Re: Alternate Interpretations

[jsd%UMASS.BITNET@wiscvm.wisc.edu (Jonathan S. Drukman)]

>     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.

No need to disclaim your intentions for me!  I was hoping you _would_
set the record straight!  I hope you will pardon my editing job, as I
wanted to cut right through to what I see as the meat of our dissension.

>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!

I must have been playing hooky the day you explained about WSI.  Could
you please mail to me (personally, no need to trouble the net) a
description of this organization and how one joins?

>     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.
>      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.

   Anyway, I see the main problem I was having was with your definition
of "valid".  I guess I don't consider the same things "valid" that you do.
Not that there's anything wrong with that, mind you, but I'm of the
opinion that if you can read something into a work, then it's quite
valid.  Now whether or not the author of the work intended ANYTHING like
that to be included in their work is totally irrelevant, in my book.  I
could write what would seem like a simple song about snakes, and of course,
in my mind I could only be thinking about literal snakes, but you'll get
a bunch of people who will see all sorts of things, like references to
the Garden Of Eden, temptation, etc.  Obviously, that sort of thing
surfaces subconsciously in the mind of the writer.  Whether or not it
has any BEARING on the work is totally questionable.

>     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.

Accepted.

>     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!"

Your next point is interesting, and ties into the subconscious issue:

>     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?!

I think you're flying off the handle a bit.  You've got to concede that
an image like "cutting little lines" will definitely have other
connotations than the literal skates-on-ice one to people who aware of
cocaine.  Obviously, none of us are in a position to say what goes on
in Kate's subconscious.  However, I do take your point.  The main bone
of contention I had with your previous postings was a certain reluctance
to admit non-Kate-sanctioned interpretations.  I see you position clearer
now.  So, you basically are annoyed by people who claim their
interpretations as right, especially in the face of evidence to the
contrary.  Well, I'll remember, in future, to stress that any unusual
stances I take on Kate's work is merely the product of MY fevered
imagination and has no bearing on Kate's.

--Jon Drukman
"I am the mole from the ministry..."