Holidays in Eden

 

With the latest Marillion deluxe release, it is back to where it started - for me. June 24th 1991, Holidays in Eden is released. One month after my initial [brief] encounter with Marillion.  The band’s second effort with frontman Steve Hogarth very much repeated the pattern of the original incarnation of the band.  This was their difficult sophomore attempt, their next Fugazi.  Whereas their first release as a new group easily found music inspired from without (in this case the music written with Fish), this one required a what now? period of motivation.  Additionally, the record company (as always) was pressuring them to release material that was commercially viable and recreate their brief highpoint of chart recognition.  The result, emerging from a much larger contribution from H, including tracks from his previous alternative career, was indeed their most commercial attempt. This legacy has haunted the album, considered by many to be too pop, and an album of commercial singles.  However, as my entry point into new-release Marillion, this record has always presented core, classic Marillion - built around the ethereal and intense guitar work that Rothery had been exemplifying for at least three albums. Cover My Eyes (adapted from How We Live’s Simon’s Car), Dry Land (a How We Live cover), and No One Can are the radio-friendly cuts. Call them whatever you want, but the first two are about as close to perfect pop/whatever songs (and then squared) as you can get, and I would dare call the original Dry Land a New Wave album.  For the third, every time I start to get that feeling that it’s an overly-sweet, sappy love song, I am overcome by the transcendental quality of the guitar line, and it might be the most innocent, positive song the band has done, without something dark lying right beneath the surface.  While many consider this a complete diversion in style, and for those following through the 80s, and from earlier prog entries, this may make sense.  For myself, being an entry point, this album makes perfect sense as a quintessential sound, and as I was already encountering what I knew would be decisive change from the Fish material, it didn't seem that much more of a reach than Season's End, and by the end of the summer 1991 all six albums seemed like a contiguous whole. Emerging as music of the time, as Marillion moved away from their pre-1980s influences, resulted in something more like U2 (incorporated into a higher level) than the aging idols of progressive rock.  Although, as the accompanying documentary reveals, there still remained a lot of classic influences which were directly re-articulated in these songs, namely Yes and The Who, which once brought up, makes perfect sense. 

Holidays in Eden, the next in line with a commercial structure, is in my opinion, despite the far-from-unanimous appreciation from the community, the most Marillion title and theme they have created. Let me take a moment to digress. Everything they have written somehow returns back to the idea of the self (and the ultimate self-facing you must do) in opposition to the world.  Stepping out of the social construct of the symbolic world, one encounters the Real.  A complete change of context results in an internal change as the self is constructed out of the meaning around it, it is, we are, being-in-the-world.  Thus, in a Heideggerian sense, a change of context results in a new self.  Furthermore, a collapse in worlds changes the center of our existential being and our relation to authenticity.  Experiencing such a world as Eden, in opposition to our own highly problematic society (as Marillion often engages), and then exiting that world would result in such a collapse, and require us to disclose new meanings in the process of finding authenticity. This theme is mirrored in the opposite way in the This Town- 100 Nights trilogy, where the surrounding environment, the city, forces the self “to become” what it is, rather than being directed internally. The result is a decent of the self into a morally unclear position and the initial relations of the song meet a seemingly disastrous end.  There is always a consistent theme in H's work regarding the loss of innocence and the dangers just below the surface in any ostensibly benign situation - the unavoidable, ever-present, forces of change, the inevitable crack emerging in what one thought would remain unchanged, and the Real surrounding the Symbolic stability of one's immediate life -the need to wear your gun to Neverland,

As a product on the dividing line of a much larger world and time at the end of the 80s, this record was a little ahead of its time, foreshadowing the 1990s.  Season’s End had shown us many of the larger external predicaments of the final chapter of the Cold War.  Here we are presented with a more optimistic, open future.  Gone are so many of the past problems, leaving the self as the challenge to be taken on.  The most important view was now inward, as a reflective exploration.  Of course, even more forward looking, this would be short lived, and the dark storms of larger forces would again return on Brave, with a following return to the self on Afraid of Sunlight.  As Pete claims in the documentary, this was the first attempt at their Sunlight. And, again, that now makes sense.


Splintering Heart is the mini-epic of the record, a slow-build-up rock song. In addition to the straight-forward rock and pop songs, the This Town-The Rake’s Progress-100 Nights trilogy is the full epic of the album, and has always been classic Marillion.  Waiting to Happen is the acoustic-type ballad of the record, and while the band considers it a “classic” presence, The Party has always been the odd-one-out track to me. The updated release attempts to correct the sound away from the late 80s / early 90s zeitgeist in order to allow some of those dismissive fans to re-hear the record out of that context, as well as satisfy the band’s persistent desire to finally finish a not-quite-complete product, as in the case of Fugazi. The impression I get on the initial listening is that it really does emphasize the overall album, and brings out each part in a very positive way.

The package includes a live show from Hammersmith on the 1991 tour.  Alongside the usual HD and 5.1 mixes, like the Script and Fugazi releases, the blu-ray also includes a live concert video from the tour, a surprisingly well done upgrade for a shot-on-video release from thirty years ago.  It is worth it for video documentation of Freaks alone.  As an excellent representation of the band in their prime, this upgrade from my incomplete record-show purchase of a VHS bootleg might become my favorite video release of theirs. Unfortunately the live discs are not duplicated on the blu-ray which does includes all of the B-Side material from the 1998 remaster, which provides an interesting alternative album: including the original versions of Splintering Heart and This Town, the original Epic (Fairground) which became 100 Nights and included material from the post-Clutching at Straws session, as well as the other How We Live track You Don’t Need Anyone, considered as an alternative to Dry Land (and whose existence was denied for seven years). If you ask me, all of this material, and maybe a recording of yet another How We Live track, Games in Germany, could be remixed, finished and made into a fine album on its own. On the more acoustic side, the creepy-yet-intriguing track A Collection and the cover of Sympathy are here as well. Not included is the acoustic session released over the Dry Land singles, which included the Who’s Substitute.  In my own playlists, I’ve found that adding the other included B-sides of How Can It Hurt (amazingly played at the 2022 weekend) and I Will Walk on Water, adds more Holidays in Eden -like songs and fills out an amazing rock album. Additionally, You Don’t Need Anyone fits in exceedingly well with the trio of concise singles (unsurprisingly of similar origin) - of course this is the direction that so many people were apprehensive of embracing.  But, this collection of songs doesn’t get weighed down in overly long attempts (*ahem, last four releases, ahem*).  This is the side of the band that get straight into the rock (I’ll leave the magnitude up to you) and directly and without hesitation dives into the point of the song.  These are the songs, when included in contemporary setlists, that break up the long journeys found in newer material, and continue to provide a momentum that always deserves to be included in anything involving Rothery.

Murder Machines

Be hard on yourself
You've been spoilt for years
Be hard on yourself
You'll be glad you did 

                - Marillion - Be Hard on Yourself

 

While I’ve been attempting to comprehend the pandemic era's place within contemporary history, as well as preparing to absorb Marillion’s proclamation that we only have an hour until it’s dark, the Real has once again further intensified as another intrusion as the 2020s progress. Of course, this is from the perspective of a very complacent time period in history. With the exception of 9/11 and the following economic turbulence, the era since at least 1984 has been considerably uneventful, particularly 1991- 2001. We got too used to it. As one meme recently expressed, we don’t want all of the twentieth century coming back in the 2020s. But, now we have it, the largest wart in 70 years, in geo-political terms. As I noted before, following the devolution of 2016, some will suffer. We weren’t prepared for it to be in such an advanced nation, entering into the first world, and inextricably linked to the second. One day life was perfectly normal, and the next morning it was definitely not. I have also noted George Friedman’s prediction that we would go to war with Russia in the 2020s. [1] This seemed to be far too much of a stretch. But, here we are.

For those that mindlessly place the blame on the current administration, I defer to Marie Yovanovitch, Fiona Hill, and John Bolton. [2] Not only because it has been their job to understand this context, but they were actively involved in the implementation of policies of the previous administration. An administration that explicitly promoted the idea of the US exiting NATO, which would result in its dissolution allowing for unchecked Russian expansion. Furthermore, plenty of blame can be located in the Libertarian rhetoric of questioning the existence of NATO for the last decade. Without its continued deterrence, this situation would have developed much sooner, and at the cost of the sovereignty of many countries. The purposes of the Western alliance has now been revealed and proven, and any further attempts at its deterioration can be seen for the political propaganda it is. [3]

It could be argued, and is now becoming quite apparent, that we wasted thirty years ignoring improvements to Russia-Western relations. I contended in the 90s that there should be improved agreements between Russia and the US to diminish the risks of confrontation. However, after 1999, maybe even 1998, I’m not sure this would have really been possible. There was only a small window. And the subsequent republican administrations dismantled arms agreements rather than enhancing them.

That said, the idea that the West is to blame is nonsense. There was no agreement to not expand NATO, and although it is undesirable for Russia, particularly leadership that wants to reform the Soviet Union, that is the playing field that we have legitimately inherited. The idea that the US and the USSR disengaged from the Cold War on equal terms is pure fantasy. Wars have consequences. The reality is that the USSR lost. Their untenable political-ecomonic system failed and they were the ones that were forced to change (and replace that system with another corrupt, untenable system). The result was a victory for the US, providing the advantage. Disregarding the desires of American influence, the issue of NATO membership is openly free to the existing nations (unlike the Warsaw pact). It is those countries that are freely expressing interest in membership. And now, under direct threat of nuclear attack, we can see the pressing need for these countries to participate, as well as the continued mission of NATO.

Further nonsense is the ubiquitous comparison to the American invasion of Iraq. While the invasion was a massive strategic blunder, undermining not only the whole of US history, but that of the Western Liberalism as well.

However: this event emerged from a specific context. First, the US was actually attacked, prompting a response. Although it was the wrong country to prosecute such a response, Iraq was not altogether removed from the situation. The region was already involved in a complex multitude of conflicts which were intertwined with Islamic terrorism. Iraq was ruled by a dangerous dictator, had invaded other countries, was committing its own war crimes, and had been in violation of international law. Repeated violations, and concerns of its weapons program were a concern for the international community. The US response not only had support of its close allies, but NATO and UN support as well. Even Russia hesitantly agreed that the weapons inspections were not working. There was not a great international resistance. Saddam did not have the support of the people, and had intervention been done in a less destructive way, could have been better supported by the populace. While there were war crimes committed as part of the campaign, the operation itself was not a war crime. US policy did not target civilians, flatten civilian infrastructure, or siege cities. Grave mistakes certainly happened, and should have been fully prosecuted, but were not an intentional element of strategy.

I think the most damning condemnation of it is to judge it by the standards of the legacy of the Untied States, which supposedly attempts to uphold rigorous enlightened standards and democratic principles. In the overall field of history, it is less suspect to scrutiny, and this is why it was such a disappointment and should have been avoided

As nuclear powers, now toe-to-toe on the red line, it seems time is the dimension that will determine the fight. Before Russia can gain an advantage, and block international aid, US intervention must be able to prolong the resistance to ultimately weaken the Russian force. All we can do is:

1. Provide as many weapons as fast as possible.
2. Find ways to provide humanitarian assistance and prevent war crimes.
3.Wait out a Russian defeat (of itself).
4. Re-think military alliances, both in terms of internal NATO requirements, and NATO’s relationship with intermediate countries.
5.Affect regime change in Russia
6.Assertively pursue new arms limitation agreements, to reduce the dangers of escalation in future stand-offs. 

Perhaps the most startling revelation of this confrontation, is the test of the Russian military.  We know know that the most feared military for 70 years is impotent in combat against a peer nation, let-alone one that outspends, and out-trains it, by many, many factors.  Given US combat experience, there is no match.  But, more worrisome, is the fact that Russia now knows we know.  This means they have no conventional threat. And, they have no economic threat.  We have already beaten them is these two arenas That leaves only the strategic threat of WMDs. We are now in uncharted territory.

[1] who also noted that there would be a significant labor shortage and the US would have to import workers. I think its time for a re-read.

[2] Bolton, the most right-wing war-hawk in the Trump administration not only reveals that Biden is not "weak," but, predictably, claims that Trump couldn’t even find Ukraine on the map - which is quite telling.

[3] At this point, I’m firmly convinced that the Libertarian “party” is only a propaganda arm of Russian authoritarianism. Look at how fast they started posting memes of Russia as a utopia once, it;s cut off from the West. Ethnically singular, legally protected from the “fake news” of non-State media, excepted from the social programs of public health (vaccines), etc. Clearly it is the Russian Oligarchs that are the idolized position of the Libertarians, free to exploit all others for their own gain, as they clearly only support libertarian freedom for “me,” separate from the authoritarianism needed for all needed for all the dirty masses who must kept in ideological line. Never again can they be trusted.

 

Note: The above graphic is not meant to suggest that B-52s, or the USAF, are a murder machine (currently), although, of course, they potentially can be.  We have now reverted to a pre-post-Cold War stance, in which the defenses and deterrents that combat those current murder machines have the potential, through escalation, to cross the line into strategic mass destruction. Waking up to see potentially nuclear-armed B-52s headed towards the border of a nuclear aggressive country, certainly, marked the point of departure between these eras of relative global stability and possible catastrophic confrontation.