The Elvis myth. - Democratic Underground

Occam Bandage

(1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore

Tue Apr-07-09 02:24 PM
Original message

The Elvis myth.

Edited on Tue Apr-07-09 03:24 PM by Occam Bandage

Did Elvis really exist? This is perhaps one of the most frequently asked (and deeply important) questions today. While most simply take it for granted that the sweet-singing King of Rock 'n' Roll really lived, is this any less a fantasy than a child's equally-firm belief in the reality of Santa? I think not, and I am prepared to defend my case.

I think it is obvious that what we call "Elvis," rather than being a real flesh-and-blood person, is actually an amalgamation of many other early country-rock myths. I am going to center my case around three aspects of the Elvis myth: the ubiquity of the "Elvis story" in 1950s America, the suspect nature of many of the supposed songs "written and performed by" Elvis, and the contradictory nature of contemporary depictions of Elvis.

When we think of Elvis, most of us think of the the familiar and supposedly unique "Elvis story," of poor birth, a surprising talent, a meteoric rise to unexpected success, a painful downfall, a measure of commercial redemption, and then a tragic and sudden death. Surely such a unique and compelling life story must be convincing evidence of the man's existence. But is it? History records many other figures with suspiciously similar figures, often concurrent with the timeframes Elvis "historians" usually claim. There is virtually no difference between the story of Elvis, and the story of figures like Johnny Cash, like Jimi Hendrix, and like James Dean. Indeed, there is a case to be made that Cash and Dean were the head figures of two competing followings, and Elvis represents nothing more than the fusion of the musicality, Memphis scene background, and rise-fall-rise story of Cash with the sexual power, acting career, and sudden death of Dean. And, of course, we must not forget that the "Resurrection" of Elvis, in which he has been reported in visions and other unverifiable appearances following his death, is most likely simply stolen directly from the earlier personality cult Christianity.

But surely, some say, we have evidence of the unique character of Elvis in the songs he supposedly gave the world. Surely such powerful, timeless messages to the world must be the product of a breathing man and not of a cheap amalgamation? Undoubtedly they were the works of flesh-and-blood men--and not of Elvis. Consider such a timeless "Elvis" song as Are You Lonesome Tonight. In fact, this is a word-for-word copy of the Carter Family song by the same name on their album In The Shadow of Clinch Mountain (observant readers will note another link to Johnny Cash!). Or consider the "Elvis" classic Blue Suede Shoes, which appears to have been lifted from a long-forgotten Carl Perkins album. Even songs for which a prior non-Elvis source has not been found, such as Heartbreak Hotel and Jailhouse Rock, bear textual clues in early copies indicating that they were written by professional writers-for-hire. If there is evidence of a historical Elvis, it is not in his works.

But what of all the supposedly contemporary depictions of Elvis? Well, what of them? I grow tired of seeing all the conflicting and internally inconsistent "Elvis pictures." So you show me a motion picture purporting to show Elvis. Are we really to believe that Elvis was a soldier, a race-car driver, a singer, a hillbilly, a prisoner, a beach bum, a spy, and any dozen other things? And are we really to believe that each of those different people with different professions, who are clearly seen answering to different names, are all actually Elvis? And what of the photographs? Well, was Elvis young and thin or old and fat? The portrayals seen in the various photographs supposedly of Elvis are so different they might as well by of several people. While it is possible that one of them might be a man named Elvis who did a few of the things attributed to him, they cannot all, or even mostly, be Elvis. Finally, what of all the paintings? I will say nothing but that if Elvis were actually to have sat for each of the millions of "paintings of Elvis" that exist, he would have had no time to actually do anything that might want to make someone paint him!

I understand why people want to believe in the historicity of Elvis: it is a pleasant story, and it is reassuring to think that such a man existed. But we should realize that a story can be pleasant and still be just a story. Perhaps, rather than believing blindly in an Elvis to save our music from itself, we should simply be thankful that humanity has the courage and the imagination to look inside our own hearts and dream of an Elvis. "Elvis" is a metaphor for what we all might wish to become. And that is Elvis enough for me.