'Ariel' and 'Fever Dreams Part I, II' by Johnny Marr

Even if I don't tell, it does.

The name Ariel means "lion of God". (It's my brother's name, I'd know.) It was the title of Sylvia Plath's posthumous volume of poems published after her suicide. This film makes the case this was fed by partner neglect by a male in the all too common presumption their sexual entitlement and genius have supercedence over their partner's, to the extent of burying their life. It's a canny framing for the song, actually, given what I related in the original letter, which this has prompted me to summarize below.

I did predict "lion" would be one of the symbols, albeit predicting it for the male side. However since I was basing that prediction on this image it actually fits as follows: Ariel was the name of Sylvia’s horse; -her poem was about a runaway gallop as liberation, emancipation through rebirth. I am not implying any similarity apart from thematically, but this poem was hyperlinked in the narrative for the same reason (-the unicorn was personification, TRiMB, p. 22, top paragraph), due to misapprehending the GHOSTEEN cover and interpreting the white horse I mis-identified as a unicorn as representing the male side. So curiously what I predicted about the male in terms of symbols comes true with the narrative in terms of what Ariel represented to Sylvia Plath, as in the narrative both the unicorn in the dream and the lion represented the male/salvation.

It is not right to hijack the song's intention and I'm not trying to. What I find curious is that the chorus does not fit the narrative arc of Sylvia's life arc, but rather this narrative. Sylvia Plath wasn't attempting to prove anything but her own worth as a poet, and she was rendered invisible by one man, her partner. On the other hand I presented Bono and WPC with a potential God proof in 1999/2000, using poetry in the form of song lyrics. (In this analogy the lyrics in terms of what they mapped being a soul's sacrifice/resurrection, they really are "blood jet poetry".) Also the use of "Ariel" in the 2nd chorus doesn't sound like a title citation at all, but rather addressing a woman in the song by name, shifting the meaning. So I'm going to interpret this song in terms of the letter I sent December 2020 as follows: 

Chorus 1 being "I know" on repeat reflects on the graduation that happens every time someone at the core of what's happening gets contacted and reacts, or appears to, meaning hopefully the information was absorbed. This time it was Martin Gore, and the first thing put out under Depeche Mode's banner since that letter (it so happens), says exactly the same thing. Martin was the last songwriter I felt obliged to contact individually. 

"In the mirror's eye, you're so out of sight"

"Somebody cracked your sky, in the mirror's eye" 

This actually latches into a very long running theme in the book. In the second round of letters Bono received hand to hand for Christmas 1999, I talked about how I was this freak reflection inside the mirror, -and just like in David Bowie's "Thursday's Child", this particular essay was me showing that I was not a reflection (iBook p. 1842, video, 3:28). I took the theme in this video and merged it with an element in "Tears" by The Stone Roses ("Do your best to smash my picture on your wall"), shifting the analogy so appearing was shattering the mirror in an act of individuation that would likewise prompt individuation in those I viewed as unconscious inspired participants like Ian Brown. In shifting the analogy I made it about shattering the mirror in the act of stepping out of it. This became a running theme in the music feedback with WPC/The Smashing Pumpkins' "The Imploding Voice" and "Glass & the Ghost Children" (iBook, p. 1375), which were interpreted in accordance with this analogy, with stepping out of the mirror causing the mirror to shatter and starting individuation within the universal feedback loop. David Bowie then picked up this theme himself with "The Loneliest Guy" off of Reality (iBook, p. 1841), and kept with the analogy artistically until the last EP before his death. David figured most prominently in the full letter to Martin, because the entire background explanation was framed by relating his passage in terms of what happened in this prologue juxtaposed with this video, with what very well could be a representation of Bono as mirror ball man, which was a throwback to his persona of the fake televangelist. Since I considered Bono responsible for cracking the sky in exactly this manner, this is part of the background I edited out.

And in actual fact what I edited out was how with both men I presented writing to, it didn't even matter if I proved what was going on (granted this was only attempted with the second). The book's remainder was how I turned the existing musical feedback loop into a proof exercise with WPC, which was irrelevant to him unless it involved me as his personal sex object. If that wasn't in the offing because he rejected it, it was the equivalent of not existing. This is like asserting the whole thing happening through extraordinary unearthly avenues simply doesn't exist (even if I prove it does), because he inveighed that whether it existed was contingent on his power to reject the sum of observation (proving it did not matter, but then in matters of the heart, it doesn't). That's the nature of the ego trip, even if bowing out was taking, in his view, the high road because he realized that it was not him. His live performances at the time were part of an art concept that in part reflected that.

The December 2020 letter was an explanation to Martin of how both parties chose to deliberately make me completely invisible for seventeen/eighteen years (both took that long), and that their neglect of what happened forced me into the position where I felt powerless to reveal to him for that entire span of time, because both chose to ignore what they saw and their own impressions and/or could not be bothered to react in any evidentiary way. (Neither knew nor cared what the potential costs to me or others might be, though visibility in this context is not determined by them and perhaps they wanted to see whether that was possible.)

This song's chorus is the rejoinder that God knows it was proven, with the likely implication that like these particulars, the world will care even less than they did. It exists to prohibit not acknowledge. It is determined to never permit your existence. Like Sylvia, it would sooner destroy you first. (This was done to my mother by her husband and this is her name. I thought for quite some time she'd have been better off if she'd killed herself, as what happened to her was incomparably worse than Sylvia Plath's life story. I changed her name in the iBook.)

Anyway, I said this was about whether God would appear in this context, (or not, if you don't think so, read the full proposal) and with this song God appears as the ultimate observer and arbitrator of reality, in the precise context of what I related happened, the iBook Bono keeps stealth acknowledging but won't actually acknowledge, deliberately making me permanently invisible in much the same manner acculturated patriarchy permitted the erasure of Sylvia Plath as something within the realms of normalcy that wouldn't even put a reasonable dint in a man's career. Had things been left in Bono's hands, none of this would exist. Thanks to his and WPC's silence, it still doesn't. 

If you want to see the rest of the lyrical analysis for this EP, you can hop the link. It’s easy to throw away an interpretation in the context of one song, but when it applies to the whole EP, it’s a different situation.