Monday, February 16, 2009

The Bones of My Skull Beneath My Face Are Laughing Forever - Chesterton's defence of skeletons

For Christmas a friend gave me a lovely early 1950s orange-coloured Everyman edition of a collection of stories, essays, and poems by G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936). In it is a delightful essay entitled 'A Defence of Skeletons', very characteristic of the ample G. K. C. and which is indeed a sound defence of sentiments I hold dear. Friends and acquaintances often enquire as to why the ‘creepy’ is so important to our family’s aesthetic. The following goes some way toward answering that. I shall here reproduce the bulk of the short essay.

Chesterton begins seemingly far from the topic, speaking of a walk he took through a winter wood full of trees bare, obviously, of their leaves. The locals, he informs us, were rather embarrassed of the trees in their ‘naked’ season. With typical wit he says: ‘I assured them that I did not resent the fact that it was winter, that I knew the thing had happened before, and that no forethought on their part could have averted this blow of destiny.’

Then we are treated to a deluge of his wonderful fantastic-rhapsodic description: ‘The tops of two or three high trees when they are leafless are so soft that they seem like the gigantic brooms of that fabulous lady who was sweeping the cobwebs off the sky. The outline of a leafy forest is in comparison hard, gross, and blotchy; the clouds of night do not more certainly obscure the moon than those green and monstrous clouds obscure the tree; the actual sight of the little wood, with its grey and silver sea of life, is entirely a winter vision. So dim and delicate is the heart of the winter woods, a kind of glittering gloaming, that a figure stepping towards us in the chequered twilight seems as if he were breaking through unfathomable depths of spiders’ webs.’

And now he comes to his subject proper and the rest of the essay I will quote without interruption:

‘But surely the idea that its leaves are the chief grace of a tree is a vulgar one, on a par with the idea that his hair is the chief grace of a pianist. When winter, that healthy ascetic, carries his gigantic razor over hill and valley, and shaves all the trees like monks, we feel surely that they are all the more like trees if they are shorn, just as so many painters and musicians would be all the more like men if they were less like mops. But it does appear to be a deep and essential difficulty that men have an abiding terror of their own structure, or of the structure of things they love. This is felt dimly in the skeleton of the tree: it is felt profoundly in the skeleton of the man.

‘The importance of the human skeleton is very great, and the horror with which it is commonly regarded is somewhat mysterious. Without claiming for the human skeleton a wholly conventional beauty, we may assert that he is certainly not uglier than a bull-dog, whose popularity never wanes, and that he has a vastly more cheerful and ingratiating expression. But just as man is mysteriously ashamed of the skeletons of the trees in winter, so he is mysteriously ashamed of the skeleton of himself in death. It is a singular thing altogether, this horror of the architecture of things. One would think it would be most unwise in a man to be afraid of a skeleton, since Nature has set curious and quite insuperable obstacles to his running away from it.

‘One ground exists for this terror: a strange idea has infected humanity that the skeleton is typical of death. A man might as well say that a factory chimney was typical of bankruptcy. The factory may be left naked after ruin, the skeleton may be left naked after bodily dissolution; but both of them have had a lively and workmanlike life of their own, all the pulleys creaking, all the wheels turning, in the House of Livelihood as in the House of Life. There is no reason why this creature (new, as I fancy, to art), the living skeleton, should not become the essential symbol of life.

‘The truth is that man’s horror of the skeleton is not horror of death at all. It is man’s eccentric glory that he has not, generally speaking, any objection to being deaf, but has a very serious objection to being undignified. And the fundamental matter which troubles him in the skeleton is the reminder that the ground-plan of his appearance is shamelessly grotesque. I do not know why he should object to this. He contentedly takes his place in a world that does not pretend to be genteel—a laughing, working, jeering world. He sees millions of animals carrying, with quite a dandified levity, the most monstrous shapes and appendages, the most preposterous horns, wings, and legs, when they are necessary to utility. He sees the good temper of the frog, the unaccountable happiness of the hippopotamus. He sees a whole universe which is ridiculous, from the animalcule, with a head too big for its body, up to the comet, with a tail too big for its head. But when it comes to the delightful oddity of his own inside, his sense of humour rather abruptly deserts him.

‘In the Middle Ages and in the Renaissance (which was, in certain times and respects, a much gloomier period) this idea of the skeleton had a vast influence in freezing the pride out of all earthly pomps and the fragrance out of all fleeting pleasures. But it was not, surely, the mere dread of death that did this, for these were ages in which men went to meet death singing; it was the idea of the degradation of man in the grinning ugliness of his structure that withered the juvenile insolence of beauty and pride. And in this it almost assuredly did more good than harm. There is nothing so cold or so pitiless as youth, and youth in aristocratic stations and ages tended to an impeccable dignity, an endless summer of success which needed to be very sharply reminded of the scorn of the stars. It was well that such flamboyant prigs should be convinced that one practical joke, at least, would bowl them over, that they would fall into one grinning man-trap, and not rise again. That the whole structure of their existence was as wholesomely ridiculous as that of a pig or a parrot they could not be expected to realize; that birth was humorous, coming of age humorous, drinking and fighting humorous, they were far too young and solemn to know. But at least they were taught that death was humorous.

‘There is a peculiar idea abroad that the value and fascination of what we call Nature lie in her beauty. But the fact that Nature is beautiful in the sense that a dado or a Liberty curtain is beautiful is only one of her charms, and almost an accidental one. The highest and most valuable quality in Nature is not her beauty, but her generous and defiant ugliness. A hundred instances might be taken. The croaking noise of the rooks is, in itself, as hideous as the whole hell of sounds in a London railway tunnel. Yet it uplifts us like a trumpet with its coarse kindliness and honesty, and the lover in Maud could actually persuade himself that this abominable noise resembled his lady-love’s name. Has the poet, for whom Nature means only roses and lilies, ever heard a pig grunting? It is a noise that does a man good—a strong, snorting, imprisoned noise, breaking its way out of unfathomable dungeons through every possible outlet and organ. It might be the voice of the earth itself, snoring in its mighty sleep. This is the deepest, the oldest, the most wholesome and religious sense of the value of Nature—the value which comes from her immense babyishness. She is as top-heavy, as grotesque, as solemn, and as happy as a child. The mood does come when we see all her shapes like shapes that a baby scrawls upon a slate—simple, rudimentary, a million years older and stronger than the whole disease that is called art. The objects of earth and heaven seem to combine into a nursery tale, and our relation to things seems for a moment so simple that a dancing lunatic would be needed to do justice to its lucidity and levity. The tree above my head is flapping like some gigantic bird standing on one leg; the moon is like the eye of a Cyclops. And, however much my face clouds with sombre vanity, or vulgar vengeance, or contemptible contempt, the bones of my skull beneath it are laughing for ever.’

12 comments:

  1. wow i totally found otto's blog! :)
    hahaha i am such an idiot.
    but i guess you won't completely hate me for giving you anonymous crazy fan mail...
    oh wow where to start... ummm, well. you freaking rock! lol i AM an idiot. but, i'm listening to blaster stuff right now and i have to say i have NEVER heard anything better in my life. ever. i wish i could've seen you guys at cornerstone [sighs] hmmm if it weren't for you i never would've decided i was only 1/3 zombie... the other 2/3 is werewolf :) haha. this music is like the dead kennedys gone to outer space but 10 bazillion times better!! lol. sci-fi punk... wow. oh man i need to meet you some time. wow that would be so amazing. you are, well, besides my boyfriend lol, the coolest person EVER :D right now i'm trying not to crack up listening to you talking about how there are trickles of blood on the ground :) i have GOT to get your music or i'll lose my mind! i guess i'll stop going on and on, cuz you probably don't care anyway... but whatever. you are way awesome man. your songs are awesome too. i mean wow it's punk and sci-fi and... God :) that's so cool. oh i hope someday i can meet you. God bless :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks, MC! I'm ever so pleased to know I'm helping people discover their inner monster ratio. Not always an easy thing to discern, nor easy to live without knowing. May God bless you also, -DOJP.

    ReplyDelete
  3. By the way, how does one 'prove' that a flattering comment wasn't posted by oneself from a fictional account? I wonder, do people just put up whole conversations in the comment section of their blogs by various 'characters' all actually played by themselves? That's not a bad idea - if you've got absolutely nothing else to do with your life. Anyway, you heard it here first, folks. I am, let's see, what was it... 'the coolest person EVER' and 'way awesome'. So really, you should be reading this blog more often and directing all your friends as well as ideological archenemies to it for their edification also. -DOJP

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hey Dan!

    My name is Joshua and I've been a huge blaster fan since the beginning. Stumbled onto your blog today and was ecstatic to see your doing well and writing. Can't wait to start reading your stuff. If you get bored one day I have a blog myself about Doctrine and theology called "athousand tongues" athousandtongues.wordpress.com

    Awesome, I will be reading your blog.
    Keep serving Jesus.
    Joshua

    "Don't use words too big for the subject. Don't say "infinitely" when you mean "very"; otherwise you'll have no word left when you want to talk about something really infinite."
    -C. S. Lewis

    ReplyDelete
  5. Great, Joshua! I'll definitely check out your blog. I also have another you might be interested in called 'Attack of the Man-Eating Church (Trans)Plant' - maneatingchurchplant.blogspot.com. There's theology a plenty there.

    Love the Lewis quote! (Something I need to remember.) Best,

    DOJP

    ReplyDelete
  6. Dan,
    I was wondering if you would do something like a 10 or 20 question interview for my blog. I would love to highlight you and your writing and ask some questions about your writing and theology. Just hit me up if your interested.

    Loving the Man eating church site.

    joshuathereformist@yahoo.com

    ReplyDelete
  7. Dear sir,

    I've left you a comment before, and you read my blog post, and you commented that as well. Thank you for that.

    I also want to express my gratitude towards you for the lyrics you wrote for Blaster. They have made a huge impact on me, and the way I think. And also, doing a lot of research on some of your references, and brought me to start reading a lot of Lewis and such. I am going to pick up the Space Trilogy soon. But it has inspired some of my own lyrical writings, and I find it so much easier to express some of these things that fill my head through allegory, using monsters and scifi.

    Your thoughts and interpretations, like I said, have had a huge impact on me. And it has, and I'm sure it always will, play a huge part in my life. When I listen to Blaster, I think very hard about your expressions, and do my best to understand them. Thus, it has been led to my spiritual growth, as well as academic ambitions (I'll be starting college next year, and I have decided to attend Biola University. If you haven't heard of it, do look it up. Some great guys come out of there.)

    Being the son of an apologist all my life, I already had quite an interest in Theology and Philosophy, and (not to toot my own horn) have a slightly more advanced understanding of such concepts than most people my age (almost 18 years old). But then to find such a band that parallels my interests, well, it is none other than Divine Intervention.

    I very much hope to meet you one day, and you are most definitely one of my heroes.

    I apologize for this very unconventional means of getting ahold of you, but it is all I know of.

    Thank you again. The Lord has used you very much in my life, and will continue you always. (I am sure he will even more so when I pick up the Voice of the Mysterons record.)

    Grace to you,
    -alex esposito.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Daniel, I'm trying to find your mom and dad, old friends of mine from the '70's. Please contact me offline at my regular email address.
    Thanks
    Ed Needham
    ed@homeroaster.com

    ReplyDelete
  9. Thought I already posted, but I guess not - would you be willing to send me a copy of The Monster who ate Jesus? Since getting the ablum I've really wanted to read it. Leave a comment on my page and I'll send you my email address if you are willing.

    thanks,
    Taylor

    ReplyDelete
  10. Hi Taylor, sorry about the delay in responding. I actually did reply to your first comment but I 'replied' through the email notification which I don't think goes anywhere. Sorry about that.

    The thing is, the original piece of writing called 'The Monster Who Ate Jesus' is packed away somewhere in some obscure notebook (if I still have it at all). If I ever run across it, I'd be happy to send it to you - but I doubt I will for probably years. Also, you should know that it's a pretty poor piece of writing - it was mainly the title and concept that I perpetuated through the Blaster album. Thanks for your interest though! You might be interested in my 'Theology of Monsters' blog: http://theologyofmonsters.blogspot.com/.

    Do let me know when you get hold of the Monster Who Ate Jesus album and tell me what you think. All the best, Taylor.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hi Alex, mucho apologies for never responding to you either! Thanks so much for the encouraging words. I love the Biola guys (e.g. Craig, DeWeese, Geivett, Moreland)!

    Have you gotten into the Space Trilogy yet? How's the apologetics schooling going? I'm reading a great wee book right now called 'When Faith is Not Enough' by Dr. Kelly James Clark. Let's keep in touch!

    ReplyDelete
  12. Hey Joshua, I think I replied to you by your email address a long time ago about being glad to do an interview for your site. Are you still interested? All the best.

    ReplyDelete

'THERE ARE THINGS THAT GO BUMP IN THE NIGHT. WE'RE THE ONES WHO BUMP BACK.' (BPRD)