The Decemberists – The Hazards of Love 3 (Revenge!)

• +1
  General Comment:I think William could be Isaiah. If it's the Rake's imagination as he's dying, and at the beginning of the song it's William killing him. If his daughters came to haunt him he could be scared and expecting enough to imagine Isaiah. Then he dies and is stuck with all three rather than two, and it makes all the rest more interesting, with the queen having resurrected Isaiah from ash ;)

  Flag AidanDieson January 05, 2010   Link

  • No Replies Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
• 0
  My Interpretation:The way that I think of this song is that the song starts with a fight between William and The Rake but The Rake is too strong. Then right as The Rake is about to kill William, the ghosts of his three murdered children come back. The three ghost begin to attack The Rake while mocking him the whole time and then eventually kill him. It doesn't make William look good but the only reason I can think of for the ghosts to come would be if The Rake were about to kill William.

  Flag dlogue15on December 02, 2009   Link

  • 1 Reply Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    that's my favorite interpretation. who cares if it doesn't make william look good? sometimes the villain is just too strong. besides, i like the idea of the rake's ultimate undoing being by his past evil deeds, i.e. the killing of his infant children.
    
    everytime i hear this song i have the most amazing visuals in my head. the rake standing, horrified, fog billowing while his undead children (charlotte bleeding from the mouth, dawn soaking and spitting up water, isaiah horribly burned) advance on him with their creepy song. love it.

    Flag salmonloxon February 05, 2011  
• 0
  General Comment:Thinking generally about this topic, rather than specifically...
  Is it up to the person who feels "wronged" to punish and torment and haunt? Or would the person who did "wrong" have paid for their "crime" on their own terms? I went through an experience where I did wrong and paid dearly on my own. Then the people who felt "wronged" decided it was up to them to teach me a lesson.
  
  Yes, the rotten deeds you do in life will come back to haunt you. You will pay for them (I would never think it was up to me to make someone pay or teach them a lesson, I simply think naturally their conscience will catch up with them). Like William murdering his babies, some people victimize the hearts of people who love them. They rape their souls and laugh. I would never seek revenge.
  
  My blood is on your hands and I forgive you.

  Flag scarletmagnoliaon August 28, 2009   Link

  • 1 Reply Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    I think you meant the Rake murdering his children, not William...

    Flag Kitronaon September 12, 2009  
• -2
  General Comment:Has anyone considered that William might actually be The Rake? From the Hazards of Love 1, we are introduced to William as a shapeshifter. Perhaps this symbolizes his duality of good and evil. The relationship between him and Margaret is certainly lustful, with them immediately having sex and her becoming pregnant. In the Wanting Comes in Waves, he makes a deal with his adopted mother, the Queen (possibly the Devil?), to have one last night with Margaret, to which she agrees (knowing well that babies will get in the way of his sexual desires). The next song, we are introduced to the Rake (unnamed) and we are left unclear regarding the identity of his wife. I suspect that the Rake is William several years in the future, after the babies from his sexual escapades have severely cramped his style, so he has decided to "divest" his burden by murdering his children. His wife, Margaret, died in childbirth and was transported to the other side of Annan Water (symbolizing death, like the River Styx). The rest of the story revolves around an internal struggle where William fights between his inherent good/evil.

  Flag kaun83on June 24, 2009   Link

  • 1 Reply Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    Doesn't work unless William and the Rake are the same person who can be in two different places at once i.e. crossing of Annan Water

    Flag witeshadoon November 30, 2009  
• 0
  General Comment:to me the idea of the cradle of clay being isaiah's urn is just too cool not to be true...and too much of a coincidence that the queen would mention the cradle's composition. i also figure if she can give william the form of a fawn, then she could have brought him back from the ashes.
  
  thanks, someone, for mentioning that the rake was the villain who kidnaps margaret...for some reason it didn't occur to me, and now it ties the two stories together so nicely! how brilliant is this album anyway...

  Flag daedalusbrahmson May 07, 2009   Link

  • No Replies Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
• 0
  General Comment:The line that connects William and Isaiah is in the Queen's Rebuke - "he was a baby abandoned, entombed in a CRADLE OF CLAY." The clay part is the kicker--what kind of cradle would be made of clay? None that I can think of... what is made of clay? Urns... things where you would put ashes... ashes of burnt children perhaps? We'll never know unless Colin comes out and says it, but I think the theory is a sound one and I personally believe it, although two burned children in one Decemberists album is not outside of the realm of possibility. :P
  
  Remember the Queen is magic and has special powers, I don't think reviving William/bringing him back to life is outside the realm of possibility.

  Flag SkylinePigeonon May 06, 2009   Link

  • 4 Replies Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    How do you figure two burned children? It's not clear whether William was dead or just sickly and abandoned when the Queen found him. Nothing on the entire album suggests that he was burned.
    
    And frankly, I don't get the impression that this story took place yesterday or even within the past few centuries. In the time this story was set, there were fewer accessible building materials. I would guess that any type of cradle could be made of clay, as it would probably take longer to carve a cradle out of wood. Also, if you were going to abandon your sickly child in a river, you probably wouldn't put him in a wooden cradle, which would be reused for all your children. You'd put him in something makeshift, like a cradle made of clay.
    
    The Isaiah = William theory is tenuous at best.

    Flag chapstickaddicton May 06, 2009  

    0

    Though it's a very interesting idea Skyline, i'm with chapstick. In this very song it says the urn was buried. And unless you put a brick inside it so it sinks, I can't really fathom why you'd chuck the urn with your dead kids ashes into a river.
    
    Also, I think clay was at least partially used because 'and he was a baby entombed in a woven basket of reeds, and I was the soul who took pity and stole him away' just doesn't rhyme. She also says baby, and Isaiah was, at the very least, a young boy when his father murdered him. He was the oldest and not only was he of an age to understand what happened to his sisters, he could fight back. He wasn't exactly a threat, but babies don't fight.
    
    And while Colin loves making sick connections like that, he also gives you all the information by the end at least, and he probably would have sung as Isaiah if that's who William was from the start. But, Isiah is last for a reason, and the whole song starts with William coming upon the Rake with Margaret, and killing him. Then he's stuck in death and with the children that he murdered forever and ever. It's got Colin written all over it as much as William being Isaiah would. But, please. If Isaiah being William is what makes the album for you, don't let me get in the way of that.

    Flag SecretConvictionon May 07, 2009  

    0

    Ha, no, it won't ruin the album for me not to believe it... I'm not even sure that I believe it at all, just presenting it because I thought it was an interesting idea when I heard the album! :)
    
    Chapstick, I don't think the story is recent, either, but I don't know why it would be more difficult to make a cradle out of some sticks tied together instead of clay. Clay is not an incredibly common thing to have around, while sticks are... but then again I know nothing about the historical use of cradles. :P I think like daedalus said under me that the Queen's magic powers would allow here to bring back a baby if it was dead, and the "entombed" part again makes me think that, regardless of whether or not William = Isaiah, William was closed in something, most likely an urn. Dried clay is very brittle unless fired, so I don't think anything made of clay would survive being thrown into a river unless it was some thick, fired pottery. So, if they are separate, Isaiah was burned as was William, making it two burned children. But like you said, we don't know for sure, just fun ideas. ;)
    
    As for SecretConviction, first paragraph makes a great point. As for the second one, we're talking about Colin Meloy, a practical walking dictionary, so I'm sure he could have made something rhyme that would get his point across. ;) Also, I'm currently 20, but my mom still calls me her baby on occasion. Same could be true of the Queen. Although William would probably remember his former life (assuming he is Isaiah, unless the Queen magically altered his memory?) which shoots holes in my theory. :P Speculating is fun, regardless. ;)
    
    Perhaps I've been watching too much Lost....

    Flag SkylinePigeonon May 11, 2009  

    0

    I personally think that the line "cradle of clay" is referring to the clay of the river bank. William being Isaiah is a bit of a stretch.

    Flag burnedoutstarson August 09, 2010  
• 0
  My Interpretation:"Spare the rod, you'll spoil the child, but I prefer the lash"
  
  Any ideas on what is meant by this? Dawn and Charlotte seem to express a sort of sarcastic naivete (Papa, we died on accident, but don't worry, we're back!) whereas Isaiah is clearly aware he and his sisters were murdered (also evident in the Rake's Song). As such, I think this line might be different than the preceding openers by Dawn and Charlotte. I am thinking it could be some sort of threat to his father that in death his father is going to get it. I guess it could also be a reference to his father beating him, but that's no fun.

  Flag jackasheron May 04, 2009   Link

  • 1 Reply Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    Well, I think Isaiah IS aware that he & his siblings were murdered - Dawn & Charlotte were killed surreptitiously while Isaiah fought back. He's the oldest, and so would be the one most likely to be aware.
    
    As for "I prefer the lash" I take that as a comment on the way that his father killed him - the proverb says "Spare the rob & spoil the child", but the rake whipped Isaiah, which is a much harsher thing.

    Flag reagankon May 26, 2009  
• 0
  General Comment:I also don't think that William is Isaiah, he seemed pretty definitely dead, beaten to death then burnt? Surely unsurvivable. It'd also make the Rake a bit old, and perhaps past the age of rakish activities. Then again, he was married at 21, so maybe not.
  
  Originally thought it was the Rake's children suddenly appear and haunt him just as he's about to rape Margaret (they were his 'hazards of love' as he just wanted lots of sex, no babies), and he subsequently goes insane and kills himself, or at least is incapacitated so that William is able to break in and rescue her. But now... actually, the idea that William fights him and kills him, then he gets to spend all eternity as a ghost in the company of his vengeful children... ooh. I think that would be a worse fate. Creepy, creepy use of a children's choir, all very discordant and sinister, and are those squeaking taps on Dawn's verse? *shiver*

  Flag salgueiraon May 03, 2009   Link

  • 1 Reply Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
    0

    See my comment at the bottom, but the "cradle of clay" line from the Queen's rebuke is the one that helps make the Isaiah=William connection. I think it's a possibility. :)

    Flag SkylinePigeonon May 06, 2009  
• 0
  General Comment:This is the most awesome idea.

  Flag orypecion April 26, 2009   Link

  • No Replies Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.
• 0
  General Comment:It's pretty neat they got a children's choir to sing this, but it must have been really disturbing for the children...

  Flag blue.painted.tearson April 09, 2009   Link

  • No Replies Log in to reply
    
      There was an error.

Log in now to tell us what you think this song means.

Don’t have an account? Create an account with SongMeanings to post comments, submit lyrics, and more. It’s super easy, we promise!