click a star to vote
Oct 7th 2009!⃝There’s a fusion of horizons between artist and song and so the themes of whether this is a song induced by a picture or drugs are both fine IMHO. Consider this:
Each verse starts with an innocent, single line that could be appealing to a kid. Even the newspaper taxis appearing on the shore could refer to a paper boats. As the lines descend into cartoonish absurdity, it still works as a child’s imaginary float through a fantastical journey.
From the LSD perspective, each verse also starts normal but rapidly unwinds into a bizarre development that is structurally very similar to the effects of LSD. For those “not experienced”, the effects of LSD induce hallucinations of five senses (not just visual). The effects seem to come in waves (a verse?), intensifying over time to a “peek”.
As in the song, you can find yourself in a normal environment that through sensory alteration lead to an imagination that warps into events like those in the song. To appreciate this, consider Kant’s notion that all we know is learned through the five senses and then consider all your senses being off kilter (yes, smell, touch, taste …). Time drags and your eyes dilate so they are large to the appearance … but oh the colors those black marbles see: closing your eyes while under the influence is very much like watching a kaleidoscope. These hallucinations are not voluntary and so much of the song’s imagery, while interesting, is not necessarily indicative of a good time (to be fair). The trip can be horrifying.
If we accept the drug thread but also that the song was written about/for a child, then we reach interesting ground. This is a song that opens the door to a world visible to the child and the LSD user, i.e. It is a song of both innocence and experience. It is an interesting achievement to speak to two separate audiences that come to the same venue (the song) from two completely different backgrounds. NOTE: kids - don't try this at home without supervision from mommy & daddy, "Lucy" is not a bridge for the innocence Holden Caulfield saw in children but could not find in adults.
Considering the song from Lennon’s perspective, “Lucy” could be construed as anti-establishment, knocking “squares” that could not "see" (fathom) rocking horse people outside of fairy tales. If Lennon was called on the drug theme, it was easy to deflect by saying the song was about his kid’s picture. Any none-experienced “square” who sought to argue against Lennon’s ode to his kid’s picture was fighting an uphill battle. Lennon loved a good taunt and "Lucy" allowed him to play a great hand!
Post-Lennon, I’m not sure that the band wanted to “change its tune”: McCartney has said that the drugs culture of the 60s/70s was different than today. The availability and use of hard drugs today (crack, heroin, crystal meth, etc.) makes the drug culture far more dangerous i.e., best course is to speak to Julian’s influence via his picture of a childhood friend, Lucy.
In the end I don’t think I’ve said much different than others here, but perhaps have added some (or much) context. And now I must retire,
in my lego-brand bedroom,
that ripples with the colors of the rainbows that run by …