KWBC: The Eye in the Pyramid - Discussion

[I'm Murrin]

April's Book Club read was The Eye in the Pyramid, first of the Illuminatus! Trilogy.

What did you think?

[ussusimiel]

I'm about two-thirds of the way through, so I'll join in properly when I'd done. Can't seem to avoid libertarian sci-fi at the moment (also in the middle of Heinlein's Time Enough For Love).

All Hail Discordia!

u.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

An excellent choice. This book (well, the entire trilogy) is designed specifically to deconstruct your mind. Except for some major plot themes and characters (Saul Goodman, Barney Muldoon, George Dorn, Hagbard Celine)if you think you know what is going on by the time you finish this book then you weren't really reading it.

Probably the most difficult hurdle you may encounter reading this book is its cultural and social context; it was originially published in the mid-70s and times were definitely different back then.

Can you see the fnords yet?

Have you come across any metafiction sections where the characters think they are characters in a book or someone is writing a book designed to be weird enough to make your brain freak out?

Everything in the Illuminatus Trilogy is true, including the things which are false.

[aliantha]

Yeah, the first thing I was gonna say was: Boy howdy, you can sure tell this book was written in the '70s.

I ended up at Wikipedia while looking up something about this book, and learned that Shea and Wilson worked together at Playboy Magazine when they wrote this. Part of their job was to read the mail, including all the mail from all the paranoid conspiracy theorists who would write in. Apparently they decided to write a book that included all of them.

I'm not quite done with it, either. Hoping to finish tonight or tomorrow.

[Avatar]

Well, I'm about finished the next trilogy.

The first thing that always strikes me with amusement is the dedication. Book 1 is dedicated to Gregory Hill and Kerry Thornley, authors of the Principia Discordia. (Both of whom are sadly dead now.) (I shall post a link to the Principia for anybody who wants a copy.)

Reading through this time, I was a bit disappointed because book one is more random than I remembered, it's only in book 2 that things start to come together better.

So anybody who only reads book one is really missing out. In fact, I suspect the series was meant to be read as one volume, since Epicene Wildblood is reviewing all three books for Confrontation in the first book.

Funnily enough, despite the fact that it was written in the 70's I can still see a lot of parallels with today. Maybe that's bad.

I'll upload my copy of the Principia somewhere (it's a nice one) and post the link here for anybody who is interested as soon as I remember.

--A

[Orlion]

An excellent choice. This book (well, the entire trilogy) is designed specifically to deconstruct your mind. Except for some major plot themes and characters (Saul Goodman, Barney Muldoon, George Dorn, Hagbard Celine)if you think you know what is going on by the time you finish this book then you weren't really reading it.

Sounds like a cop-out to me

Also, u, was this too post-modern for you?

Despite its many, many flaws (To name a couple:1) You can tell the authors were working for PlayBoy at the time. 2) That "drugs open your mind, man!" crap. 3) A style that completely undermines what they were trying to say about "drugs opening your mind, man!") I thoroughly enjoyed this book. I particularly like that the unreliable narrator is so unreliable, it can not even decide what point of view it is.

More commentary to come.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

Funnily enough, despite the fact that it was written in the 70's I can still see a lot of parallels with today. Maybe that's bad.

People never change; only the technology they use changes.

I particularly like that the unreliable narrator is so unreliable, it can not even decide what point of view it is.

The book relies on whatever point of view is needed at the moment to say what it wants to say. Either that or the authors would forget where they were and just pick up a random thread to follow it for a bit.

[ussusimiel]

Also, u, was this too post-modern for you?

'Fraid so, Orlion I fear I am a bit too serious-minded for these books. (They do say somewhere in the book that the serious can never uncover the Truth )

I finished the book, but I'm not sure that I can say that I enjoyed it. It may be the case that now that we are used to conspiracy theories (probably partly because of these books) they don't have the same impact or generate the same interest that they would have in the '70s. When I read The Da Vinci Code (uncool, I know I know ) I was drawn into the theories enough to go and read up about Jewish sects like the Essenes.* In the case of this book (maybe because of its tongue-in-cheek tone) I don't feel that I have learned anything new. (That said I have read a bit about Discordianism before, so I did learn something new, it's just that I'd done it before the I read the book. Heh, maybe I'm experiencing that all-time-is-one thing )

I spent a lot of the time reading the book not able to tell the Discordians apart from the Illuminati, and I spent most of the book thinking that Joe Malik was a member of the Illuminati. And I was certainly lost most of the time trying to figure out who was controlling which political group for what purpose (and not caring enough to spend the energy to work it out ).

I'll probably read the next one because of what Hashi and Av have said, but there seems to be an essential materialism about these books that rubs me up the wrong way. (I'm also the person who hasn't/can't read Prachett or Harry Potter. What is it with this seriousness bug? )

u.

* I did do a bit of reading about the Kennedy assassination, which I know very little about.

[Orlion]

I spent a lot of the time reading the book not able to tell the Discordians apart from the Illuminati, and I spent most of the book thinking that Joe Malik was a member of the Illuminati. And I was certainly lost most of the time trying to figure out who was controlling which political group for what purpose (and not caring enough to spend the energy to work it out ).

In a sense, I think that's really suppose to be the case. Assuming, also of course, that the Illuminati is an actual organization and not something the Discordians use to dope the dopers.

I mean, there is very little evidence at this point that they have actually dealt with the Illuminati. We know Hagbard seems able to pull some strings, we also know that Hagbard has expressly told George "not to trust him." Also, he seems to have plotted with Sheriff Cartwright (associated with God's Lightning) to get a hold of George in a matter to recruit him in the way Saul Goodman speculated the Illuminati would try and deal with him (and, in a sense, it's hard to say if Saul's ordeal was a bonafide encounter with the Illuminati or something orchestrated by the Discordians).

Also, keep in mind the "Illuminati submarines" are only seen through a "video-feed", and not through anyone's actual five senses.

I'll probably read the next one because of what Hashi and Av have said, but there seems to be an essential materialism about these books that rubs me up the wrong way. (I'm also the person who hasn't/can't read Prachett or Harry Potter. What is it with this seriousness bug? )

u.

Oh, I see how it is... you can read DiVinci Code just fiiine, but Harry Potter? You're too serious for that

Pratchett has absolutely no appeal to me and I'm trying to force my way through Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

[ussusimiel]

I spent a lot of the time reading the book not able to tell the Discordians apart from the Illuminati, and I spent most of the book thinking that Joe Malik was a member of the Illuminati. And I was certainly lost most of the time trying to figure out who was controlling which political group for what purpose (and not caring enough to spend the energy to work it out ).

In a sense, I think that's really suppose to be the case. Assuming, also of course, that the Illuminati is an actual organization and not something the Discordians use to dope the dopers.

Yeah, I was beginning to get that vibe by the end. A bit of 'The Usual Suspects'-duped feeling.

....and I'm trying to force my way through Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy.

I enjoyed Hitchhiker's until I learned enough about philosophy to realise that they're mostly about pulling the piss about anything that isn't based in science. (And it turns out Douglas Adams was buddies with Richard Dawkins (no favourite of mine ))

u.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

In the case of this book (maybe because of its tongue-in-cheek tone) I don't feel that I have learned anything new.

Really? You know about the Law of Five now. You also have various facts about the Illuminati that have varying degrees of truth.

Give it time. These books deconstruct your mind but they do it slowly as your brain processes the information behind the scenes.

Wouldn't the most trustworthy person be the one saying "don't trust me"? It seems counter-intuitive but it makes sense--they are letting you know exactly how to deal with them from the beginning.

How serendipitous. We are discussing this book and I just noticed that today is Walpurgisnacht.

[Orlion]

Wouldn't the most trustworthy person be the one saying "don't trust me"? It seems counter-intuitive but it makes sense--they are letting you know exactly how to deal with them from the beginning.

I did find Hagbard to be the most "trustworthy" character in the book. He's very forthright about limitations and when anyone may be just thinking to much about a problem (I'm thinking specifically about Simon Moon's obsession with numbers).

[ussusimiel]

(I'm thinking specifically about Simon Moon's obsession with numbers).

That's another thing that was maybe original when the book came out first. I've watched films about the number 23 and films like 'A Beautiful Mind', and the excellent 'Pi' by Darren Aronofsky, but all they've ever convinced me of is that if you make a theory complex enough you can encompass any number of seemingly unconnected variables.

u.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

the excellent 'Pi' by Darren Aronofsky

That is on my list of Top 10 Favorite Films. On a side note, at the end of the movie when the little girl asks him another question do you think he really does not know the answer or do you think it does not matter to him any more? I think he knows but it isn't as important any more.

Yes, numerology is easy to get sucked in to and once you are there you start seeing importance in numbers everywhere. You left one movie off the list: The Number 23, one of Jim Carrey's better films. The second time you watch it you are actively looking for numerical references behind the scenes, such as house numbers and times on clocks...but that is the trap the main character falls into.

That is the essence of The Law of Five. If you look for something long enough and with enough creativity you will find it. The unspoken part of this is that you will begin to find it everywhere.

[Avatar]

I spent a lot of the time reading the book not able to tell the Discordians apart from the Illuminati...

This is why you have to read the whole trilogy. It really is just one story.

Anyway, for them that is interested, here's a nice digital copy of the Principia Discordia in PDF (about 10Mb), with introductions by Robert Anton Wilson and others:

https://www.dropbox.com/s/y8a2e8flji53f ... cordia.pdf

--A

[I'm Murrin]

I meant to get around to this book, but my reading's really not been going well lately. Spent more than two weeks on The Wind-Up Bird Chronicle and another two weeks now on 300-page Hand-Book of Volapuk. Not sure if I'll get round to it.

[aliantha]

Despite its many, many flaws (To name a couple:1) You can tell the authors were working for PlayBoy at the time. 2) That "drugs open your mind, man!" crap. 3) A style that completely undermines what they were trying to say about "drugs opening your mind, man!")

1. OMG YES!
2. Not a flaw -- a commentary on late '60s-early '70s pop culture. The hippies really did believe that drugs would open your mind, man.
3. I actually think the style -- the rapid-fire changes in scene, narrator, point of view, etc., etc. -- is intended to mimic a drug trip. Whether you think it succeeds is something else.

Reading the book immersed me back in that era, that's for sure. You young'uns are probably missing a bunch of the in-jokes. Sorry.

I believe you, Av and Hashi, when you say one should read all three books at once. (And yes, according to Wikipedia, the authors did intend to publish all three books in one volume from the start; their editor made them break it up, believing a long book would never sell. Also, the editor insisted on trimming a ton of it -- which then led to an in-joke about how, due to a conspiracy, the whole middle section of the appendices was lost. ) Nevertheless, I had to take a break before diving back into it. The book messed with my mind, man.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

The book messed with my mind, man.

That is its intended purpose. Fun, isn't it?

[Avatar]

Uh, drugs can open your mind. What you get out is what you put in.

--A

[ussusimiel]

Reading the book immersed me back in that era, that's for sure. You young'uns are probably missing a bunch of the in-jokes. Sorry.

Care to share with 'young'uns'

u.