File spoon-archives/marxism-general.archive/marxism-general_1997/marxism-general.9709, message 29


Date: Fri, 5 Sep 1997 22:36:00 +0200
From: Hugh Rodwell <m-14970-AT-mailbox.swipnet.se>
Subject: M-G: Re: A time to Di -- eaters, Liz claws her way back, Goddess of


1. Eaters

Margaret M G writes (on m-fem):

>Hugh--
>Sorry to be dense, but jokes are fair game for theory (nothing more serious
>than a joke)--"an 'eater'" is readily understood in Britain to be. . .
>something to eat?  (in reference to the mother), someone to eat her (in
>reference to the son? the staff?)

Something that can be eaten, in this case, an edible carcase.

>	As a person committed to age studies,  I see this as a narrative
>having
>something to do with relations between midlife women and adult children
>(male), in which the sack already speaks the dominant note of the
>relationship,

My turn to be dense -- "dominant" being who and how? In the story (mother
dead and in low-status receptacle) or in real life (mother living and
presumably in bossy relationship to son)?

>and am only trying to figure out how Cleese/funeral director
>relates to the relationship.

Well, the son is a bit put off at first, and finds the suggestion hard to
swallow, so to speak, but he's won round. Cleese is being a hard-nosed
Thatcherite, refusing to let out-dated sentiment get in the way of a good
feeding opportunity. Perhaps he brings to the surface the latent
cannibalism of the nuclear family relationship?? A maeutic ritualizing of
the trauma of the authoritarian family?

>     Also--how does this joke relate to the Di context, in your view?

A bit indirectly, but basically by pouring a smoking and highly caustic
solvent on all the sweet sticky fetish-goo that's oozing (gushing) from the
sacrificial immolation and its subsequent developments. It also has some
relation (that I wasn't conscious of when I wrote it) to Di's eating
problems -- she became in fact notorious for her behaviour as an eater
(someone who eats (or not, as the case may be)).

2. Liz claws her way back

I've only seen part of the Queen's message to her subjects, so I missed the
drama of the composition of the whole.

Her image was a pro job. Softened up, eyes visible, black dress, nice
hairdo for her -- I wonder if she borrowed Blair's operatives?

She'd been coached to get on first name terms with the mob. It was Harry
and William all the way. (They'd all gone walk-about on returning to
London, and God's-Grace-to-Be and the kids went and laid a wreath with the
flowers of the devote hordes outside Kensington Palace.)

The studied ambiguity of the speech was brilliant. I could hardly have done
it better meself. "No-one who knew Diana will ever forget her." Bottomless
irony here. And all done with a completely straight face. But I'll have to
try and tape it or get a transcript to do it all justice.

People 1 -- Windsors 1


3. Goddess of what?

Well, today I was discussing all this with a shrink I know and he pointed
out that among the flowers there were lots of teddy bears too. Talk about
infantilization, projection and fetishization!

Then something new struck me. We have Di the mother and Di the child and Di
the child-bride and spouse all in one. But not only that, and this is what
struck me, we also have Di the sister and buddy, going down to the gym,
having trouble at home, getting a bit on the side, ganging up with others
in the same boat (Fergie) and so on.

All things to all men, women and kids. Including the "democratic" buddy bit.

Anyone know if there's a book collecting dreams people have had about her?
There's a research project for somebody!



It's been a hectic week, eh?

And now Mother Theresa is either tucking in at last to all that lovely
Pie-in-the-Sky or blissfully unaware that she was living a lie all her life.

See you at the funeral.

ciao4now,

Hugh










     --- from list marxism-general-AT-lists.village.virginia.edu ---

   

Driftline Main Page

 

Display software: ArchTracker © Malgosia Askanas, 2000-2005