Monday, October 10, 2011

Hearts and Bones

Before we get into the song, it is important to note some dates. The song was copyrighted 1982, and the album on which it appeared was released in 1983. Paul Simon married his second wife, actor/author Carrie Fisher, in 1983, and they divorced in 1984, one month shy of their first anniversary. (True, they had dated since 1977, but still.)

So, while it is tempting to say that the song is about this couple and the dissolution of their marriage, Simon wrote it before they were married and released it before they were divorced. So it's about some other couple, or an imaginary one. Either that, or Simon predicted the ending of the marriage before he even proposed.

The opening line certainly lends itself to the speculation that the subjects are Simon and Fisher. Simon is Jewish; Fisher is Jewish on her father's side, which some count as only being "half Jewish," since Judaism is traditionally a matrilineal (passed down through the mother's side) religion.

The couple, whomever they are, are "free to wander wherever they choose" (which may be a riff on the idea of the "wandering Jew," and perhaps even the idea of the Jews being "the chosen people.") But then, during a trip to New Mexico, they choose differently from one another. (The Latinate guitars and drums of the region are heard throughout the song.)

It is significant that they are in the Sangre de Christo mountains. As the song itself explains, the range is named for the blood of Jesus, the ultimate martyr. Someone here feels that they are sacrificing themselves.

The journey is supposed to be ending; it's on its "last leg." The "arc" of their relationship is compared to a "rainbow," which is both beautiful and illusory. They are "high" in the mountains, where the air is thin and hallucinations are possible. Also, while there must have been rain for there to be rainbows, the area is a "desert" and bereft of the practical needs to sustain life. "Mountain passes," or pre-cut trails, are also becoming "stone," and more difficult to navigate. As pretty as things appear superficially, they are in fact bad and getting worse.

Then the man begins to wonder when the trouble started. He recalls a wedding that was somewhat scandalous-- "The act was outrageous"-- and the bride may have gone through with the wedding even though she was ill. She was "contagious," and she "burned" with a fever.

Either that, or her fervor caused his girlfriend, with whom he is travelling now, to catch the wedding bug: "These events may have had some effect/On the man with the girl by his side." Wait, what was the effect on him? Did her passion stir his, in turn? "His hands rolling down her hair/Love like lightning, shaking till it moans," is a very evocative phrasing (and it's better than what Simon came up with in "How the Heart Approaches": "I roll in your arms/And your voice is the heat of the night/I'm on fire.")

And then a question from her jerks our man back to now. They are already in New Mexico, so she asks him; "Why don’t we drive through the night? We’ll wake up down in Mexico.” After all, they are "free to wander," and it's just across the border.

The next bit of the conversation is muddled, at least for me. This is how I have always heard it go:

She: "Why don't we... wake up down in Mexico?"
He: "I don't know nothin' about no Mexico. And tell me why won’t you love me for who I am, where I am?”
She: “'Cause that’s not the way the world is, baby. This is how I love you, baby."

To me, this makes sense. She says, let's go. He says, I don't want to, "AND" [emphasis mine, as it seems to indicate a further thought by the same speaker] why do we need to keep moving, anyway-- love me here! She says, that's just the way I am. Take it or leave it, sorry.

Now, according to both Simon's website and the liner notes on the original LP, it goes like this:

She: "Why don’t we drive through the night? We’ll wake up down in Mexico.”
He: Oh, I don’t know nothin’ about, nothin’ no Mexico.
She: “And tell me, why won’t you love me for who I am where I am?” [Why is she asking this? She's the one that wants to love him somewhere else! Namely, Mexico! He does want to love her where they are, and not go to Mexico.]
He said: “Cause that’s not the way the world is, baby. This is how I love you, baby."

(The words "He said" are on both the site and the notes; the quotes are as depicted at the site.)

So you see my problem with this. The difference in the reading is critical. It goes to the whole point of who was not accepting, who is inflexible. In my reading, she wants to go and he wants to stop; he asks her why they keep moving and she says "just 'cause."

In the official reading, she both suggests they go and then demands to know why they should go. Which I hold makes no sense. And if she is making no sense, why does he accept the blame for being inflexible about going when she is the one who wanted to go?! Instead of saying, "But you were the one who wanted to go!"

Anyway, they break up. They "returned to their natural coasts." If this were about Simon and Fisher (which it does not seem to be), he would go back to New York and she would head back to LA. In any case, they "resume old acquaintances" and date other people. Again, if this were about the couple people think it is, the line "speculate who had been damaged the most" would refer to her novels and his songs, each of which are at least semi-autobiographical and mention the other.

The line "easy time will determine if these consolations"-- their friends, dating, and artistic pursuits-- "will be their reward" reminds me of line in a Shawn Colvin song, about what her friends say after each breakup: "At least you got a song out of it."

And is it over? No. The "arc" that began in rainbows and peaked in sensuous lovemaking is now a broken bridge "waiting to be restored."

And now, on the last leg of this song's journey, we learn what the title and refrain are about: "You take two bodies and you twirl them into one/Their hearts and their bones/And they won’t come undone." The idea of "hearts" being an image of love is popular enough... but Simon adds "bones."

"Bone of my bone," Adam calls Eve, and indeed she is made of his bone. "I feel it in my bones," is a deeper, more intuitive sense than "I know it in my heart." Under all of the "flesh and blood," the very core of your physical being is bone. (How bad is George Thorogood? "Bad to the bone.")

It's not just "hearts" and emotions here. It's physicality and bones that are intermingled, and inextricably so.

This is one of Simon's prettiest and saddest songs. It is about how each love and loss shapes a person, potentially forever.

"Didn't it work out all right in the end?" Ozymandias asks Dr. Manhattan in the graphic novel The Watchmen. "End?" the supernatural superhero replies. "Nothing ever ends."


IMPACT:
The song did not chart, but the album did make the top 100 in the US and throughout Europe, and even Japan and Australia. It reached #3 in Norway, the Top 20 in Sweden, The Netherlands, and France, and the Top 40 in Switzerland, Japan, the UK, and the US.

Next Song: When Numbers Get Serious

8 comments:

  1. When he sang “Sound of Silence” during his second encore, most of the audience had their phones up recording him.

    ReplyDelete
  2. PS Tickets-- Did they never see a phone-made video on YouTube? The visuals are awful and the sound is almost as bad. Why not just enjoy it and have the memory? But I get you larger point; Simon was singing about "people hearing without listening," while mostly machines were listening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Here is how I read it. Your initial thought that "and" implies a connection between two thoughts from the same speaker is correct I think:

    She said... Why don't we drive through the night? We'll wake up down in Mexico. Oh I, I don't know nothing about, nothing about no Mexico. [I don't know anything about Mexico, can we go see it, please?] And tell me why, why won't you love me for who I am where I am?

    He said... Cuz that's not the way the world is baby. This is how I love you baby.

    I wouldn't take "where I am" strictly literally. I think we're supposed to take it that a lot is being left unsaid. Clearly their marriage is generally unhappy. Perhaps she's even changing the subject. Maybe there's a long pause between her request about Mexico and her question about his love. And then I don't fully understand his response, but whatever it means, the bottom line seems to be, "I'm sorry if you don't like the way things are, but this is how our marriage is. This is how I am. Take me or leave me." He seems to be a selfish character, not responding to her needs.

    I think all of that goes much deeper than the drive to Mexico, which may only serve as a setting for this very brief but revealing conversation.

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Oh I don't know nothing about no Mexico," seems to me clearly saying "I don't care for going to Mexcio on the spur of the moment, can't we just stay here? Why can't you love me here?"

    "He said... 'cause this is how I love you baby." I think it should have been "She said" this.

    But you are right about "where I am" being metaphoric as well. As in "This is where it's at!" or "I don't know where I am in my life anymore."

    "I'm sorry if you don't like the way things are, but this is how our marriage is. This is how I am. Take me or leave me." See, he's not the one who should be saying that, since he is not the one making the unusual request.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Just an idea.
    This song was written and released before Paul Simon and Carrie Fisher were married and divorced.
    So it is not about their marriage.
    Does it mean that it also can't be about their relationship?
    I don't think so. At the time it was written,
    they had a long standing relationship. It was an on/off relationship and it was Carrie who wanted to marry.
    I think this song means that Paul was afraid (or had the feeling) that a marriage would not change their precarious relationship.
    And, indeed, it didn't (of course; you can't make a relationship better, simply by marrying)
    He is not predicting in this song; he is realistic. (the story about the marriage will bi fictive)
    You wrote "and is it over.No" It is striking that they had a relationship for several years after the divorce again.

    Anyway: Wauw! What a song! (I didn't know it yet) It creeps under my skin.
    I don't think this is an existing expression. But it is how I feel it.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Anon-- Interesting idea, that he invented a hypothetical couple like themselves and imagined them in the future, then played it out to see what would likely happen. It's certainly something therapists encourage.
    And I know the expression "gets under my skin" but not "creeps."

    ReplyDelete
  7. she: "Why don’t we drive through the night? We’ll wake up down in Mexico.”
    He: Oh, I don’t know nothin’ about, nothin’ no Mexico.
    She: “And tell me, why won’t you love me for who I am where I am?”

    [Why is she asking this? She's the one that wants to love him somewhere else! Namely, Mexico! He does want to love her where they are, and not go to Mexico.]

    He said: “Cause that’s not the way the world is, baby. This is how I love you, baby."

    You're misreading this. This is Simon's reflection of moments in time in a bittersweet relationship. He's remembering poignant and important moments in a passionate, but extremely problematic relationship.

    You should see this line as a confession on Simon's part (or the fictional Simon like figure) as to how he failed to say what he should have. It is clear to everyone that she is asking him to love her for who she is. His response, "because that's not the way the world is baby. This is how I love you, baby." is inadequate, and he knows it.

    It doesn't make sense to expect a direct biographical correlation in a poet's literary impressions. You get bits and pieces. Some things are real, some fictional. The important thing is that the truth of the poem stands. Expecting a literal predictable correspondence with actual events would be a bit banal, wouldn't it?

    ReplyDelete
  8. breuddwydiol-- I understand that memory is fragile and only scraps remain over time, and that even those scraps were seen (and interpreted) through one's own lens... to mix my metaphors.
    Even so, why does the person (A) who wants to move ask the other person (B) why B want to move... when B said B did NOT want to, and it was A's idea in the first place?
    I think it's clear that some more stage directions from the author would be helpful in any case

    ReplyDelete