What does Sinfield believe in? Or is it only WHO does Sinfield believe in, or
fail to believe in?
McEvoy:
"That [the proposition] "I Believe In Father Christmas" is in the title only
and not in the body of the song leaves it open that this title is there to be
examined for its truth and not as a summary of the point of the song."
True. Palmer indeed leaves many things open. It should be pointed out that
titles are otiose. Da Vinci's Mona Lisa being a case in point. The song could
have NO TITLE, which is the White Knight's point in the passage from "Through
the Looking Glass". A title is NOT set to music, and not thus part of the song.
"To be examined for its truth"
-- or falsity, as the case might be. On the other hand, "I believe in..." has a
PERFORMATIVE side to it. "I believe in God almighty, etc." -- cfr. the 39
articles of the C. of E. -- are usually uttered as proofs that the utterer DOES
believe in what his expressed proposition states he believes in. Note that
Sinfield notably does not use an interrogation mark for the title of his Xmas
song:
i. I believe in Father Christmas?
McEvoy:
"Compare "Hitler: Saviour of Germany" or "Nixon - Honest Politician". Or "My
Happy Life Hiding From The Nazis". Or "A Staggering Work of Heartbreaking
Genius". This may be surprising in a Christmas song - "White Christmas" didn't
turn out to be snowless, Rudolph was a red-nosed reindeer. Lumbering
literalness generally plagues the Christmas song."
And the carol, if you must. Except perhaps if you are Christina Rossetti -- her
carol is my favourite.
"But before Sinfield, in "Happy Xmas (War Is Over)" it became clear from the
body of the song that war was not over in the present tense at all but only if
you want it. Admittedly playing with belief in the first person present tense
will throw some people."
Yes. Some people! Note that "God" ("I believe in God") does not quite compare
to "Father Christmas". It's not clear if God is a proper name (cfr. Porter,
"why the gods above me, who must be in the know?"). But it's not usual to have
the phrase, "I believe in..." followed by a proper name. Assuming "Father
Christmas" is a proper name. "Christmas" is of course the "mass of Christ" (and
should thus be better spelt "Christ's mass". The addition of "Father" is
hypochoristic. Is he the Father that appears during that mass? Not in the
Vatican!
"I believe in Jones" sounds odd. "I believe Jones" doesn't. So one should do a
little linguistic botanizing and revise what collocations of "I believe in..."
(other than Sinfield's "Father Christmas") are viable. The implicature seems to
be that, indeed, FEW believe in Father Christmas. Why would Sinfield care to
title his song this way otherwise? It's after all, in his words, a 'fairy tale'
-- So he is being blatantly anti-establishment.
On top, SINFIELD's believing in Father Christmas is one thing. His song seems
to be a perlocutionary (or as Grice prefers, 'protreptic') effect. By singing
the song, Palmer intends his addressee ALSO to believe in Father Christmas.
Perhaps if the song is part of a community singing round, and a chorale sings
the song, "I believe in Father Christmas" becomes an article of pluralistic
faith, or a plural article of faith. Note that "I don't believe in Father
Christmas" could well be the title of a different Xmas song ("I don't believe
in Father Christmas, but I believe in Christ," say. "Christ," unfortunately, is
not a proper name -- in Greek. "Jesus" is -- But Geary knows more about this
than I do -- He speaks Aramaic. (Cf. Monty Python, "I believe in Brian Cohen.")
McEvoy:
"But consider EM Forster's "I do not believe in belief". And then "I believe
there is no such thing as belief"."
That's slightly different in that Sinfield is BLATANTLY using a proper name (as
Frege would call it) after "I believe in...". Thus one could say that while one
believes in Moe and Larry, one doesn't believe in Sremp. Plus, Forster was
confused on a number of issues (cfr. the otiosity of "I don't believe in
Forster --" Forster.)
McEvoy: "The phrase "I Believe In Father Christmas" is one of the pat answers
to the perennial "Do you believe in Father Christmas?" This is important, I
suggest. In fact, it is an assurance adults may give children - a bromide. The
writer is playing with a trope. This gives the title a different slant to where
"I believe..." is used in simple factual context to report a state of belief."
But "Father Christmas" is not strictly a fairy. "Do you believe in fairies?"
seems to be equivalent to "Do you believe that fairies (or witches, say)
exist?". "I believe in Father Christmas" seems more like a theological dogma,
alla Tertulian ("I believe because it is absurd" -- not that the proper name
"Father Christmas", used only in England, is absurd).
McEvoy: "Two years later John Lydon took a trope and took a hatchet to it with
"God Save The Queen" - here the clue was not in anything like a literal reading
of the title." Well Lydon knew that 'save' is the subjunctive mode. "That God
save the queen". Philosophers argue whether "God" is a proper name -- (for Cole
Porter, as we've seen, it isn't -- and "the queen" is, if we must follow Frege
again, a 'definite description' a TOTALLY different 'animal'. Lydon knows this
-- every school boy knows this. And possibly Pearl Buck, back in China, did,
too.
McEvoy:
"A medieval monk wrote against the doctrine of the Trinity under the heading "I
believe in the Father, Son and Holy Spirit", or could have done. The heading
would then become an assertion - perhaps standard - to be examined and refuted.
Swift's "A Modest Proposal" was excessive and deliberately so - to mock the
excesses of moralising reason."
Granted. But a monk would be laughed at if he gave his oath with a casual
remark, alla Sinfield, "I believe in Father Christmas" -- cfr. "I believe in
the Easter Bunny."
McEvoy: "All this is to suggest that the lumbering literalness of treating "I
Believe In Father Christmas" as if it were a factual assertion is surely
mistaken in the context of the song in question; the meaning of the title here
needs to be examined in the light of the body of the song rather than the body
subsumed under a 'literal' reading of the title."
Well, I would grant that if you buy the CD, the track is listed as "I believe
in Father Christmas", so the title sort of provides an IMPLICIT bias as to what
the BODY of the song will be like. Palmer knew this, hence his addition of
classical fragments of music to embellish his composition.
McEvoy: "The analogy may be made between believing in God and believing in
Santa. There is a strain of modern theology - perhaps dominant in the Church of
England, but not in the Vatican - where God is not asserted as having any
literal existence and trying to treat God as a fact or a fiction is seen as
missing the point (as is any sustained examination of the Bible for its literal
truth). These are murky waters; but since the song doesn't aim to dispel them
it may be it is playing in them."
Yes. Actually, Sinfield SHOULD have added the Sistine Chapel for good measure.
(There are no statues by Bernini of Father Christmas there).
(And representations of saints, including Santa Claus -- "Santa" is a
corruption of 'saint' -- were forbidden by Henry VIII when he created the C. of
E. --).
Talking of Tracks in CD, Perry's "Jerusalem" is best rendered as "And did those
feet?" (Even if "Jerusalem" does feature at the very end of the hymn -- so
perhaps we should rename Sinfield's Xmas thing as "They said there'll be snow
at Christmas" -- surely a prediction, in Popperian terms -- cfr. "I'm dreaming
of a white Christmas, such as the weather forecast has not predicted -- the
song was first sung by Crosby in a film set in sunny L. A. --.
McEvoy: "Songwriters trying for something different may nevertheless produce a
fudge between the old and seeming new or something that seeks to have its cake
and eat it. In fact, this kind of blend may be what they aim at - it's a
well-known device within advertising ["Coke. It's the real thing."; "Go to work
on an egg." "London Underground - You can't beat the system."] And never
forget this is popular song and not obscure poetry: artistic intentions aside,
a title that made clear the song was a statement that the person did not
believe in Father Christmas might be commercial suicide. That's bad at any time
of year."
Well, Sinfield did say that he thought that his song was pessimistic, and to
avoid the sentiment he added the 'optimistic' desiderative or conative bit
(rather than the factual belief in this or that). Sinfield has referred to the
'morbid edges' to the song. He has gone on record as being VERY concerned that
the song would be too bleak (cf. Rossetti's carol), and resolved implicatural
matters with an allegedly uplifting final verse ("hopeful," rather than the
more traditional "merry" "Christmas").
O. T. O. H., strictly, C. of E. does not have 'masses' (it's all about the
transubstantiation), but 'services' (but "Christservice" sounds obtuse).
Cheers,
Speranza
