• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Illuminatus! Trilogy

HawaiiBigSis

List Management
HawaiiBigSis
Joined
Apr 1, 2007
Messages
5,387
Location
Under the rainbow
So....

I just finished reading the Illuminatus! trilogy, and while I see tons of references to it around the board, I don't see a thread specifically devoted to talking about it.

Anybody else game? (Or post a link to the thread if such a one exists, and I'll request that this post be merged into it.)

For all that I think I probably would have enjoyed the book more (a) back in the days when I regularly altered my consciousness, and (b) before I had experienced as much "real life" for comparison purposes, it did have some pretty neat moments.

On one hand, I was often surprised how far back the roots of some of the stuff still being discussed went, but I was also surprised at how many other books/movies/tv shows were derivative (perhaps not directly). Can anybody think of an example of a conspiracy theory that was proposed in the novel that went on to have a life of its own?

A couple of other cultural references that are forward of these books:
  • At one point in Illuminatus! somebody actually referred to "he who must not be named" (seen recently in the Harry Potter books, as well as other places);
  • The whole "numbers" thing (without which "Lost" would be a bit flatter); and
  • The occasional social observation that strikes a chord. (Has television become more loosely controlled [and of course, much depends on one's definition of "loosely" and "controlled"] since the internet has come along?)

Unfortunately, I've returned the book to the person from whom it was borrowed, so I won't be able to make any direct quotes, but I'm sure there are others who actually own a copy of their own, and could fill in gaps.
 
Wikipedia to the rescue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hastur

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/23_Enigma

and of course http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illuminatus

I haven't read it in years and it's so chock full of references that I couldn't begin to actually have decent conversation on my own!

I think all of the conspiracies were based on ones someone somewhere actually had at one time. Not one person in particular, but more "oh, I heard so-and-so believed this". I mean, there were a ton of drugs floating around.

I also like the first Cosmic Trigger by RAW but not so much the others. It's non-fiction and full of woo-y goodness but he does make some decent points as well as referencing Illuminatus!
 
Ysidro said:
I think all of the conspiracies were based on ones someone somewhere actually had at one time. Not one person in particular, but more "oh, I heard so-and-so believed this". I mean, there were a ton of drugs floating around.

I also like the first Cosmic Trigger by RAW but not so much the others. It's non-fiction and full of woo-y goodness but he does make some decent points as well as referencing Illuminatus!
Click to expand...

RAW said a number of times that he and Shea (who both worked as the Playboy Advisor at the time) got a TON of conspiracy theories from their day job. Then they went back to one of their apartments, dropped acid and tried to come up with some of the weirdest **** they could think of.

The problem was, it was never weird enough. They got letters later on pointing out the more bizarre (i.e. Hagbard Celiene's submarine base) and stating it was true.

As to RAW and the Cosmic Trigger series. RAW is my all time favorite author and the CT books are at the top of the heap. Yes, they are chock-full of woo, but he never presents it in a dogmatic way, always with a wry grin and a "I dun ****in' know" attitude. Honestly, if it wasn't for RAW, I'd probably still be a Christian today, rather than the good lil' Discordian boy that I am.


Any particular questions or comments about the triology? Now, go read THe Historical Illuminatus! Trilology.
 
I tried to read it, but it just got weirder and weirder and eventually I just went, "I can't keep reading this."





Actually, that's a lie. I more of just put it down and never got back to it. Not the fault of the book itself, really.
 
It is an acquired taste. You have to enjoy stream of consciousness writing. If you can get through the first hundred pages or so, you should do fine.


Don't feel bad. I've done the exact same thing with James Joyce Ulysses about four times now. I like the bits that I have read, but I don't have the stamina to get through it all.
 
HawaiiBigSis said:
So....
Click to expand...

You can obtain a special form of consciousness, it's said, by reading RAW with your headphones blaring Hawkwind while drinking a peyote margarita and sitting in the backward facing seat of a VW van hurtling 110 kph down the I-5. Lobster pate with a double helping of dill is optional but not without merit.
 
thrombus29 said:
There is lots of stuff that connects to it. Wilson's "Schrodinger's Cat" trilogy is kind of a companion piece/sequel.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schrödinger's_Cat_Trilogy

You can fall into Kerry Thornley's wacko universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kerry_Thornley


I always try to drop the SNAFU principle in at HR meetings.

I read the trilogy when I was 15, and it kind of turned me into a Woo paranoid. I didn't get cured of it until I was 22 and read Foucault's Pendulum.
Click to expand...

Heh...one of my patron saints is Markoff Chaney.
 
I loved the trilogy when I was younger, and it formed the basis of most of my pop-cultural upbringing. It was a huge influence. Almost as big an influence on me as The Lord Of The Rings.

I tried to read it again recently and found it so trite and juvenile that I just couldn't get through it.

I'm a big big fan of the number 23, even to the point where I paid to see The Number 23 at the cinema and even enjoyed it.
 
HawaiiBigSis said:
  • At one point in Illuminatus! somebody actually referred to "he who must not be named" (seen recently in the Harry Potter books, as well as other places);
Click to expand...
"He who must not be named", as someone else has hinted, was originally part of the Lovecraft mythos - although I don't know that it was Lovecraft himself who originally coined the phrase. Lovecraft was big on the "unknowable" - the "unnamed horror" and the "thing that man was not meant to know", and this is actually referenced a number of times through the trilogy.
 
See, not being a big Lovecraft fan, I missed out on some of that in the books. But I did get some, mostly from bumping into it around the boards, and then looking stuff up.

I don't think I've ever read anything of RAW before, but I had read "All Things Are Lights" by Shea (and truly enjoyed it), and looking for something more by him led me down this path.

I don't think I'd bother re-reading it, even with 20 years in between -- once was enough, thank you very much -- but there were some very funny bits.

The two page list of band names, for instance. I kept thinking, "why am I putting myself through this?" but I kept on chuckling, and that's why I put myself through it.
 
HawaiiBigSis said:
The two page list of band names, for instance. I kept thinking, "why am I putting myself through this?" but I kept on chuckling, and that's why I put myself through it.
Click to expand...
The band names were fantastic. You keep wanting to skim it, but then the next one brings another chuckle, and then next one, and the next...
 
arthwollipot said:
The band names were fantastic. You keep wanting to skim it, but then the next one brings another chuckle, and then next one, and the next...
Click to expand...

And that's actually a large part of what kept me dragging through the book. Just about the time I'd start thinking, "WTF? And why am I doing this?" it would make me laugh out loud. Even the silly appendices, I kept thinking, "Why exactly, am I doing this?" and then there'd be another tidbit that made it worth it.

(Oh, yeah, and the fact that there's only one book I ever set aside after getting more than 50 pages into it. Once I've invested that much time, I figure I might as well stay in it for the long haul.)
 
HawaiiBigSis said:
And that's actually a large part of what kept me dragging through the book. Just about the time I'd start thinking, "WTF? And why am I doing this?" it would make me laugh out loud. Even the silly appendices, I kept thinking, "Why exactly, am I doing this?" and then there'd be another tidbit that made it worth it.
Click to expand...
See, I loved it. Cover to cover. I actually need to re-read it soon, it's been a couple of years.

(Oh, yeah, and the fact that there's only one book I ever set aside after getting more than 50 pages into it. Once I've invested that much time, I figure I might as well stay in it for the long haul.)
Click to expand...

Ahh....the gambler's fallacy, it's made best sellers out of more than one book. ;)
 
Meh...I read it and I didn't get what was so great about it. The humor seemed really lame and I just didn't find it very interesting.

Now Foucault's Pendulum....there's a book with a million occult/conspiracy references that really has something to say.
 
I'm an avid reader, and I just couldn't slog my way through. I don't necessarily have an issue with stream-of-consciousness, but changing perspective, location, characters 3 or 4 times in one sentence was a little much for me to handle. Of course, I haven't tried to read it in at least 15 years, but still...
 
Last edited:
kmortis said:
Ahh....the gambler's fallacy, it's made best sellers out of more than one book. ;)
Click to expand...
But if I've already BOUGHT the book, and I continue reading it, then my dollars have already voted.

At the craps table, my dollars haven't voted yet, so I can just as easily put them in my pocket and walk away. The dollars on the table, they've already voted, and the croupiers won't let me pick them up and walk away.

Fireshadow said:
I'm an avid reader, and I just couldn't slog my way through. I don't necessarily have an issue with stream-of-consciousness, but changing perspective, location, characters 3 or 4 times in one sentence was a little much for me to handle. Of course, I haven't tried to read it in at least 15 years, but still...
Click to expand...
And I knew that about it going in. It was one of the annoying things about it.

As I said elsewhere, I kept having to remind myself that this book was written 35 years ago...There were references that could have been made last week, and this sort of literary masturbation hasn't gone out of style either, that I can see.

I suspect somebody could read it 20 years from now, and it would only seem slightly outdated. The lack of personal computing capacity and internet was about the only glaring missing concept.
 
RAW was amusing at first, but the joke got old after a while, and the obscure references want from intriguing to boring.
And if you think the stream of conciousness writing in Wilson is confusing, wait until you take an English Lit course where the professor is heavily into James Joyce ...
 
dudalb said:
RAW was amusing at first, but the joke got old after a while, and the obscure references want from intriguing to boring.
And if you think the stream of conciousness writing in Wilson is confusing, wait until you take an English Lit course where the professor is heavily into James Joyce ...
Click to expand...

Been there, done that. Having plowed through Ulysses, I knew I could handle Illuminatus!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom