CITIES OF THE RED NIGHT 3

Some great comments and questions regarding CITIES OF THE RED NIGHT 2:

Kevin said...

Hi there, I enjoyed your review of this book, you have provided some enlightening points that have helped me understand the book more.

I have just finished reading it, and while I enjoyed the first half of the book, I did find the latter parts a bit confusing.... It has been a while since I last read a 'Beat' novel. But your idea of time, space, culture, ect. collapsing makes sense!

There is a quote from the beginning of the book which I found interesting:

"I cite this example of retroactive Utopia since it actually could have happened in terms of the techniques and human resources available at the time. Had Captain Mission lived long enough to set an example for others to follow, mankind might have stepped free from the deadly impasse of insoluble problems in which we now find ourselves." (page 11)

Is this an ideal of which the resulting mayhem disproves?

Those who proclaim 'utopia' usually set in train mayhem, the idealist's raison d'être.

What do you think?

---

I think that the resulting mayhem does disprove of the ideal, the utopia. This is because the power and control shift from the powers-that-be, who know how to navigate and manipulate the chaos, to the powers-that-could-be, who are an unknown, and, therefore, to be feared. The coup d'etat usually results in martial law that resembles that of the disposed dictator. Power is vacated, and then power fills the vacuum. The people aren't going to revolt, as long as things remain relatively stable. Don't mess with my house, my family, or my livelihood, and I will look the other way. I seem so small. How can I stand against the powers-that-be?

As William S. Burroughs writes in Ghost of a Chance:

"Who ever needed a majority? Ten percent plus the police and military is
all it ever took. Besides, we've got the media, hook, line, and
blinkers. Any big-circulation daily even hinting that the war
against drugs is a red whale?" (page 30)

We all know that the answer to the last question is "no."

---

Burroughs has obvious disdain for Christianity. He dislikes the institution. He challenges its power, and rightly so, because as an institution, the church has wreaked havoc upon creation—the earth, flora and fauna, governments, and groups of people. The church has tried to identify as the utopia when very often it is the mayhem, attempting to keep a grasp upon its control. But, that is because the institution forgets that, if it takes itself seriously, that it ultimately has no control, because that is solely in the hands of God.

Three books come immediatlely to mind when I contemplate the struggle between utopia and mayhem that the church finds itself. All are written by people who are members of various churches and identify as Christian. All three authors write in the tradition of the prophets, however, challenging the institution that seeks only to preserve itself, at any and all costs.

[1]

"Only two things can destroy a corporate persona: revolution from the inside or catastrophe from the outside. You can't reform an angel; violence is the only solution."
—page 80, The Astonished Heart by Robert Farrar Capon

Capon argues that "angels" defend institutions, and that as beings, their survival is of utmost importance. If you destroy the institution, then you displace the angel whose job it is to protect it. Therefore, the angel must ensure that the system remains in place. The existence of the angel depends upon the institution's existence, even if the institution is maimed or marred. Christendom collapsed a long time ago, but you wouldn't know it from some of the rhetoric that emanates from the White House, the Congress, and the Supreme Court. The angel of Christendom makes sure that things stay the same, or at least appear to, in order that it keep its role as guardian of that Christendom.

That doesn't mean that there aren't individual churches and congregations that are thriving, relevant, vital, alive. It does mean, though, that Christendom itself is a corpse propped up as though it still mattered, as though it still breathed, when the breaths only remain in remnants of the body. Or, perhaps, those breaths are the breaths of new entities.

[2]

"Just like the Crucifixion, the slaying of John the Baptist is not directly carried out by the crowd, but it is collectively inspired. In both cases there is a sovereign who is the only one with the authority to issue the decree of death and who finally decrees it in spite of his personal desire to spare the victim: Pilate on the one hand, Herod on the other. In both cases the ruler renounces his own desire and orders the execution of the victim for mimetic reasons, not being able to withstand a violent crowd."
—page 27, I See Satan Fall Like Lightning by René Girard

When things appear that they will get out of hand then the powers-that-be will do anything to ensure that they remain the powers-that-be. The angel ensures that the institution continues, for the sake of the institution, but, more importantly, for its own sake. Give the people what they want when the scales of power begin to tip. Give them the rabblerouser who is threatening their livelihoods, the structure of their family, the ease with which they move through the world. Sacrifice the scapegoat who tears at the fabric of society, even if you believe he is right, because your own livelihood, family, and being are at stake. You don't want to tumble down the mountain.

[3]

"Now let us look at the sayings and attitude of Jesus during the trial...First, there is silence...Second, his attitude involves accusation of the authorities...Third, we find provocation on the part of Jesus."
—pages 67–69, Anarchy and Christianity, Jacques Ellul

Yet, that is exactly what Jesus does. He tumbles down the mountain. He upends the mountain and turns it upside down. He levels the mountain so that it is no more. He threatens not to replace the mayhem of the powers-that-be with utopia, but with more mayhem. At least that is what it looks like. He is arguing against authority. He talks of leaving family to follow him. He is leaving the laws behind, if they are not merciful to the marginalized. Healing on the Sabbath? It's healing, right? Plucking grain on the Sabbath? It's feeding the hungry, right?

He makes the powers-that-be tremble because he destablilizes their power, and they can't see how he plans on putting things right. Jesus doesn't offer them a solution. He trusts that God his Father will put things right. He says that he is bringing chaos into the way-things-are to ensure that all are treated with love and mercy. That is the kind of talk and action that gets you killed. And, in the case of Jesus, that is exactly what happens.

So, what do I think that utopia looks like? I am somewhat unsure. I don't know that it exists or will ever exist here. I trust that the only utopia will come from God. But, I am even unsure what that looks like. The descriptions of paradise or heaven in the Bible are so different from one another, involving so many different metaphors, that I wouldn't even pretend to guess. I cannot wrap my mind around the concept. Language, obviously, ultimately collapses in trying to explain it.

[More to follow...]