what Would holmeS do? I know, reconstruct! That's it -- reconstruct!

[IED0DXM%UCLAMVS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu]

Thanks to Neil for the clarification re Tiswas.

 >>Just realized that Andrew Marvick's (Maverick ? No offense, ya know
 >>who i mean) took offense with  Paul Dolber's drunken, "insipid" (i think
 >>that was the term used) posting in regards to Kate, TWS, his family's view-
 >>point of Kate's music, and other philisophical mutterings.

 >Get your facts straight! It was Jon Drukman who was arguing with Paul.
 >IED (Mr. Marvick) has only been arguing with Jeff Dalton recently.:-)

Sorry to admit it, MarK, but IED believes he actually did respond
to Dolber's idiotic posting. The mixup is likely due to the chronic
lateness of Love-Hounds' summer distribution, a condition which has been
seriously jeopardizing the one unique virtue of Love-Hounds: its
timeliness. IED agrees with you, MarK, that the mistake re "SIYL"
was a giveaway about the quality of critical discipline in Dolber's
posting, but it was Dolber's anxiety lest he miss an episode of "Hunter"
that really clinched it.

     Jon Drukman, however, does have this to say:

 >I've been poring over old LH printouts, and I noticed a consistent thread
 >in IED's postings: a tendency to denounce any interpretation not specifically
 >given by Kate herself.

 >Remember the Hot Press interview?  I don't have it
 >at my fingertips, but there was a section where the interviewer mentioend
 >that "The Ninth Wave" seemed like a story of getting over drug dependency.
 >IED's editorial comment was "Isn't it amazing how people can persist in their
 >own misinformed opinions when they have just been told by the ultimate
 >authority of their mistake?"

     IED is placed in a dilemma, Jon, since he considers himself to be on
very cordial relations with you, yet is compelled to rebut this latest
posting of yours. IED therefore prefaces his reply by assuring you that
there's nothing personal about it. In fact, this issue was overdue for an
airing in Love-Hounds even before you brought it into focus yesterday.

     Yes, IED has indeed tended to criticize what we may call
"unauthorized" interpretations, but never merely because they were not
endorsed by Kate. He has frequently gone out of his way to add, when
criticizing what he sees as an untenable interpretation, that
the value of that interpretation as an original, autonomous idea is
not being questioned, only its relevance to Kate's work. In other
words, IED has no objection whatsoever to even the most unorthodox
interpretations of Kate's music -- in fact, that's precisely what
the Wickham Street Irregulars was founded by IED to solicit and support!
     He only objects to the _presumption_ of some of the
creators of these unorthodox interpretations, that simply because
their interpretations are _interesting_, they must also be _valid_.
It just ain't so.
     Let IED supply two examples of exactly what he has in mind.
First, the example which you, Jon, just gave in your most recent
posting: the idea put forward by the interviewer for _Hot Press_ that
"And Dream of Sheep" was "really" about drug addiction. Kate
emphatically denied that drugs had anything to do with the meaning
of the song.
      Now, IED will happily admit that the drug angle is
a very interesting one -- you could say that the idea has a kind of
artfulness to it. This being so, it could find a place of honour
in the next issue of the WSIQ, among other ideas and works of art
for which Kate's music was the catalyst.
      But an idea doesn't gain _legitimacy_ simply by being
interesting! To be a truly _valid_ idea, it has to be consistent
with the evidence -- all the evidence.
     But the thing that really annoys this fan is not whether
there is merit in the interpretation or not. Rather, it is the
_arrogance_ of the response that defenders of such officially rejected
interpretations give us, in an effort to claim legitimacy for their
interesting but untenable ideas.
     Kate will say, in so many words, "No way! Your interpretation is
just plain _wrong_." And what is the response from these diehards?
     "Well, you may say that, Kate, but you see, _subconsciously_
you had my idea all along!"
     IED quotes you, Jon:

 >Just because Kate didn't have it in mind when it was written doesn't
 >mean that it wasn't lurking there in her subconscious...

And just so you don't feel you're being singled out unfairly on this
point, Jon, here's a second example, this time from Doug Alan, who
is actually speaking to Kate's face (he has just explained to her in
considerable detail his interpretation of "There Goes a Tenner"):

 >Doug: ...But you don't agree?

 >Kate: Well, no, I don't, because that's not...That was...nothing
 >      that was in my head when I was writing it. But then I think
 >      the interpretations that people have of your songs
 >      afterwards are nothing to do with me anyway...

 >Doug: Okay. That seems reasonable. MAYBE IT WAS ALL
 >      SUBCONSCIOUS (IED's emphasis.) It all seems so perfect to me. I dunno.

     Of all the bollocks! Whether Kate had this idea in mind or not is
hardly something any of us could know. IED would like to know how anyone of
us could be so patronizing, so condescending, so _conceited_, even, to
have the effrontery to say what was in _Kate's_ subconscious mind?!
Hell, after years of psycho-analysis it's still very problematic
even for a highly trained and skilled analyst to gauge the workings
of a patient's unconscious mind. Thanks a lot, but IED prefers to
trust Kate's answer over that of the over-zealous, overly self-confident
outsider.

-- Andrew Marvick