'EC' = Sardonic request.

[justasking]

It's said that the poem was written on a typewriter with the same model as the one stolen by EAR recently before the poem was sent. This would make it more probable that the EAR was indeed the author. But the poem in itself doesn't suggest this in anyway. Even the fact that the narrator identifies him/herself as the 'East Area Rapist' doesn't mean it should actually be so, obviously. But it doesn't even have to mean that the author was "pretending" to be the EAR either. Speaking with EAR's voice could have been only a literary device, and not a "prank" or a "lie" per se.

But if the poem was in fact written by the EAR proper, then I think his personality profile should be reconsidered. The author seems to have a decent ability to form sociological viewpoints. There also seems to be some kind of an ethic at play, guiding the view implied. Some kind of a socially conscious student, an educator, possibly even a religious person would be the likely "suspects" of being the author.

Synopsis:

The theme of the poem has to do with the fame granted to criminals, and with the (then) current and local phenomenon of the 'East Area Rapist'. The author is trying to summarize the "ingredients" of what s/he perceives to be the bigger picture: People with nothing to do are tempted to seek excitement. They become rootless during the times of social disintegration and disconnected from the morals (what's right and expected).

At the same time, in society there is the general social acceptance and even endorsement of the fact that those who "achieve while others lift" should deserve their fame. Those famous people are the "leeches", but now it had become clear how the fame was granted to "pests" too - such as the 'Son of Sam' or any other "famous" criminal.

There is the "promise for more", the prospect of "lore" and "fame". Those who were tempted to seek excitement are tempted even further when they see criminals being glamorized, sensationalized, romanticized. So they'll seek notoriety of their own  with crimes, as they "hear the temptations call".

After this the author assumes the role of the 'East Area Rapist' (whether he was the actual author or not, this interpretation still stands), to make a sardonic point about the whole picture.

I'll try to elaborate on the poem from this perspective. First, I'll sum up the first half of the poem, after which I'll elaborate on the title - connecting it to the second half of the poem.

The first part of the poem (which isn't that interesting really):

All those mortal's surviving birth

Too much could be made of this line. The word 'mortal', of course, is an archaic poetic word for a 'human'. It also reflects the vulnerability of being human; we die. We were lucky we were born in the first place, and as the death is certain; even our survival at birth isn't guaranteed. Just some usual existential stuff. We are small. But it says: those mortals - and although the existential point applies to every person, it's those particular types of mortals whom the following poem will describe.

I must admit that the incorrectly used apostrophe in the word 'mortal's' somewhat weakens the interpretation I'm about to suggest regarding the poem's title. Who knows what oddity of this sort is at play in the title too.

Upon facing maturity,
Take inventory of their worth
To prevailing society.

People mature. They question their worth to society. The word 'inventory' isn't any kind of a clue. It's an expression that is sometimes used; "to take inventory of one's worth". It has been used literally in economic considerations, but has moved from there to serve also as a metaphor for the psychological process of reflecting on one's own "worth".

Choosing values becomes a task;
Oneself must seek satisfaction.
The selected route will unmask
Character when plans take action

Choosing values is hard, people must seek their own satisfaction, even more so in the times of egoism. Their character will show in what they do. "To unmask" as a verb is curious, as the EAR covered his face with a ski mask. The writer possibly means to say that the literal mask doesn't matter; the type of his character still shows in his actions.

Accepting some work to perform
At fixed pay, but promise for more,
Is a recognized social norm,
As is decorum, seeking lore.

People accept work to perform at fixed pay. But there is a generally recognized "promise for more" that's floating around in the air. All have dreams. Decorum is somewhat synonymous to "norm". To 'seek lore' is accepted and perhaps even encouraged as a norm. And so we get into the next section:

Achieving while others lifting
Should be cause for deserving fame.
Leisure tempts excitement seeking,
What's right and expected seems tame.

...And this is the part read by many as the author making a normative statement, something the writer himself (...or herself?) is thinking and expressing with that "should".

But it's not plausible when considering the succession of the poem as a whole. Everything that's said in the poem up to this point has been descriptive; general observations in the passive form. Only the first line about "those mortals" was in third person. Then there was no person, but only the generality. And now all of a sudden the writer makes a normative judgement?

We should remember that this part of the poem was preceded by descriptions of general recognized social norms. I think this following part is a continuation on the same thread of thought. The writer is still describing the recognized social norms as s/he begins with the "achieving...", as opposed to making a normative statement of his/her own. Of course, that's not how our preconceived notions (about the EAR as the author, or if he is; about his person) would have it.

But I'm certain the "should" is only describing (what the author thinks is) the general social view. The "famous" people are sometimes viewed as kinds of leeches. They "achieve" while others are "lifting" (doing the "real work"). But that's the way it seems to be. There seems to be a general social acceptance of the idea that those celebrities "deserve" their "fame". If anything, the writer resents this fact, as opposed to endorsing it as a value of his/her own.

After this, again a general description about how the leisure (the lack of meaningful activities or duties) tempts certain types of people to seek excitement. And to them (those mortals tempted to seek excitement) what's right and expected (the general morality) starts to seem "tame"; restrictive and boring. Again, there is no indication that the narrator here was him/herself saying the general morality seemed "tame" to him/her. It just describes how it seems to those mortals tempted by leisure to seek excitement. And as the 'excitement' is now mentioned, I'll move onto the title.

The title and the rest of the poem:

Of course, 'Excitement's Crave' could refer to the craving for excitement. But it's an odd expression. That's why I theorize it could mean something different. But even if my hypothesis is wrong and the title does in fact mean the obvious: "craving for excitement", the rest of this interpration still stands all the same.

As opposed to a verb, 'crave' as a noun is unusual. But it is used as a legal term, for example. 'Crave' is: "(In Scottish civil procedure,) that part of an initial writ that states what the pursuer requires".

...So: 'crave' as a noun refers to a statement about what the pursuer is asking from the court. It's a type of a legal request. It can refer to some general request too, outside of the legal use.

And in fact, I think Shakespeare too may have used 'crave' as a noun in the sense of a 'request' or a 'beg'.

Some have noted the oddity of the expression: 'Excitement's Crave', and thought the syntax was off. Either "excitement's" stands for: "Excitement is...", or it's a singular possessive form of the noun: "excitement". 'Crave' is taken to refer to a general verb: "to crave", as in having a craving: "I / you / they crave".

So if we think the name of the poem intends to refer to something like a 'craving for excitement', it fails to do so. Even if we used 'crave' as a noun in the same sense as the word 'yearn' (which is also a verb) is sometimes used as a noun, we still wouldn't get "craving for excitement" with the expression: 'Excitement's Crave'. There would be only two options for interpretation: a) "Excitement is crave" - or - b) "The crave the excitement has".

If we choose the option a), the expression would be still lacking an article from before the noun. It's incorrect. The 'crave' should be an adjective for the option a) to make sense. So, on to the option b).

Left with the option b), we can now assume that the expression: 'Excitement's Crave' refers to a possessive relation between the noun 'excitement' and the noun 'crave'. But if we still assume that the expression was referring to a "craving for excitement", it would still be incorrect. If the 'crave' signifies 'craving' as a noun, in that case the expression: "excitement's crave" refers to the 'excitement' having a craving . It would have a completely different meaning. If I'm thirsty (have a thirst) for water, I can't refer to this by using an expression such as: "Water's thirst". That's actually somewhat poetic. What if the water itself became thirsty? But it doesn't amount to "a thirst for water".

And I'm not even sure whether 'crave' is ever used as a noun to stand for a craving in the same manner as the 'yearn' is sometimes used as a noun to stand for a yearning.

So what then is the 'crave' which the 'excitement' has? I think it could be a 'crave' in the sense which I presented earlier. It's a request; the 'Excitement's Request'.

Excitement's Request' amounts to the sense of: what the excitement is asking for, what the excitement demands - the request made by the excitement.

And there is definitely a request in the poem. There is a 'crave', as the narrator "craves" (in other words: prompts) Sacramento to "make an offer".

The titular word - 'excitement' - was mentioned only once in the poem itself, during the line:

"Leisure tempts excitement seeking"

Obviously the meaning of the above line is explicit. Leisure tempts people to seek excitement. The temptation to seek excitement.

Temptation, in turn, is again mentioned shortly after:

Jessie James" has been seen by all,
And "Son of Sam" has an author.
Others now feel temptations call.
Sacramento should make an offer.

...Right after touching upon the topic of fame granted to notorious criminals, it states how others now feel the temptations calling them. Seeking the fulfillment of the "promise for more" - chasing after the "deserved fame" - tempted by leisure - fueled by the fame granted to criminals. This all amounts to the general phenomenon; that of the 'Excitement'.

And so, "Sacramento should make an offer". This is the crave. The request, demand, if not a beg - made by the 'Excitement'.

At this point, the general voice of the 'Excitement' changes form. It becomes the voice of only one of the current and local embodiments of the 'Excitement'; the voice of the much discussed 'East Area Rapist'. One of the satyrs.

The voice of the singular EAR now continues to specify what the request by general 'Excitement' would mean in his case, as the point of view of the poem shifts from third person to first person:

To make a movie of my life
That will pay for my planned exile.
Just now I'd like to add the wife
Of a Mafia lord to my file.

The character in the poem; the 'East Area Rapist', now "craves" Sacramento to make a movie of his life. And in the lines that follow, he already starts to transform into a myth or a movie character: planning to "exile" like some Jesse James-type of a criminal of Westerns, wishing to attack the wife of a Godfather-esque "Mafia lord".

Jesse James was already mentioned in the poem, and belongs to the same imagery as the supposedly romatic phenomenon of the "exile". Mafia lords were very frequently seen on cinematic screens during that time period. This section of the poem is making a sardonic point about the general fascination with the romanticized criminals of myths and movies. Criminals comparable to Jesse James who has been "seen by all", as he's a legend. And criminals comparable to 'Son of Sam' as it was announced at some point that Berkowitz "had an author", meaning: they were writing (or hoping to write) a book about the 'Son of Sam' - granting him fame, of course.

So why the mention of a "file" in relation to the anticipated assault on the wife of a Mafia lord? Could be just random imagery. But it may also carry a hidden reference to the 'Son of Sam' in particular, since an article that had just been published during those times by the NY Daily News on Aug. 16, 1977 made it known (and assumably it became news nation-wide) that:

"David Berkowitz kept an exacting, 40-page handwritten record of his eight attacks, right down to times, dates and details of each assault, police sources disclosed yesterday."

...The record in question would be a "file" par excellance, kept by a morbid "excitement-seeker" about his crimes. So this section quite likely mirrors the one before, where Jesse James and Son of Sam were mentioned. At this point in the poem the East Area Rapist is blending into that whole romantic exemplified by Jesse James, the exiling criminals, Son of Sam, the Mafia.

After which there is only the signature:

Your East Area Rapist
And deserving pest
See you in the press or on T.V.

...Your East Area Rapist, Sacramento. Based on the public interest, there's potential in that 'East Area Rapist'; he may very well become a mythic criminal of your own. Obviously he's a pest, a burden. But deserving nevertheless, just like someone like the 'Son of Sam' was deserving - of their fame. So obviously; "See you in the press or on T.V.".

...That's it. Was it written by the EAR or not? Don't know, but if it was; in that case he's some kind of a moralist. Alternating between transgression and chastisement. I think it would make him something like a cop, a teacher or some religious person. Of course, that kind of a scenario could also resonate with the collective image reflected in the rumors about him painting crosses at the crime scenes or having some religious "mission". And if the story about him placing the torn cover of the book 'Helter Skelter' on a victim's back is true - that incident could get some new color to it too.

[whitey]

Great post, I like how you broke it down, and the file part has me thinking maybe he kept files of his crimes, sure would be crazy that some files some person has locked up is detailed rapes and murder's

[rkz]

I've often wondered if EC used coded language in some way. I've found a few interesting anagrams in there. And the syntax and word choice are *so* tortured and stilted that it just seems like the poem's surface hides some kind of secret, like he's forcing the words to say what he wants, but he HAS TO use certain words or letters to get his point across. "As is decorum, seeking lore?" That makes ZERO sense if read straight - but it could either be the product of a stupid person trying to sound smart; or it could be that the language used is coded and that the author is trying very hard to both create a surface meaning and a hidden meaning. Without REVEALING the hidden meaning, of course.

There is a weirdly moralistic tone to EC that does not seem to square with the crimes the author supposedly committed. It almost sounds like the author is trying to present a moral case in favor of rape, or that his desire to rape stems from a moralist's alienation from an amoral society.

But the bottom line is that we don't even know if EAR actually wrote the damn thing.

[justasking]

Apr 3, 2018 15:23:41 GMT rkz said:

I've often wondered if EC used coded language in some way. I've found a few interesting anagrams in there. And the syntax and word choice are *so* tortured and stilted that it just seems like the poem's surface hides some kind of secret, like he's forcing the words to say what he wants, but he HAS TO use certain words or letters to get his point across. "As is decorum, seeking lore?" That makes ZERO sense if read straight - but it could either be the product of a stupid person trying to sound smart; or it could be that the language used is coded and that the author is trying very hard to both create a surface meaning and a hidden meaning. Without REVEALING the hidden meaning, of course.

There is a weirdly moralistic tone to EC that does not seem to square with the crimes the author supposedly committed. It almost sounds like the author is trying to present a moral case in favor of rape, or that his desire to rape stems from a moralist's alienation from an amoral society.

But the bottom line is that we don't even know if EAR actually wrote the damn thing.

The part about "decorum" and "seeking lore" has remained the most unclear to me too. But I tend to read as saying that: as the "promise for more" is a recognized social norm, so is the "decorum" recognized as a social norm too. "Apple is a fruit, as is banana". 

'Decorum' refers to something along the lines of "understanding the rules for appropriate, conventional behavior". But it also shares the root with 'decoration'. So, the concept of 'decorum' falls somewhere in between ethics and aesthetics. The decorum doesn't always refer to the actual moral norms per se, but sometimes has more to do with what "seems fitting", as a matter of "taste".

"To seek lore" seems to be somewhat of an archaic expression and rarely used. But it's still there, to be found from some 19th century Bible commentaries, for example. The definition of the expression isn't easy to come by, either. But I gather it means something along the lines of "seeking knowledge or wisdom" - traditional at that, as in "folklore". 

But what does it mean to put it right after the word "decorum" and a comma punctuation mark? "As is decorum, seeking lore". Many possibilities.

Having the "seeking lore" right after the "decorum" and the comma could stand for any of these, I think:

A) The "seeking lore" is a further elaboration on the content of "decorum". This would mean that "seeking lore" (seeking the general knowledge or wisdom) was considered as the decorum. It would be appropriate behavior to "seek lore". In this case the comma punctuation would be somewhat interchangeable with the equation mark. "Decorum = seeking lore". It is decorum to seek lore. Thus, the translation of the whole section would be: "It's recognized as a social norm that seeking traditional knowledge is considered to be the appropriate thing to do".

B) The "seeking lore" refers to what the "decorum" is doing. "The decorum that seeks lore is a recognized social norm". That would make very little sense. Don't know what that could mean.

C) The comma punctuation marks the addition of "seeking lore" to the "decorum". Then it would read: "...As is decorum and seeking lore". Meaning that (in addition to the "promise for more"): "decorum" and "seeking lore" were both recognized as social norms.

D) This option would also change the sense of "as is". "As is" is a legal and also an idiomatic term which refers to the condition in which some property is sold, for example. It will transfer from owner to another "as is", meaning: "in the condition the object is in at the moment". Something will be handed down "as is". If that's the case, then the decorum that has been handed down "as is" could be referred to being "as is" by saying: "as is decorum". I guess it would be a slight violation of language, but perhaps still sound as a literary effect. And the expression is idiomatic to begin with. "As is decorum" would then mean: "such is the state / condition of the decorum". In this case all the above options regarding the connection with "seeking lore" would still apply: A) "Such is the condition of decorum = seeking lore", B) "Such is the condition of decorum that seeks lore", C) "Such is the state of affairs with decorum and with seeking lore".

....I think I'd go with the option C). It is stated that the "promise for more" is recognized as a social norm, and after this the "decorum" and "seeking lore" are added to that, in the same manner as if s/he was about to make a list of social norms. Promise for more is a social norm, as is decorum - and seeking lore, too. Then there is the obvious fact that s/he had to try to make it rhyme. That could explain some of the weirdness. 

I think the 'promise for more', 'decorum' and 'seeking lore' all act as "ingredients" of the picture the author is trying to paint. I suspect the 'decorum' is viewed by the author as something superficial; something properly "decorative" with which the members of society decorate their own images in terms of behavior. 'Fame' resonates with 'decoration'. In the same sense as when (for example) they talk about "decorated" military men. They are held in high esteem. 

So these "ingredients" would mix together. People recognize how there is a "promise for more" (the 'American Dream', perhaps), and they also recognize the decorative, celebrative manner in which the worth of the individual members of society is evaluated by their adherence to the 'decorum'. Decorum changes with the times. "Seeking lore" is also recognized as a social norm, which means that the members of society are encouraged to rely on the "wisdom" that's handed down to them. The general "lore", the wisdom of people and of the society around them.

The "lore" may give one the image of people as some kinds of ants. Folk tales, myths, rumors, stories. This is one of the aspects serving as the fuel for the excitement-seekers to chase after notoriety, a "decoration" of their own - because they too have sensed the "promise for more" like all the others. That's why they "hear temptations call" when they see the fame (the grim 'decoration') granted to criminals.  

...I can't decide whether the poem is * or better than I thought, after all. It would depend on the correct interpretation. The idea behind the poem might be better than the end result. The unnecessary overuse of the progressive present tense is weird: "surviving", "achieving", "lifting". I haven't thought of it as an anagram, but I've sometimes wondered whether the tense and the syntax pointed towards some other native language spoken by the author. But I don't know enough about literature to say.

When the author seems to be celebrating rape, it could be that it's not about celebration of the crime per se. The word I used in my premise was "sardonic". There is a sense of cynicism and satire too. It's like the author was fed up with something s/he perceived as the bigger picture. It's a criticism of the morbid public interest in notorious criminals. So he becomes biting (as in "biting satire") with that stuff about being the 'East Area Rapist'; he becomes "nasty" - but still with the intention of making a point. That's how I read it at the moment.

It's also my conclusion at the moment that the poem wasn't actually written by the EAR. And the intention behind the poem + the interpretative possibilities may be different if it wasn't written by him. I believe the poem is easily read through a biased lens when we have preconceived notions about the author.

These were some thoughts, now. I'm pretty sure I'll have to come back and correct some typos.

[horcruxdestroyer]

Nice analysis and interesting theories. I'm inclined to believe the poem is a genuine EAR communication but it's far from certain.

IMO, the title "Excitement's Crave" refers to the personification of excitement in a way that divorces the author from the crimes. It's not him with a thirst for rape, but the excitement within him craving it. And it could happen to anyone, as "Leisure tempts excitement seeking" in general. His "excitement" just happens to have a taste for rape.

The "unmask" lines have both a literal and figurative meaning - the literal being his various rape/prowling masks, the figurative being the facade of civility that he presents to the world.

"Seeking lore" probably means seeking renown, or in his case, infamy, like Son of Sam or Jesse James. While others are merely "lifting," he sees himself as "achieving," and he believes that he "deserv[es] fame" for the cunning/athleticism/prowess he possesses in order to successfully "achieve" the rapes and get away with them.

I think the part about the wife of a mafia lord being added to his "file" refers to his police file, although the "Son of Sam has an author" line lends the theory about a diary of his crimes credence.

The "planned exile" is interesting, given that he did eventually leave NorCal for SoCal and change his MO enough that the crimes weren't definitively linked for decades. He was probably planning as far back as 1977 to either relocate or begin travelling hundreds of miles to commit his crimes.

I think it's telling that he refers to himself as a "deserving pest" and not "deserved pest." A "deserved pest" would be something the author felt Sacramento wrought unto itself and fit better with the theory that the author may have been someone who wasn't EAR but who felt that the county deserved the crime series. A "deserving pest," however, refers to the rapist having the right to commit his crimes and to have his demands for a movie met. That is more along the lines of how the EAR himself probably felt, increasing the chances he wrote it himself.

[justasking]

Apr 9, 2018 22:46:27 GMT horcruxdestroyer said:

Nice analysis and interesting theories. I'm inclined to believe the poem is a genuine EAR communication but it's far from certain.

IMO, the title "Excitement's Crave" refers to the personification of excitement in a way that divorces the author from the crimes. It's not him with a thirst for rape, but the excitement within him craving it. And it could happen to anyone, as "Leisure tempts excitement seeking" in general. His "excitement" just happens to have a taste for rape.

The "unmask" lines have both a literal and figurative meaning - the literal being his various rape/prowling masks, the figurative being the facade of civility that he presents to the world.

"Seeking lore" probably means seeking renown, or in his case, infamy, like Son of Sam or Jesse James. While others are merely "lifting," he sees himself as "achieving," and he believes that he "deserv[es] fame" for the cunning/athleticism/prowess he possesses in order to successfully "achieve" the rapes and get away with them.

I think the part about the wife of a mafia lord being added to his "file" refers to his police file, although the "Son of Sam has an author" line lends the theory about a diary of his crimes credence.

The "planned exile" is interesting, given that he did eventually leave NorCal for SoCal and change his MO enough that the crimes weren't definitively linked for decades. He was probably planning as far back as 1977 to either relocate or begin travelling hundreds of miles to commit his crimes.

I think it's telling that he refers to himself as a "deserving pest" and not "deserved pest." A "deserved pest" would be something the author felt Sacramento wrought unto itself and fit better with the theory that the author may have been someone who wasn't EAR but who felt that the county deserved the crime series. A "deserving pest," however, refers to the rapist having the right to commit his crimes and to have his demands for a movie met. That is more along the lines of how the EAR himself probably felt, increasing the chances he wrote it himself. 

Yes, 'seeking lore' is an actual expression that has been sometimes used. It may indeed mean something along the lines of gaining some kind of a mythic 'reputation' which fits the theme.

In my opinion the writer doesn't mean it as a straightforward normative statement of his own when he says "achieving while others lifting should be cause for deserving fame". I think it's a reference to what is generally thought, but the word "should" leads people astray. The word 'should' can be used in a more descriptive sense. It's a valid sentence to say, for example: "I think it's unfortunate that achieving while others are lifting should be cause for deserving fame".  I think the sense behind it in the poem is along these lines of: "This should be cause for deserving fame" - in the sense of "Isn't that what you all think?" - "So why wouldn't I deserve my fame too?". Also, as a normative statement it wouldn't fit the succession of the poem, or the narrative. And I think there is more of a narrative going on in the poem than many think.

I was thinking that it would fit the theory exactly to have EAR say he's "deserving", mirroring the description of the general consensus about what "should" be cause for "deserving" fame. Even as a literary role assumed by someone else, the EAR would consider himself to be 'deserving' precisely, since there is the general consensus that "achieving while others lifting" should be "cause for deserving fame". It's complicated, because EAR as a "deserving pest" is made up of two ingredients. The first ingredient about achievement while others lift as the cause for deserving fame isn't about crimes or criminals. It's about "famous" people in general. But after that ingredient of fame in general, comes the specification about criminals who are made famous too. The general idea about fame being about "achievement while others are lifting" is the root, but the famous criminals are the branch of the same phenomenon to the author's mind, I think. 

If the author wasn't EAR but someone else assuming the literary role of EAR, his point would be exactly to reflect what he thought the EAR himself probably felt. To demonstrate it that the EAR, too, must feel "deserving" since it's the general zeitgeist that achieving while others are lifting should be cause for deserving fame, and the criminal "pests" too seem to be deserving of that fame nowadays. It would be part of the sardonic aspect precisely to mention he's "deserving", mirroring what was said earlier about "deserving fame". By the way, I'm not sure if that's how you took it, but my theory wasn't that the author thought Sacramento "deserved" EAR. It was about how the society may give these kinds of individuals an idea that they are "deserving".

Of course I can't know but I feel fairly confident that it's something along those lines, even if it was (as it may very well have been) EAR himself who wrote the poem. And it might change his assumed personality profile if he did write it and meant it in this sense. But there's also many preconceived notions. All in all, I think the poem is more of a description than is usually thought. Less of a straightforward statement. It's a shame I don't know the literary terms. I mean that in my opinion the poem does have the meaning that it is generally thought to have, but in a more referential way. The poem is descriptive of the phenomenon that is generally thought to be actually taking place in the poem. It is taking place in the poem, but "demonstratively" and not on an immediate level. If the author is EAR, he's describing himself using his own voice, instead of expressing himself. That would be a one way to put it.

Maybe I'll be able to put it in clearer terms at some point. It's the sense I'm getting from the 'should'-part that I primarily would like to be able to demonstrate. It's the greatest stumbling block, and the sense of the poem depends on it to some degree. I'm hoping I'd find some literary point of comparison. The only example I can think of that's even vaguely along the same lines in regards to that descriptive vs. normative statement dilemma was a forum discussion I read many years ago, in which people were discussing the meaning of John Lennon's 'Working Class Hero'. In the chorus it's stated: "working class hero is something to be". But the meaning wasn't obvious to the listeners. The uncertainty, if not disagreement even, had to do with the question whether Lennon meant it in the sense of himself stating it from his own point of view as his own opinion that a "working class hero is something to be" (normative) - OR - in the sense that he was just describing the general consensus about what is generally thought; that a "working class hero" is generally viewed as something ideal, "something to be" (descriptive).

[oldguy]

I found the title very revealing of him...See my post, "EC as Seen by an Amateur."
Yes I think he wrote it.

Did anyone else think it odd that the HLN Part 4 show used "EC" but only the "planned exile" stanza?

The producers and their advisors appear to believe it is authentic.

[justasking]

Apr 10, 2018 1:49:37 GMT oldguy said:

I found the title very revealing of him...See my post, "EC as Seen by an Amateur."
Yes I think he wrote it.

Did anyone else think it odd that the HLN Part 4 show used "EC" but only the "planned exile" stanza?

The producers and their advisors appear to believe it is authentic.

They may be grasping at straws with emphasizing the "planned exile", in case it's written by him and he has actually made some radical change of scene at some point after his crimes. So that it might potentially give further identifying clue to someone who might suspect someone, if it was the case that the true culprit had actually put that plan to "action" at some point. The part about "planned exile" would be the only part of the poem that could be actually useful, potentially. No other identifying info other than the mention of having that kind of a "plan" (in case it was written by him - they may not believe it with certainty but consider it as a possibility).

But it should be still noted that in the poem it's said: "Sacramento should make an offer / to make a movie of my life / that will pay for my planned exile". So the whole sequence would be that Sacramento made a movie about him that paid for his planned exile. Obviously that didn't happen. Sacramento offering to make a movie of his life after which he could be paid and still evade the capture (to be able to exile) wasn't in any way a realistic thought to begin with. And I don't think the writer either thought it was realistic, but was being purposely imaginative. If the part about Sacramento making an offer and the movie were only imaginary scenarios, then why wouldn't the 'planned exile' be imaginary too? I think the whole section may have been meant to be a fantasy to begin with.

[justasking]

Like I stated in the first post, 'crave' as a noun is used in Scottish law in the sense of a requirement. But the word is even more widespread in Scandinavian languages. I'll just give Swedish as an example, the different senses for the noun 'krav' (which at the root is the same word as 'crave' in the sense I'm here referring to):

claim, requirement, demand, insistence, exaction, plea

It has many different connotations. It can refer to a confident demand, or be meant more in the sense of a frantic begging - in any case; insistently "asking for something", is the main sense of it.

And as already mentioned in the first post: 'Excitement's Crave', to my mind, is about the 'crave' which is made to Sacramento in the poem. Poem is a demonstration of something universal on a particular level. East Area Rapist or Sacramento isn't the main point, only exemplaries. The main theme is the 'crave' (the demand to have the world fulfill the "promise for more"). In this sense, 'Excitement's Crave' is actually a poetically sound and even a good name for the poem. The 'crave' that comes from the place or state of excitement, or the excited crave. Excitement-seeker craving (urging) the world to pay what he thinks is due to him.

Yes, it could be a play on words too. They crave excitement, obviously. But it's the noun excitement that possesses the noun crave, instead of the excitement being the object of the verb crave. "They crave excitement, but this, in turn, is the excitement's crave." - the 'crave' made by excitement is the sense that connects the individual desire (synonymously: 'to crave') associatively to a wider social context and how the "private" desire of the excitement-seeker relates to the 'Other' (which in the poem is personified by Sacramento) to which the 'crave' is made. Promise for more. The imaginary "debt" that's owed to those who should be considered to be deserving. In exactly the same sense as the 'krav'-rooted words are sometimes used when one doesn't pay bills in time. There's a 'crave' that follows, in that case. Collecting a debt.

(Note: With the Scandinavian stuff I'm not suggesting that that's where the author got the word from. It's just a background to demonstrate that the word 'crave' as a noun actually has that sense too, since the English word has the same root with those Scandinavian ones in which this sense of the word has been preserved better. It's only an indication about the author's understanding for archaic etymological roots of this English word, and about how it can be used as a noun in the sense I elaborated on.)   

[prayingmantis]

Ok here I see you gave more of your insight. Which was very good for you to do and provide here particularly with this poem so please continue to spend time on this it will be at the core of helping discernment and direction of other inquiries and symbolism. I will thoroughly go through this and also provide insight if I see any loop holes in the reasoning etc. But interpretation of these writings are substantial and I see you have some solid footing with it.

[prayingmantis]

"I can't decide whether the poem is * or something better than i thought"

My thoughts too heheh.
But I think it's both all in one.

[prayingmantis]

just asking, what leads you to believe the poem may not be written by EAR? In my opinion you should believe in your analysis and begin to hone it while looking back into the events of the earons cases... Essentially your analysis of this poem is our best sense of his mind. The way he perceived many things. Very good work.
And I don't think in those days he were likely to speak a second language. If anything your interpretations are more the unveiling of his language which is synonymous of a second language. Heh

And I don't believe he was a cop or teacher that would be too mundane for him. Religious ...I believe so. Religious figure religious work within organized religion? I do not think so. Moralist? Yes I believe so. Extremely radical and... diabolically hypocritical.

[justasking]

Apr 11, 2018 19:08:51 GMT prayingmantis said:

just asking, what leads you to believe the poem may not be written by EAR? In my opinion you should believe in your analysis and begin to hone it while looking back into the events of the earons cases... Essentially your analysis of this poem is our best sense of his mind. The way he perceived many things. Very good work.
And I don't think in those days he were likely to speak a second language. If anything your interpretations are more the unveiling of his language which is synonymous of a second language. Heh

And I don't believe he was a cop or teacher that would be too mundane for him. Religious ...I believe so. Religious figure religious work within organized religion? I do not think so. Moralist? Yes I believe so. Extremely radical and... diabolically hypocritical.

Actually, I'm not very confident in the belief that it was written by someone else. Mostly it has to do with the extratextual factors about what were the concrete circumstances surrounding the poem as an artefact. It is said to have been established for a fact that the poem was written on a typewriter of the exact same model as the typewriter that had been stolen by EAR very recently (a week before) at the time when the copies of the poem arrived to those few different addresses (Sacramento mayor's office, Sacramento Bee, and KVIE 6 TV station) it was sent to.

So the odds should be that it was an authentic EAR communication. The model of the typewriter could always be a coincidence, if for example someone just wrote a poem about the topic of 'EAR' and happened to use such similar typewriter, but without claiming to be the EAR himself. However, the probability of a coincidence diminishes when we add the claim about being the EAR into the picture.

And then we also have the questionable and suspicious manner of sending the letter to 3 different highly "public" institutions. Exactly the kinds of institutions to which an authentic serial criminal in need of publicity would choose to send his taunting communications. But on the other hand, that's the reason why someone else could have staged it as a performance, too. But the lengths to which such a hypothetical outside "artist" (with an obviously deviant bent) would have gone to without any reservations, just to have his "performance", seem too great to make that scenario believable.

So, in all likelihood it should be an authentic EAR communication. My conclusion that it "probably" wasn't authentic was derived from the fact that I couldn't make the pieces fit (when it comes to having a coherent psychological profile) if my interpretation about the poem's intentions was even close to correct,  because of the established facts we seem to have about who the EAR was and what he did. I didn't see how he could have had such a detached and reflective understanding about the social or existential "bigger picture" and the ethics involved, when there's nothing of the sort to be detected when we consider his crimes. Something about his person and his assumed profile must be greatly reconsidered if we are going to explain and understand that discrepancy.

Of course, the obvious solution would be to sharpen the Occam's razor and cut my interpretation out of the equation, to deem it too convoluted. But let's consider the backdrop as a whole. We may put the primary question like this: "Did the 'East Area Rapist' write that Shakespearean sonnet?" - and if we didn't rely on the circumstantial evidence, I'd hazard a guess that this might not seem to be one of the most expected scenarios to begin with. 

The other solution (if my interpretation happened to be the correct one about the general "gist" of the poem) may have to have something to do with some kind of a radical split in his personality. You may have already given a glimpse to that perspective by saying that you believe that he's "diabolically hypocritical". Some kind of hypocricy must be involved, in some sense. The aspect of thinking and saying things that differ completely from what one does. From Greek 'hupokrisis'; "acting of a theatrical part". But which of the acts was the "theatre" and which the "reality"?

Of course, if he decides to do the crimes of rape and murder - it's completely real. But did it register as "real" to him? Maybe those were compulsive acts, and in some sense felt "alien" to himself. But still he was conscious about the fact that he was committing the rapes when he wrote the poem and signed it with 'East Area Rapist'. Could the poem have been an apologetic writing that he wrote in his own "defense", putting to use all the philosophical understanding he had about the "bigger picture" to deflect the blame?

There may have been the 'adult' and the 'child' living and acting simultaneously or alternately inside him. Acting out the animalistic, primal urges through his crimes, and then "gaining composure" as an individual with capacities for higher abstract thought, and thus; for rationalization. The more rational adult would take the stage to explain away what the child did.

Or he could have been even more psychopathic than thought. Meaning; he didn't have "needs" or "desires" in the sense that he would depend on others in any way. Perhaps he wouldn't care in any way about how others perceived the imago of the 'East Area Rapist'. As the user 'rkz' suggested in some other thread; what if it was just a big "prank" for the EAR? In that case the whole poem could possibly be interpreted as a parody of a moral fable. The EAR writing a poem with undertones of morality and concern, but still not meaning any of it. Only feigning he had some "crave" for "fame" like many others did (the mentioned 'Son of Sam' etc.) - making a caricature of what he himself would look like if that really was the case; "make a movie of my life" and just laughing at the thought, since it was actually something so distant to him. In this case, the act of sending the letter might have been a "performance" of his own. In some sense, a red herring when it comes to his profile. People would try to analyze the poem and gather clues about his feelings and motivations - and be led totally astray. Don't know, but there is something seemingly too "archetypical" in the act of writing and sending the poem. The EAR being a "prankster" like Zodiac exactly by virtue of falsely imitating Zodiac-like sentiment ("see you in the press or on T.V.") to make a parody of the picture where a serial criminal communicates with the media. Possibly.

In any case, I imagine there was some kind of a distance between himself and the act. Some calculation maybe. Hard to see him immediately being driven to do that, because of some deep "need" or an "urge". More like: "just because". In the same vein as it was luxurious for him to call the LE and taunt them. It wasn't him seeking out "human contact" or validation.    

But still the form and content of the poem give out some co-ordinates to the author's level of knowledge, skill and understanding - even if the intention was only "for fun". He could write a parody of a moral fable only if he had some familiarity with moral fables, and so on. And his demonstrated sociological insight would still serve as a clue to his level of education.

Have to give it more thought, I guess. In regards to what might be the best explanation. 

[prayingmantis]

Alright you're back tracking a little bit and that's ok because you're reanalyzing I see you have some awesome meta cognitive skills if you've ever gone through periods of ocd I can understand. First of all, your opening page analysis of excitements crave is ... Brilliant. Brilliant. Did I say brilliant. Brilliant. And I think we can agree that this is a distinct writing with a distinct use of language conveying distinct perceptions. Fairly unique among masses. I have no doubt that there are people out there that know who wrote excitements crave and you don't just spit a writing like that out... This person liked writing when it suited them. If we cannot agree that earons is the author we are in rough shape in our discernment to figure out just about anything else. Your interpretation is not convoluted. I think you know that. Or there is no way in hell you would have been able to conscisely spell it out start to finish like you were reciting the abc's. Glad we got that out of the way. So logically...yes...we must greatly reconsider his assumed profile. The poem was not some bullshit. I think he takes his writings very seriously. Particularly excitements crave since the day he wrote it due to everything that was tied to it. I think in part the poem was indeed a showcase but more like a case of showing off. The poem and your analysis of the poem is not an unknown realm of understanding for me however I am quite aware of the sparsity of its implied conceptualizations. And I don't think it was half ass written I mean he was giving it his best. He was a conflicted person in many respects as you are picking up on. As it has been questioned, was he playing the part of a schizophrenic? I do not think so. I think he is schizophrenic. I also think that he did have military experience not the air force although he may have still had connections with the Air Force other than being primarily part of the Air Force. I think he did like traveling in or along waters. I don't think he was active in the military when committing crimes I think he remained a little more stable as he was in service. Schizophrenia typically comes on for males between ages 16-25 something around there I think by the time he was completing service it was full blown. I think he was probably 25-30 when crimes start. His hair didn't need to be military style cut. Back to the writing, he was/is definitely above average intelligence and yet I don't think he's ever experienced greater intelligence outside himself also because he was never actually intelligent enough to. He was a God unto himself. Although there were most likely countless personas all in one... The writing would be more representative of the supreme being persona that he favored above the rest.

[prayingmantis]

Yes I think we can intelligently assume that he was more psychopathic than thought. That was not part of the show. If anything he held back. I don't think he wanted to be perceived as a sick schizophrenic psychopathic out of his own control type. He would have rather been perceived as an extremely intelligent dangerous villain with the world in his hands at his mercy.