Skip to main content

Escape (The Pina Colada Song)


 Not for the first time, I am thinking today about this odd song.

The lyrics tell a story about two people, a couple, who are so bored with each other that they try to cheat on each other but, through lucky happenstance, end up making a rendezvous with ... each other.  Oh, what jolly fun.

It is tricky to figure out the logistics, though. Our (male) protagonist is reading a poem placed in the personal ads. He replies to it, with a poem of his own, that ends, "I've got to meet you by tomorrow noon and cut through all this red tape/ At a bar named O'Malley's, Where we'll plaaaaan our escape."

So, on the day this second poem appears in the newspaper, our two discontented settled-down folks must both see it.  Or there would be no meeting at O'Malley's.  They take the day after THAT to be the relevant "tomorrow."  

They live together (that is obvious from the opening lines, where the man is lying in bed reading the paper while his wife lies besides him.)  

Around 11 o'clock, did one of them say, "I, um, have got to leave now. I've got some place to go." 

"Oh, really -- what a coincidence. I'm going to be going someplace too."

"Where are you headed?"

"Uh, definitely not to O'Malley's."

"Me too.  Definitely someplace else...."

Just wondering.   

Labels:

Comments

  1. HenrySeptember 30, 2026 at 7:13 AM

    The plot here brings to mind Così fan tutte's. I don't remember it well enough to say how close they are.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. ChristopherOctober 5, 2026 at 9:52 AM

      As suited to the difference between an opera on one hand and a three-minute pop song on the other, Rupert Holmes' plot is a good deal simpler than Mozart's. There is only one central couple, no Mozart's two, and no one skulking about placing bets on the outcome. Anyway, here are the full lyrics if you're curious: https://www.songlyrics.com/rupert-holmes/pina-colada-lyrics/

      Delete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Searle: The Chinese Room

John Searle has become the object of accusations of improper conduct. These accusations even have some people in the world of academic philosophy saying that instructors in that world should try to avoid teaching Searle's views. That is an odd contention, and has given rise to heated exchanges in certain corners of the blogosphere.  At Leiter Reports, I encountered a comment from someone describing himself as "grad student drop out." GSDO said: " This is a side question (and not at all an attempt to answer the question BL posed): How important is John Searle's work? Are people still working on speech act theory or is that just another dead end in the history of 20th century philosophy? My impression is that his reputation is somewhat inflated from all of his speaking engagements and NYRoB reviews. The Chinese room argument is a classic, but is there much more to his work than that?" I took it upon myself to answer that on LR. But here I'll tak...
27 comments
Read more

A Story About Coleridge

This is a quote from a memoir by Dorothy Wordsworth, reflecting on a trip she took with two famous poets, her brother, William Wordsworth, and their similarly gifted companion, Samuel Taylor Coleridge.   We sat upon a bench, placed for the sake of one of these views, whence we looked down upon the waterfall, and over the open country ... A lady and gentleman, more expeditious tourists than ourselves, came to the spot; they left us at the seat, and we found them again at another station above the Falls. Coleridge, who is always good-natured enough to enter into conversation with anybody whom he meets in his way, began to talk with the gentleman, who observed that it was a majestic waterfall. Coleridge was delighted with the accuracy of the epithet, particularly as he had been settling in his own mind the precise meaning of the words grand, majestic, sublime, etc., and had discussed the subject with William at some length the day before. “Yes, sir,” says Coleridge, “it is a maj...
12 comments
Read more

Five Lessons from the Allegory of the Cave

  Please correct me if there are others. But it seems to be there are five lessons the reader is meant to draw from the story about the cave.   First, Plato  is working to devalue what we would call empiricism. He is saying that keeping track of the shadows on the cave wall, trying to make sense of what you see there, will NOT get you to wisdom. Second, Plato is contending that reality comes in levels. The shadows on the wall are illusions. The solid objects being passed around behind my back are more real than their shadows are. BUT … the world outside the the cave is more real than that — and the sun by which that world is illuminated is the top of the hierarchy. So there isn’t a binary choice of real/unreal. There are levels. Third, he equates realness with knowability.  I  only have opinions about the shadows. Could I turn around, I could have at least the glimmerings of knowledge. Could I get outside the cave, I would really Know. Fourth, the parable a...
2 comments
Read more