BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


BOOK CLUB: Illuminatus!

 
  

Page: (1)23

 
 
Not Here Still
16:30 / 24.09.01
I've not actually re-read it - someone has stolen my copy - but isn't it time you all started discussing Hagbard Celine and his magical submarine and all that?

(I would have added another post to the original 'Planned Discussion of Big Novels' thread, but there were 23 posts and it was all just too Discordian to mess with. )

However, working from memory, I'll set the ball rolling on this one.
And for god's sake, it is a discussion of a book, which for anyone who hasn't read it, will contain SPOILERS (how do I do this?)
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23
23

Does anyone else feel let down by the ending of Illuminatus?

The whole bloody cocky, 'and it was all a dream, we are all in a book' type feel of it?

I liked a lot of the book, the way the rug kept getting pulled from under my feet, the way it formed a kind of soup of truth, half truth and downright lies - but was it just me, or did the ending suck?

[ 24-09-2001: Message edited by: JB again ]

[ 25-09-2001: Message edited by: Macavity ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
17:32 / 24.09.01
Thank fuck you said that, JB. (oop, and apologies for not having started this thread yesterday, given that it was my idea to discuss the thing.)

Er. Yes. I was pretty let down with the ending, but also with the rest of the book. I guess that it might've gone down a little better had I read the thing while I was at uni, or when I was 17 or something - now, it just seems a bit hackneyed, and almost as if the authors are taking every opportunity they can to over-egg the pudding. I couldn't help but think that Pynchon covered the whole paranoia angle a little better than this one - and his stuff is funnier (to me) because it's played absolutely straight. Improbable and fucked-up, yes, but delivered deadpan. Illuminatus!, however, seems to bend over backwards to make dodgy puns... it just doesn't wash, I guess.

I really wanted to like this book. I really did. But I just couldn't. I actually threw it across the room when I finished it. It infuriated me, not because it was explaining the world, but because it attempted to do so, got sidetracked by how clever it was, and ended up being a plate of literary spaghetti that didn't seem to do anything, except seem like a bit of a joke, written by people who like dicking around with what appears to be textual/factual support. I was.. well, underwhelmed, frankly.

What do people think the authorial intent was behind this thing? To explain conspiracies? To rip the piss out of them? To have a place to stick random pages of apple-fucking? What's yr take?
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
12:30 / 25.09.01
Just pushing this back up to the top to let people know that the thread has started...

Come on, people.
 
 
Tamayyurt
13:20 / 25.09.01
I read it a few months ago for the first time and although there were parts that bothered (or out right bored me) I enjoyed it a lot. Sorta like The Invisibles senile old grandpa! That and I'm turning 23 on thursday so...
 
 
rizla mission
13:24 / 25.09.01
quote:Originally posted by impulsivelad:
Sorta like The Invisibles senile old grandpa!


I think that's a brilliant description of it.
 
 
Kit-Cat Club
14:07 / 25.09.01
But WHY?

Eeeenteresting theory, but where's your evidence?

</unbelievably camp history tutor>
 
 
deja_vroom
16:31 / 25.09.01
HI EVERYBO-DAY!

er... what's The Illuminatus all about, anyway?
 
 
Not Here Still
17:13 / 25.09.01
Well Jade, seeing as this thread is one for people wishing to discuss Illuminatus!, the book by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, you might find you have difficulty taking part.

But hell, no-one else seems to give too much of a fuck, so welcome!

I'd agree with the contention that it's like a senile Invisibles. I think it can be pretty much taken as read that Grant was pretty aware of Illuminatus! among other things when he was writing the Invisibles. The pair also try a similar thing - pushing as many different ideas and concepts, theories (especially conspiracies) and beliefs, into the one fiction envelope and seeing what happens.

I'd suggest that, in the end, Grant actually wanted his work to be coherent. It is also worth remembering, of course, that Grant was writing for a monthly audience with an editor at least keeping a hand on the tiller to keep his ideas together.

You might suggest, however, that by the book's over-riding interest in Discordianism - - which seems to suggest talking bollocks is a great way of doing things, unless I'm very much mistaken - Illuminatus was always going to be, as Rothkoid puts it 'a bit of a joke, written by people who like dicking around.'

But is it a good joke?

And is there a deeper meaning I'm missing? Because I certainly picked up a feeling from the book that it contained esoteric knowledge - although I'm damned if I could tell you what that knowledge was.

Is this just Wilson and Shea's skills as writers?

[ 25-09-2001: Message edited by: JB again ]
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
20:45 / 25.09.01
See, JB, like you, I got wind of some kind of Great Esoteric Truth - though I think it was the sound of it escaping the authors. They hint at the knowledge they are supposed to have, but never accurately convey what it is, how they learned it, or how the reader can get it. I think it's sloppy writing, meant to elevate the authors to the position of Those Who Understand, while the reader flails about dumbly, going "wha?".

Is the book nothing more than two blokes saying "Ha! We're much smarter than you! Naaah!"? Seems like that, somehow.

Jesus, I thought this was a core Barbelith text. C'mon people, talk! There were more bad fnord jokes when this bookclub thing was floated than there are now...
 
 
rizla mission
10:06 / 26.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Rothkoid:
See, JB, like you, I got wind of some kind of Great Esoteric Truth - though I think it was the sound of it escaping the authors. They hint at the knowledge they are supposed to have, but never accurately convey what it is, how they learned it, or how the reader can get it.


Well the point of the book is essentially that it'as a big wild goose chase.

The authors set off by making the book seem like it's going to !reveal the deadly secrets of the Illuminati! and !Show you the way to enlightenment!, but of course it does nothing of the sort.

When I first read it, I was on a big Conspiracy tip and wanted to read about big, complicated X-files type yarns about secret societies controlling the earth, but of course, as you progress through the book, you get buried under layer upon layer of conflicting nonsense philosophies, bizarre references to forgotten bits of pop culture, heavy handed chunks of dubious esoteric knowledge until you're gradually made to realize that there is no masterplan, nobody knows what's going on although they all think they do, and the concept of objective truth means absolutely nothing..

I think the idea behind the book is to force the reader's to change their thinking by transcending notions of logic, rationality, and cause & effect chains altogether.

Essentially (like lots of RAWs other work), it aims to brainwash the reader into abandoning pre-conceived notions of how the world works and accepting that NOTHING IS TRUE, EVERYTHING IS PERMITTED.

Whether or not it succeeeds in this goal (and whether it's an enviable goal in the first place) is another matter entirely, and I'll be the first to admit that in a lot of ways Illuminatus! is one of the most ridiculous and infuriating things written in the English language.

But it worked pretty well for my 14 year old self.

Without it I might have spent years swallowing expensive guff about ancient astronauts and CIA UFO pilots..

It also functions as a neat springboard into the higher echelon's of cultish weirdness, encouraging readers to investigate Discordianism, HP Lovecraft, Crowley, Leary and all the other usual suspects.

But, on another topic entirely, who wants to defend Illuminatus! against charges of gross misogyny?
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
11:48 / 26.09.01
I'd like to see your evidence first.
(Not disagreeing with you but I prefer to have specific charges to agree disagree with).

And those that have read more of Wilson's stuff than me, does it work better with a knowledge of 'Illuminatis Papers', 'Schrodingers Cat', 'Cosmic Trigger' et al?
 
 
Saint Keggers
14:31 / 26.09.01
Lozt B: I dont think it works better with the other books but I think you can enjoy the other books more if you've read that one first.

I read the book way back in college and thought it was the greatest thing since slice bread. But then again it was college and I was pretty much looking for anything not the norm at the time.

I also dont think its mysoginistic at all. Why would you think that??? WHy?
 
 
The Natural Way
15:58 / 26.09.01
Yes.

All Wilson's stuff is hypertextual.

But my favorites have to be Schrodinger's Cat - such a lovely ending (that makes bugger all sense unless one's read Illuminatus!). Hello again George.....

And the cosmic Triggers, esp vol 1. You know, Wilson really isn't trying to be this elusive, esoteric, up-his-own-arse chappy in Illuminatus! In the rest of his work he goes to great pains to explain his position on nearly every subject. In fact, I would say, if I was going to criticize the man, that his obsession with explanation and exposition can be a little heavy handed at times. He's the sort of bloke that always makes sure he tells you when he's being ironic/sarcastic etc.....

I love Illuminatus! It's fun, it's entertaining ("rollicking" sums it up best), it blends fact and fiction like no-one's business - full of tasty little titbits - and the end?

SPOILAGE

Well, first of all they have to discover that they're living in a fiction and then they have to.....

Oh go read Schrodinger's Cat.

[ 26-09-2001: Message edited by: young runt ]
 
 
grant
17:35 / 26.09.01
Misogyny might stick, but the women are really no less "artificially constructed" than the men.

I'm also thinking of the scene with the female cop (although this might be in Schrodinger's Cat) which is the parody of the famous "Yes" bit in Ulysses, only she's saying "No," in the sense of rejecting the lies she's been told and telling herself all her life. It's quite a poetic bit, actually.

It's also worth noting that RAW really didn't much care for a certain strain of militant feminism any more than he cared for the patriarchal opposite number. Man worked for Playboy, after all. He wanted fucking in the streets. Gloria Steinem (at the time) pretty much didn't.
 
 
The Natural Way
08:29 / 27.09.01
S'not in Schrodinger's Cat - you were right the first time.
 
 
rizla mission
08:29 / 27.09.01
quote:Originally posted by Lozt Bookz:

And those that have read more of Wilson's stuff than me, does it work better with a knowledge of 'Illuminatis Papers', 'Schrodingers Cat', 'Cosmic Trigger' et al?


makes a hell of a lot more sense if you've read the Principia.
 
 
deja_vroom
11:17 / 27.09.01
By JB: Well Jade, seeing as this thread is one for people wishing to discuss Illuminatus!, the book by Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, you might find you have difficulty taking part.

Nah. This is THE place to be, so I can learn about it (I don't think I'll ever find the book down here). I promise not to disturb you people. Here, I brought a magazine and I'll sit over there. You clever people can continue your clever chat. Go on, go on...

*coughs and raises finger*
But... what's a "fnord", anyway???
 
 
AilleCat
16:17 / 27.09.01
IF YOU DON'T SEE THE FNORD, IT CAN'T EAT YOU. DON'T SEE THE FNORD, DON'T SEE THE FNORD.

the relevant passage can actually be found on RAW's website.

Excerpts FNORD! from the Illuminatus FNORD! Trilogy

-Trish
 
 
Not Here Still
16:09 / 28.09.01
Yo Jade, I wasn't being nasty...

Ah well, looks like the thread is dying. Five more posts though, and it'll die at 23....
 
 
deja_vroom
16:59 / 28.09.01
hmmm... don't you mean "four"??
 
 
Saint Keggers
20:27 / 28.09.01
Hmmm. I bet you're all expecting me to say" Nope, I belive he means three", but im not going to do that...not me.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
21:20 / 28.09.01
Have to say, I read it when I was 15 and it DID change my life. (Not that that necessarily means I'd think it was great now, I'd have to read it again to find out and some bastards's still got my copy of vol 1.)
I was a good Christian kid up to that point. It got me interested in magick, drugs, James Joyce, conspiracy theory, Burroughs... decent fucking writing in general...)
Long time ago, though, now... in a galaxy far, far away...
Still check out Wilson, though, but I'm kind of pissed off that the "Historical Illuminatus" never actually FINSIHED.
Unless, of course, you know different...
 
 
rizla mission
13:11 / 29.09.01
I've been looking for Volume 3 for years .. you mean it was never actually published??
 
 
MJ-12
09:42 / 30.09.01
vol III, Nature's God , was published, but is slim, and promises the forthcoming The World Turned Upside Down which never seemed to materialize.
 
 
STOATIE LIEKS CHOCOLATE MILK
09:42 / 30.09.01
quote:Originally posted by MJ-12:
vol III, Nature's God , was published, but is slim, and promises the forthcoming The World Turned Upside Down which never seemed to materialize.


As far as I know, III was only published in the States (though as I remember, that may also have been the case with I or II)- and the real bastard of it all is you're racing to get through it, waiting for some big ending/explanation, and it's only THEN that he tells you to wait for Vol. IV.
Unless of course it's all a big joke?
Masks of the Illuminati kind of rocked, too.
 
 
rizla mission
13:36 / 30.09.01
Yeah, I actually think Masks.. is a lot better than Illuminatus.
 
 
w1rebaby
15:57 / 30.09.01
I read it a few years ago on recommendation from other sources and I wish I hadn't bothered. I found it almost unreadable as a complete work. A story about shifting states of consciousness etc is not an excuse for a lack of coherence, plot and sense. It's written from a ridiculously optimistic hippie "just give everyone acid and the world will be great" POV that my cynical brain just will not accept. And, as has been mentioned, the ending is shit.

The mythos of the book is much more interesting than the book itself, 23, fnords, discordianism, all that.

RAW has written some good short non-fiction articles - even if he comes across as smug sometimes - which are certainly thought-provoking, but I don't like his fiction at all.

Don't even get me started on the "Schrodinger's Cat" bollocks.
 
 
Our Lady of The Two Towers
21:32 / 30.09.01
Yes, I was a bit put off by the psychedelics will save the world thing as I read it, but then he was best mates with Tim Leary. Doesn't totally ruin it for me though.
 
 
rizla mission
10:30 / 01.10.01
Well I was into that sort of thing when I first read it, so it didn't bother me.

Smugness - yes, I can see that..

Despite all his good ideas and cool rhetoric, RAW does come over a bit too much like a self-help book guru at times.
 
 
ephemerat
11:15 / 01.10.01
Philosophy, numerology, ontological riffs, the occult, conspiracy theories, lots of lurid sex, plenty of drugs, civil disobedience, a rock festival and an army of zombie Nazis! I mean, what more do you want?

It was fun, it was humorous, it was something of an antidote to all the po-faced posturing of Ayn Rand and the various other right-wing libertarians of the time. It wasn't intended to be a sacred text as such, or a heavy-weight philosophy book, it took the piss out of itself at least as much as it took the piss out of society. If anything, all it really seemed to ask you to do was to take a second-look at what you consider reality to be, to question what you are told, and most of all, to have a bloody good time doing it.

It's a great book and it is, by definition, not intended to be taken seriously.
 
 
Jack The Bodiless
13:41 / 01.10.01
Yeah. What he said. It's possible that some of you were steered in its direction for the wrong reasons. It's just a laugh... with the only underlying subtext being that you shouldn't take everything you read/see so seriously, and to question everything.

And now we have a thread devoted to discussing the 'hidden depths' of the trilogy. Help me out here. Is this irony?
 
 
Not Here Still
15:25 / 01.10.01
Anyone here claim themselves as Discordian?
 
 
The Return Of Rothkoid
20:57 / 01.10.01
quote:Originally posted by Jack The Bodiless:
It's just a laugh... with the only underlying subtext being that you shouldn't take everything you read/see so seriously, and to question everything.

So couldn't he have done that with a business-card with some text on it, rather than 800 fucking pages? Ack. Like I admitted before, I would've been greatly affected by it ten years ago, but now - I dunno. The humour seemed a bit laboured, to my mind.

Why do you think it's been adopted as a kind of "must-read paranoid text"? Just curious. Did Discordianism run out of the book, or the book from it? Does it matter two hoots either way - is one irrelevant without the other, or...?
 
 
w1rebaby
09:25 / 02.10.01
You know what it reminded me of? (I've just thought.) Brett Easton Ellis. Sound premise, lots of meaning to the basic idea, but in practice just carries on a bit too long. The sort of thing that makes you appreciate that editing is an underrated skill.

quote:So couldn't he have done that with a business-card with some text on it, rather than 800 fucking pages?

precisely. One book, maybe, but not three.
 
 
Lionheart
09:25 / 02.10.01
A lot of people are mistaking the epilogue of "Illuminatus!" for the ending. The ending happens when the 4 heads of the Illuminati are killed by Yog-Sothoth thereby stopping the on-coming zombie Nazi army (along with a 50 foot Eris' help, ofcourse! ) And the epilogue isn't a "it's been all a dream, we're in a book" type of ending. It's a... the whole universe is a fiction type ending. And that goes along with the reality tunnels talked about in the Illuminati Papers.

I don't understand where some of you got the whole "Psychedelics will save the world" vibe because it wasn't there. There wasn't that much drug use, but, just so you know, I hear LSD can be mind blowing in near fatal doses. (I mean in grams, not in micrograms or milligrams or centigrams.)

The whole thing is basically a dog chasing its tale type of story. It's meant to include interesting ideas and is meant to include jokes disguised as ideas.

For example, Beethoven being a member of the Illuminati was supposed to be a joke... until the authors (Wilson and Shea) discovered it to be true AFTER the book was published.

And don't forget, the Mass suicide by Cyanide was a brand new idea back then. This was before Jonestown. This was before...uh...modernity.

The bad thing about Illuminatus is the sheer absence of monkeys. Well, that's not exactly true, is it?
 
  

Page: (1)23

 
  
Add Your Reply