemingway but he hadn't much sense of humour.He could never see how ridiculous he was.
Andy Warhol and Capote were "friends".
If you like James you ought to like Proust but it's six months of your life.Well worth it too.
Sorry to rush.I'll get back.I love a real literary lady.
I'm in a hurry today too. But for the time, I read Bob Spitz (
Dylan A Biography) I also bought
No Direction Home by Robert Shelton and
Down the Highway The life of Bob Dylan by Howard Sounes, someone told me it was good. But I haven't had time to read them. I have many books I've bought to read, but haven't had the time. I have 16 x 7 feet of book cases of my personal books at home and another 10 x 6 feet at the office of professional books. I like to buy books. And I like to read them as well. However, I suffer from an appetite for books that exceeds my time to read them. It's the curse of my life. I used to think I had plenty of time, as I did. But now I'm recognizing that my time here is limited to no more than thirty years. Lots of time still, but not as endless as it seemed when I was younger.
Quote:I have another take on what you call the God period.I can make it fit in.You have a bit of a hang up about religion don't you?It isn't worth it luvvie. Let them get on with it.You are too smart for it.We have to make allowances.Like me you are your own comforter.If they start burning books I'll get going.
Why a person has a hang up on anything has nothing to do with what's smart. I do make allowances though. See my other post for those. Still, I thought Dylan was smarter than the Evangelical religion thing. But I will allow he was emotionally in need at the time. And I know, as I've said that when in need, smart is not a consideration.
Quote:Can you allow that your disgust of "self-made victims" was formed by those things you mentioned.How do you know that wasn't the intention
Which things I mentioned?
And no, I didn't like Wuthering Heights. Our tastes in authors and our points of interest are related to gender more than anything else, I expect.
Queen Lola Brains Stockingtops 1,
Here's something for you to think about on a long,snuggle up evening in Manhattan.
Following Spinoza on ignorance debating techniques.
An idea is not the same as the thing it is an idea of.The idea of a tin of soup is not the same as the tin of soup.The idea is a thing.The materialist theory of mind claims that a mental state,an idea,is a state of the brain apt for causing certain behaviour.It exists in the circuitry of the brain having the idea.
So if the idea of the soup is a thing,like the soup,in some cases quite like it,but different from it then it is possible to have an idea of the idea.And so on indefinitely.
There is in my mind as in others an idea of Lola just as there is in Lola's mind an idea of spendius.
These two ideas are not Lola and spendius.Lola is real and the idea of Lola is real and the idea of the idea of Lola is real-again indefinitely.
To understand the actual Lola,or the actual spendius,it is not necessary to understand the idea of them nor to understand the idea of the idea of them.
The problem arises when the idea of Lola is confused with the actual Lola.But Lola may present herself in such a way that is intended,or maybe not intended,to give an idea of her that shows her in a good light but then the person getting such an idea is ignorant of the actual Lola if her presentation of herself has been skewed in a self-serving manner which is a possibility at the least.Similarly Lola may have an incorrect idea of the nature of the ideas that are held of her.The process of knowing Lola involves bringing the idea of Lola into congruence
with the actual Lola and this is an ideal state which can only be imagined and never perfectly achieved.
Mr Bush has a reality and two people will likely have ideas of Mr Bush which will be different from each other and different from the actual Mr Bush.
Therefore debate about Mr Bush is not about Mr Bush but about the two different ideas of Mr Bush both of which are incorrect.
When two people have different ideas about Mr Bush which are not congruent with each other or with the actual Mr Bush you have debate between ignoramuses.The only function of such a debate is to serve the emotional needs of the debaters.
Then an idea about the debate itself,which is not the actual debate,unless the above is understood,can equally well be a false idea but if it is a true idea t leads to the conclusion that the debate is just another mindless activity like any other such as cleaning the car or ironing shirts or a debate between two fanatical supporters of different football teams.(I did see your little football joke last week-nothing escapes my eagle eye.)
So the best method is to go backwards down the chain from the thing itself to the idea itself of the thing itself to the idea itself of the idea itself of the thing itself.It is possible to continue but you soon go round the twist if you try it.What we can now do is study the idea of the idea of the thing.A critical examination of the genesis of the idea of the thing can be achieved only when the idea of the idea is examined.We are then examining the process by which we arrived at the idea of the thing and how it arrived in our little noggin.
If the unexamined idea of Mr Bush is economically self-serving.or has some other good,debate between his supporters and opponents resolves itself into a "we want more" mode but without the knowledge of the participants who might then be said to not even know themselves and one wouldn't expect them in that case to have much idea about the actual Mr Bush.
When we examine the idea of the idea of the thing itself we are beginning to understand the properties of our understanding.This is reflection.A search of ourselves.A study of how one's own mind works which ought to take priority over the study of how someone else's does.
It must be roughly where Freud invented psychanalysis from.He must have read Spinoza who is a key philosophical pioneer of the Faustian project.
Further,when the person who the unexamined first idea is about is powerless like a baby or a student or a suspect great care is needed.That is why teachers and detectives are supposed to be well trained which they never can be until they have studied the idea of the idea.Shouldn't parents have training then.
This is closer to philosophy debate than most things as you would expect coming via Spinoza and is of great benefit to every type of relationship.
spendius wrote:Queen Lola Brains Stockingtops 1,
Here's something for you to think about on a long,snuggle up evening in Manhattan.
Following Spinoza on ignorance debating techniques.
An idea is not the same as the thing it is an idea of.The idea of a tin of soup is not the same as the tin of soup.The idea is a thing.The materialist theory of mind claims that a mental state,an idea,is a state of the brain apt for causing certain behaviour.It exists in the circuitry of the brain having the idea.
So if the idea of the soup is a thing,like the soup,in some cases quite like it,but different from it then it is possible to have an idea of the idea.And so on indefinitely.
There is in my mind as in others an idea of Lola just as there is in Lola's mind an idea of spendius.
These two ideas are not Lola and spendius.Lola is real and the idea of Lola is real and the idea of the idea of Lola is real-again indefinitely.
To understand the actual Lola,or the actual spendius,it is not necessary to understand the idea of them nor to understand the idea of the idea of them.
The problem arises when the idea of Lola is confused with the actual Lola.But Lola may present herself in such a way that is intended,or maybe not intended,to give an idea of her that shows her in a good light but then the person getting such an idea is ignorant of the actual Lola if her presentation of herself has been skewed in a self-serving manner which is a possibility at the least.Similarly Lola may have an incorrect idea of the nature of the ideas that are held of her.The process of knowing Lola involves bringing the idea of Lola into congruence
with the actual Lola and this is an ideal state which can only be imagined and never perfectly achieved.
Mr Bush has a reality and two people will likely have ideas of Mr Bush which will be different from each other and different from the actual Mr Bush.
Therefore debate about Mr Bush is not about Mr Bush but about the two different ideas of Mr Bush both of which are incorrect.
When two people have different ideas about Mr Bush which are not congruent with each other or with the actual Mr Bush you have debate between ignoramuses.The only function of such a debate is to serve the emotional needs of the debaters.
Then an idea about the debate itself,which is not the actual debate,unless the above is understood,can equally well be a false idea but if it is a true idea t leads to the conclusion that the debate is just another mindless activity like any other such as cleaning the car or ironing shirts or a debate between two fanatical supporters of different football teams.(I did see your little football joke last week-nothing escapes my eagle eye.)
So the best method is to go backwards down the chain from the thing itself to the idea itself of the thing itself to the idea itself of the idea itself of the thing itself.It is possible to continue but you soon go round the twist if you try it.What we can now do is study the idea of the idea of the thing.A critical examination of the genesis of the idea of the thing can be achieved only when the idea of the idea is examined.We are then examining the process by which we arrived at the idea of the thing and how it arrived in our little noggin.
If the unexamined idea of Mr Bush is economically self-serving.or has some other good,debate between his supporters and opponents resolves itself into a "we want more" mode but without the knowledge of the participants who might then be said to not even know themselves and one wouldn't expect them in that case to have much idea about the actual Mr Bush.
When we examine the idea of the idea of the thing itself we are beginning to understand the properties of our understanding.This is reflection.A search of ourselves.A study of how one's own mind works which ought to take priority over the study of how someone else's does.
It must be roughly where Freud invented psychanalysis from.He must have read Spinoza who is a key philosophical pioneer of the Faustian project.
Further,when the person who the unexamined first idea is about is powerless like a baby or a student or a suspect great care is needed.That is why teachers and detectives are supposed to be well trained which they never can be until they have studied the idea of the idea.Shouldn't parents have training then.
This is closer to philosophy debate than most things as you would expect coming via Spinoza and is of great benefit to every type of relationship.
First of all, let me say that I agree. And so did Freud.
Secondly, Freud never claimed to have thought these things up in total without help from other thinkers. He was the first to give attribution. He is however the person who put them all down together in a theory of not only how the mind works, but also included them in the development of a technique designed for the purpose of attempting the ideal that you mention.
And for the last point, which football joke? And where did you see it?
Lola:-
You said somewhere you liked playing football and I just assumed,I don't know why,that it was a joke.
I wasn't getting at Freud at all.If I tried to there were be no holding back.
I am beginning to realise what you are up against.
The word "conservative" seems to mean something quite different over there than it does here.
it does indeed. We are talking about the Borgias in this case.
Don't hold back on Freud. But do remember, if you will, that you're talking to someone who knows what Freudian theory really is, not just what many people think it is. It takes a lot of study to know Freud and the Contempory Freudian. So don't be careless or I'll lose patience.
Did I say I like football? Or was it racquetball? I don't remember saying I like football.........but actually I do have a vague memory of that, I was making a joke, I think but I don't remember what. I do like most sport games. But I prefer those that are fast and involve a lot of hand eye coordination and a lot of very fast running. Those sports with a lot of waiting time between the action lose my interest very quickly. Also I like to watch those sports I have played myself because I understand the technique so well. And football is at the bottom of my list. I especially like racquetball and to a lesser extent, tennis when it's played aggressively.
I like games that involve hitting something as hard as one can with a racquet. I especially like it if the player can hit the thing hard into a wall and there's a loud sound and one kind of shot that is a winning shot is a "kill shot." I'm a little aggressive and I was the youngest of five.
Aw gee Lola:-
What happens when you lose patience?
I know you are an expert on Freud and also on the contempory Freudian.I can imagine Sigmund sat at his big desk reading that part of your post which talks about the sports you like and why and also that other one about the father figure.I think he might think that you would have rather liked being a boy.I'm not saying that's what I think.I would wonder what "very fast" meant.And what "a lot of hand eye corordination" meant and why you lose interest when you have to wait.And why you like hitting things hard and the loud sound that causes and take an obvious delight in "kill shots".Maybe you should have been in the Marine Corps.I bet you would have liked that wouldn't you Lola?In our football the kill shot is often called "pulling the trigger" by the commentators.
It is also interesting that you prefer things you are familiar with.
I bet you hate getting beaten.I once asked you what winning meant and you said it was an interesting question but that is all you said.
Freud would have been fascinated with a confession of that nature as it would have been a bit of a novelty to him I should have thought.There were not a lot of aggressive career women in the milieux he made a living in if I remember correctly.
Freud might have thought that "a little aggressive" was a mild understatement.He may have had reservations about assigning the cause to being the youngest of five.He might have seen a fine intelligence being continually frustrated by the moronic behaviour of its companions or possibly it being a function of certain microscopic components of diet.I can imagine the professor recommending that you be placed under the supervision of a strong and decisive male a little older than yourself but he would probably have had a little chuckle to himself at the plight of the gentleman.
What I find difficult to understand is why you are so nice to fellow threaders and continually hold yourself back when faced with what I see,mostly,as deserving your icy contempt.The poor little powerless raquetball gets the lot as also does your own frail body.Not to mention your purse.
spendius, you would make such a great analyst. (Except you'd have to analyze that punitive super-ego.) But I know you have other interests.
Exactly right on, concerning me. But it's not as if I didn't spell it out for you.
You're a real winner, dearie.
Lola:-
You are supposed to spill the beans to your father confessor.He wouldn't be able to offer you spiritual guidance otherwise.
Lola;-
What's the big delay for?Not resistance surely.
As you might have guessed I am broken down and it's taking longer to fix than it should.I'm filling up the time with some massive study just for your education.
Hope to be back soon.I'm on a real flash kit here but I'm taking advantage of a friend's goodwill and patience.
spendius wrote:Lola:-
You are supposed to spill the beans to your father confessor.He wouldn't be able to offer you spiritual guidance otherwise.
I don't have one of these........thank goodness I do my best to guide myself. It seems to me to be an unnecessary step to involve a confessor. I can account for my own decisions. Help from my friends is always nice, however.
spendius wrote:Lola;-
What's the big delay for?Not resistance surely.
As you might have guessed I am broken down and it's taking longer to fix than it should.I'm filling up the time with some massive study just for your education.
Hope to be back soon.I'm on a real flash kit here but I'm taking advantage of a friend's goodwill and patience.
Sorry to hear you're broken down. Why don't you buy a lap top? And get wireless. You can always turn it off when you don't want to be bothered at home. It's so much more convenient. And if you want company while you're threading, you can always go back to your internet cafe, or from where ever you come to us. This IS the 21st century, after all. Just a little suggestion. I've made it before.
Hello Lola.
Hello.
HELLO!!!!
Can you hear me.I'm back.Anything doing?Where were we?
Have you seen that Dylan thread?WOW!Have we to show them the route or are we too taken up with our intellectual tete-a-tete,
I've unearthed Reich's achilles heel.Freud's too.
Shut the bloody fuk up. Some of us are trying to get some sleep around here.
Now now MG:-
There's no call for tantrums.The sun's been up ages and a bright young whippersnapper such as yourself should be up and down fetching and carrying for some fragrant beauty.Well-that's what it says in the Book of Etiquetty.If it is raining you could wear a plastic tent with eyeholes in it.
I stop by whenever other people (other than Lola or spendius) visit to see whats going on. IMHO, this thread has gotten way pervey.
