On Wings of Song/Part One - Revision history

Eb: /* the P-W lozenge */

2026-03-29T19:08:02Z

the P-W lozenge

Eb: /* the P-W lozenge */

2026-03-29T19:05:58Z

the P-W lozenge

Eb: /* Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers */

2025-07-15T05:57:43Z

Beware of dogs, beware of evil workers

Eb: /* bowdlerized editions of Frankenstein and The War of the Worlds */

2025-07-15T05:48:16Z

bowdlerized editions of Frankenstein and The War of the Worlds

Eb: /* undergoders .... they practically ran Iowa */

2025-02-03T00:05:38Z

undergoders .... they practically ran Iowa

Eb: /* the windows were all sealed tight */

2025-02-03T00:00:03Z

the windows were all sealed tight

Eb: /* fans whirling everywhere you went */

2025-02-02T23:59:40Z

fans whirling everywhere you went

Eb: /* She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses */

2025-02-02T23:58:14Z

She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses

Eb: /* She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses */

2025-02-02T23:57:05Z

She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses

Eb: /* She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses */

2025-02-02T23:56:22Z

She would sit watching him ... people shouldn't let fairies into their houses

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 === the P-W lozenge ===
-The idea of prisoners having a remote-controlled bomb on or in their bodies was fairly popular in late 20th century science fiction. Often this was in the form of an explosive collar around the neck—which has an obvious narrative advantage in movies, since it's always visible and can have an ominous flashing light on it; examples include ''The Running Man'' (1987), ''Wedlock'' (1991), and ''Battlefield Earth'' (2000). Less visibly but more ickily, the bomb might be implanted inside someone's neck or head as in ''Escape from New York'' (1981).
+The idea of prisoners having a remote-controlled bomb on or in their bodies was fairly popular in late 20th century science fiction. Often this was in the form of an explosive collar around the neck—which has an obvious narrative advantage in movies, since it's always visible and can have an ominous flashing light on it; examples include ''The Running Man'' (1987), ''Wedlock'' (1991), ''Battle Royale'' (2000), and ''Battlefield Earth'' (2000). Less visibly but more ickily, the bomb might be implanted inside someone's neck or head as in ''Escape from New York'' (1981).
 [[File:Fortress.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Christopher Lambert in ''Fortress'']] I'm not sure whether ''On Wings of Song'' is the earliest example, but I'm fairly sure that this and the movie ''[https://letterboxd.com/hob/film/fortress-1992/ Fortress]'' (1992) are the only ones where you have to ''swallow'' the bomb—and that this was the first fictional depiction of a prison where instead of the bomb being the last-ditch mechanism to prevent escape, it's the only mechanism. In keeping with 1970s/80s conservative economic ideology, the Spirit Lake prison runs on an extreme laissez-faire model with basically no staff.

@@ Line 151: / Line 151: @@
 === the P-W lozenge ===
-The idea of prisoners having a remote-controlled bomb on or in their bodies was fairly popular in late 20th century science fiction. Often this was in the form of an explosive collar around the neck—which has an obvious narrative advantage in movies, since it's always visible and can have an ominous flashing light on it; examples include ''The Running Man'' (1987), ''Wedlock'' (1991), and ''Battlefield Earth'' (2000). Less cinematically but more ickily, the bomb might be implanted inside someone's neck or skull.
+The idea of prisoners having a remote-controlled bomb on or in their bodies was fairly popular in late 20th century science fiction. Often this was in the form of an explosive collar around the neck—which has an obvious narrative advantage in movies, since it's always visible and can have an ominous flashing light on it; examples include ''The Running Man'' (1987), ''Wedlock'' (1991), and ''Battlefield Earth'' (2000). Less visibly but more ickily, the bomb might be implanted inside someone's neck or head as in ''Escape from New York'' (1981).
-[[File:Fortress.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Christopher Lambert in ''Fortress'']] I'm not sure whether ''On Wings of Song'' is the earliest example, but I'm fairly sure that this and the movie ''[https://letterboxd.com/hob/film/fortress-1992/ Fortress]'' (1992) are the only ones where you have to swallow the bomb—and that this was the first fictional depiction of a prison where instead of the bomb being the last-ditch mechanism to prevent escape, it's the ''only'' mechanism. In keeping with 1970s/80s conservative economic ideology, the Spirit Lake prison runs on an extreme laissez-faire model with basically no staff.
+[[File:Fortress.jpg|thumb|right|300px|Christopher Lambert in ''Fortress'']] I'm not sure whether ''On Wings of Song'' is the earliest example, but I'm fairly sure that this and the movie ''[https://letterboxd.com/hob/film/fortress-1992/ Fortress]'' (1992) are the only ones where you have to ''swallow'' the bomb—and that this was the first fictional depiction of a prison where instead of the bomb being the last-ditch mechanism to prevent escape, it's the only mechanism. In keeping with 1970s/80s conservative economic ideology, the Spirit Lake prison runs on an extreme laissez-faire model with basically no staff.
 === Basques in Spain, Jews in Russia, the Irish in England ... the decimation of Palestinians ===

@@ Line 187: / Line 187: @@
 This is an example of Disch doing something he also [[334/334/Part_III#18._The_New_American_Catholic_Bible|did]] [[334/334/Part_VI#38._Father_Charmain|twice]] in ''334'': having a character land on a supposedly random Bible verse, when it's really the author being mischievous. Here Daniel has picked one of the most confusing Biblical passages that a casual reader could've possibly found—both because of the peculiar translation (the King James version uses the word "concision" in a way that I'm not sure it was ever used anywhere else in English literature), and because the meaning is so obscure without the context (the apostle Paul is ranting against other Christian factions of his time). Some [https://biblehub.com/nasb_/philippians/3.htm other translations] are a bit clearer, but only a bit.
-The specific content of the passage may not be very important, but here's my best attempt to summarize it. After some general insults about "dogs" and "evil workers", Paul specifically complains about Christians who believe that circumcision and other traditional Jewish practices should remain important in their faith. He argues instead that "circumcision" should now be thought of as a spiritual condition, a matter of having the right faith—as the people in his own faction do. But as sort of a hedge and/or brag, he adds that if traditional circumcision is so important, i.e. if you really insist on having "confidence in the flesh", then he has that too since he was physically circumcised—and that maybe it should even count extra for him, since he used to be a very traditional Pharisee.
+The specific content of the passage may not be very important, but here's my best attempt to summarize it. After some general insults about "dogs" and "evil workers", Paul specifically complains about Christians who believe that circumcision and other traditional Jewish practices should remain important in their faith. He argues instead that "circumcision" should now be thought of as a spiritual condition, a matter of having the right faith—as the people in his own faction do. But as sort of a hedge and/or brag, he adds that if traditional circumcision is so important, i.e. if you really insist on having "confidence in the flesh", then he has that too since he was physically circumcised—and, since he used to be a very traditional Pharisee, maybe it should even count extra for him.
 === the windows were all sealed tight ===

@@ Line 47: / Line 47: @@
 === bowdlerized editions of ''Frankenstein'' and ''The War of the Worlds'' ===
-{{wp|Expurgation|Bowdlerization}} refers generally to creating censored versions of books or other art. Fantasy literature has always been a common target of censorship. ''Frankenstein'' is an unusual case in that the best-known version of the novel, the 1831 edition, contained changes by the author that some have described as self-censorship to appease Victorian sensibilities (although the differences between the 1818 and 1838 editions are more complex)—but any version of ''Frankenstein'' would be problematic for fundamentalist Christians due to its basic premise.
+{{wp|Expurgation|Bowdlerization}} refers generally to creating censored versions of books or other art. Fantasy literature has always been a common target of censorship. ''Frankenstein'' is an unusual case in that the best-known version of the novel, the 1831 edition, contained changes by the author that some have described as self-censorship to appease Victorian sensibilities (although the differences between the 1818 and 1831 editions are more complex)—but any version of ''Frankenstein'' would be problematic for fundamentalist Christians due to its basic premise.
 As for why ''The War of the Worlds'', commonly thought of as a thrilling alien invasion adventure, would offend religious conservatives: besides H.G. Wells being famously an atheist, the novel's narrator repeatedly brings up evolution.<ref>{{cite book|author=McLean, Steven|date=2009|title=The Early Fiction of H.G. Wells: Fantasies of Science|url=https://link.springer.com/book/10.1057/9780230236639|publisher=Palgrave Macmillan|isbn=978-0-230-53562-6}}</ref>

@@ Line 71: / Line 71: @@
 The reason that the far-right evangelicals who are so prominent in Daniel's world are called "undergoders" is never spelled out, but to someone of Disch's generation it would clearly refer to the controversy over the wording of the {{wp|Pledge of Allegiance}}. "One nation" was changed to "One nation, under God" in 1954, as part of a Cold War trend of emphasizing American piety in contrast to the Soviets. This was clearly at odds with separation of church and state, and even though no legal challenge was made on that basis until {{wp|Elk Grove Unified School District v. Newdow|2000}}, it was a common focus of arguments about the overlap between religion and political conservatism—and a convenient phrase for the religious right to rally around.
-Woven throughout this chapter, there are references to state/federal conflicts, Supreme Court decisions, etc., to establish what kind of dystopia Daniel is living in: not a nationwide theocracy like ''The Handmaid's Tale'', but something more contiguous with US history so far. Most of the repression is happening at the state level, and wasn't established by a coup, but by the same processes as right-wing politics today: a coalition of interests including sincere religious zealots, corrupt politicians, and businessmen who have no real ideology but are comfortable in an authoritarian setting. The undergoders don't make up a majority in Iowa, and haven't really forced everyone to live like they do ("it was impossible to pretend to be an undergoder since it involved giving up almost anything you might enjoy")—but they're over-represented in the agricultural industry where the state's main economic power is.
+Woven throughout this chapter, there are references to state/federal conflicts, Supreme Court decisions, etc., to establish what kind of dystopia Daniel is living in: not a nationwide theocracy like ''The Handmaid's Tale'', but something more contiguous with US history so far. Most of the repression is happening at the state level, and wasn't established by a coup, but by the same processes as right-wing politics today: a coalition of interests including sincere religious zealots, corrupt politicians, and businessmen who have no real ideology but are comfortable in an authoritarian setting. The undergoders don't make up a majority in Iowa, and haven't required everyone to adopt their own very strict lifestyle ("it was impossible to pretend to be an undergoder since it involved giving up almost anything you might enjoy")—but they have an outsize influence because they're so prominent in the agricultural industry, where the state's main economic power is.
 The novel doesn't say exactly which states are dominated by undergoders, just that it's most of "the Farm Belt", which could refer to any subset of Iowa, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Michigan, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, and Ohio. In chapter 3 we see that at least some of Iowa's neighbor states, like Minnesota, have managed not to go this way.

@@ Line 191: / Line 191: @@
 === the windows were all sealed tight ===
-Here we get one more bit of exposition about the rules of flying: "fairies" can travel effortlessly by willpower, but they can't go through solid objects.
+Here we get one more bit of exposition about the rules of flying: fairies can travel effortlessly by willpower, but they can't go through solid objects.
 === The faster I let myself spin the more exciting ===

@@ Line 37: / Line 37: @@
 === fans whirling everywhere you went ===
-The way that fans and other spinning objects can harm "fairies" is described by Barbara Steiner [[#The faster I let myself spin the more exciting|later in chapter 4]].
+The way that fans and other spinning objects can harm fairies is described by Barbara Steiner [[#The faster I let myself spin the more exciting|later in chapter 4]].
 == Chapter 2 ==

@@ Line 17: / Line 17: @@
 Not coincidentally, "fairy" also has a long history as an anti-gay slur in the US and England—semi-archaic today, but still very recognizable in the 1970s and 80s. Of the many equivalent slurs in other languages, several refer to butterflies, birds, etc., consistent with the idea that being flighty and/or colorful is effeminate.
-There's no particular passage in the book that summarizes exactly what's involved in flying, so this note is as good a place as any. Disch gives no details about the "flight apparatus" technology except for there being a wire that touches the head. It's important to the premise that both the technology and the mental state achieved by singing are necessary ingredients; there's never a hint of anyone being able to do it in another way, as people have claimed to do in the past via meditation or esoteric studies. The general idea of {{wp|astral projection}} has a long history, but what's happening here seems closest to a more specific idea that only became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, and shows up a lot in 20th century science fiction: {{wp|remote viewing}}, that is, the ability to roam around as a disembodied point of view and invisibly observe things in the actual world. In ''On Wings of Song'', fairies don't travel to a separate reality, and they don't perceive any supernatural beings (except other fairies like themselves), but otherwise there are only a few limits to where they can go and what they can see. So there are at least three reasons for religious conservatives to be against flying: it's a transcendent experience that doesn't correspond to their own religion, it's against their desire to control other people's access to information in general, and it's a threat to their own personal privacy.
+There's no particular passage in the book that summarizes exactly what's involved in flying, so this note is as good a place as any. Disch gives no details about the "flight apparatus" technology except for there being a wire that touches the head. It's important to the premise that both the technology and the mental state achieved by singing are necessary ingredients; there's never a hint of anyone being able to do it in another way, as people have claimed to do in the past via meditation or esoteric studies. The general idea of {{wp|astral projection}} has a long history, but what's happening here seems closest to a more specific idea that only became popular in the 19th and 20th centuries, and shows up a lot in 20th century science fiction: {{wp|remote viewing}}, that is, the ability to roam around as a disembodied point of view and observe things in the actual world. In ''On Wings of Song'', fairies don't travel to a separate reality, and they don't perceive any supernatural beings (except other fairies like themselves), but otherwise there are only a few limits to where they can go and what they can see. So there are at least three reasons for religious conservatives to be against flying: it's a transcendent experience that doesn't correspond to their own religion, it's against their desire to control other people's access to information in general, and it's a threat to their own personal privacy.
 === a collect call from New York ===