Will this appear in L-Hs without |>oug-/\lan-notations?

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@MITVMA.MIT.EDU]

 >        In some ways the 2nd verse echoes "Sat in Your Lap".  The
 > whole idea of seeming to get somewhere, but in truth being at the
 > start all over again.  Thus the "pull out the plank and say thank
 > you for yanking me back to the fact that there's always something
 > to distract..." Perhaps it's just the way I feel at the moment, in
 > some sort of boring limbo, but that's the way the song comes over
 > to me.

 >    [ |>oug agrees with you exactly, and this is always been the
 >      meaning he has associated with the song.  He also thinks
 >      that theme of the lyrics is very similar to "Sat In Your
 >      Lap".  It's good  to see that there is another sane person
 >      out there!  -- |>oug ]

     Arrgh. No one disagrees with your suggested interpretation,
Stephen. The basic thematic message of _Suspended_ is pretty exactly
what you say. Even IED has no problem with your reading of the song.
That basic theme, however, does not explain a number of specific words
and phrases in the song (although these do not seem to conflict with
the theme), and it therefore seems to a lot of people (some of which
are more or less sane) that there might also be some more specific
reference (or group of references) in the song's text than that simple
thematic context offers to the casual reader. That's all. IED greatly
admires Lizooshka's interpretation as one that suggests a remarkably
comprehensive explanation of most of the problem lines in the lyrics
while in no way confounding the generally accepted theme of the song.

 >     And might I be so bold to ask what IED stands for?

 > -- Lizooshka

     For you, Liz, IED would confess anything, including the
significance of "IED". Only problem is, he forgets.  Whatever it stood
for, however, it wasn't important.

 > Can you think of a religion where there aren't multiple factions
 > who want to kill each other because they each interpret their holy
 > writings differently?  And don't say "Oh, yeah, I know of a tribe
 > in Wagadogoo that has only ten people in it, and they are all in
 > total agreement about what the almighty god Etak has to say."  --
 > |>oug

     How about at the Occidental Church of Kateism, West Los Angeles
Diocese? IED can assure you that there is total unanimity of opinion
among that small but influential sect's congregation concerning all
Kateistic dogma.

 >> The assumption that Kate's lyrics contain self-contradictory
 >> meanings is what leads you, it seems, into tying such vague and
 >> largely uninterpretable lines as "Out in the garden there's half
 >> of a heaven" to specific and totally unsupported references as
 >> Kate's eight-track studio.

 > Actually, IED, I don't think that the line "refers" to Kate's
 > eight-track studio at all.  If I ever said this, it was a slight
 > typo.  I meant that it *alludes* to Kate's 8-track studio, and I
 > fail to see how this allusion contradicts anything.  -- |>oug

     Typos are forgiveable, of course.  Saying that the line is an
allusion (a word which usually implies intention on the part of the
person making the allusion) is pretty hard to swallow, too, though.
Are you saying, |>oug, that Kate definitely had her studio in mind
when she wrote that line? IED doesn't see how you can be so sure. It's
basically a big mystery to us outsiders, and is likely to remain so
unless a Love-Hound can snag another interview with KT sometime.

 > IED, I never said that "if Kate writes about about life, we can all
 > assume she's also talking about death.  All I said is that "the
 > garden" being a a possible allusion to death, as well as to life,
 > is plausible.  Not that it is a certainty, or even likely.  Just
 > that it is plausible.  That is all I said.

     If that were all you had said, IED would have made no objection
at all. Since he admits that it's possible, he's willing to accept
another Love-Hound's opinion that it's actually probable, or
"plausible".
     But you _didn't_ say that it's just a "possible allusion to
death." Instead you phrased that idea -- as you tend to phrase nearly
all your ideas concerning the creative and fanciful interpretation of
Kate's texts -- as _fact_. If only you were a bit less positive in the
accuracy of your ideas, |>oug, IED would not be arguing with you.  He
hopes that this new reasonableness on your part is the beginning of a
lasting trend.

 > I make no argument against the painfully obvious fact that to some
 > degree "Suspended in Gaffa" alludes to childhood.  The phrase "I'm
 > scared of the changes" is most likely a reference to the oncoming
 > of puberty.  However, this is a far cry from the claim that
 > "Suspended in Gaffa" "deals primarily with experiences from Kate's
 > early childhood".  You have shown no little evidence whatsoever to
 > support this hypothesis and furthermore, it seems highly unlikely.
 > -- |>oug 

     You can hardly have your cake and eat it, too. If these allusions
-- which punctuate the text of the song throughout its length, and in
ways unique within the lyrics as a whole, calling special attention to
themselves by their style of writing and their mode of delivery -- are
not disputed by you, how can you then say that they are merely
incidental and not central to the meaning of the song? IED never meant
to imply that they are the _only_ subject of the song. But on one
level -- admittedly an "obvious" one -- the song seems to be "about"
the experiences of a child.
     The main reason IED has drawn attention to this theme is because
it's one strain of meaning in the song which he was able to give
_real_ textual support for.  He was entertaining the forlorn hope that
the example might inspire similar efforts on your part to bolster your
own notions about "8-track studios" with some real evidence.
     Instead you offer only your usual non-support: a series of
especially vague and non-referential phrases from the song which could
just as easily refer to a dozen other subjects as they could to your
highly specific image of the "8-track". Unlike IED's support for the
references to childhood, which are very specific to the _subject_ of
childhood, your citations are not in any way specifically referential
to the _subject_ of "8-tracks", or even to "recording studios", or
_even_ to any particularly creative or artistic activity (as opposed
to any other or more general human effort).  Find some real
_evidence_, |>oug. Saying that "something that we dearly love" "fits
in perfectly" with your idea that Kate is talking about her "8-track
studio" cuts no ice whatever. The phrase "something that we dearly
love" is about as non-specific a group of words as there could be, and
it goes absolutely nowhere towards supporting your highly specific
interpretation.
     As for your assertion that it is "not a matter of debate" that
the title of the song refers to "a type of gooey tape that musicians
use", it's too ridiculous to argue with you about.  Find a statement
made by Kate in which she confirms that the "Gaffa" in _Suspended_in_
Gaffa_ "means" "gaffer's tape", and IED will recant humbly.  Page and
line number, please, or no dice.  As for saying "furthermore the word
definitely has this meaning," that's just the latest in your ongoing
series of "definite" statements that is apparently meant to still the
tongues of your doubtful audience simply by the authority with which
you exclaim them. The plain fact is, of course, that "Gaffa" does
_not_ "definitely" have that meaning. That's why its use -- in that
peculiar spelling, with the capital 'G', in a song that bears multiple
meanings in just about every other word in its length -- is still a
mystery to just about everyone except you.
     IED agrees that it may be "likely that Kate would draw in part on
her own experiences when writing on a topic as emotional as one about
"trying to achieve one's goals in life."  But that doesn't mean that
she will refer to those experiences directly or specifically.
Obviously she does _not_ refer to those experiences directly or
specifically -- she leaves them _ambiguous_. But it does no good for
you to pick on _any_ given ambiguous phrase in the song (such as "half
of a heaven") and ascribe to it a _specific_ meaning which _you_, and
_not_ Kate, have selected from the whole of _Kate's_ life experience!
You see, |>oug, the way it works is this: If you have a questionable
interpretation of an ambiguous line, you're supposed to find some
_specific_evidence_ to support your interpretation. You can't just say
it's "likely" that the phrase is a reference to an event in Kate's own
life, and then go ahead on your own and _pick_the_event_ yourself!
     Then you seem to gain considerable self-satisfaction from your
non-point that "when Kate wrote the song," "an 8-track demo studio"
was "in Kate's garden". So what? Quite apart from the facts that there
are any number of _other_ things in "Kate's" garden; that Kate was, by
1982, familiar with any number of "gardens", and may not even have
been living in the house with the "8-track demo studio"; that any
number of other people's "gardens" might be the source of the
significant personal experience which Kate might or might not have
been weaving into the song; quite apart from these facts, we have the
words of Kate herself that she generally tries to _avoid_ writing
about her personal life experiences -- words that _will_not_go_away_,
|>oug, no matter how much you want them to.
     And finally you claim that because "making an album" must have
been "something that Kate dearly wanted," it follows that an "8-track
studio" must be "half of a heaven. No more absurd a leap of illogic
could IED dream up if he tried. It is _possible_ that Kate was
referring to herself when she spoke of "something that one dearly
wants." (It is equally possible that she's referring to someone
_else_, or even to some fictional subject that attracted her to the
theme.) If she was, however, the idea that the thing that she most
"dearly wants" should be an "8-track studio" (as opposed to a
virtually limitless number of other things, many of which might even
exist in a garden, or even in her own garden) is just a silly and
unfounded assumption on your part. In short, how do _you_ know that
Kate is thinking about "8-track studios" when she talks about what
"one dearly wants"? YOU DON'T.
     The final, unavoidable fact of this list of "pieces" of yours,
|>oug, is that if they "fit together like the gears of a clock", you'd
be poorly advised to try setting your watch by them

 > No, the connection still makes perfect sense, IED.  That doesn't
 > mean that is what Kate intended, however.  And since I interviewed
 > Kate, I have never once made the claim that this what Kate
 > intended.  I don't know why you think I have, but this seems like
 > just part of an ongoing effort to attribute to me things I haven't
 > said.  -- |>oug

     OK, maybe IED didn't understand you correctly, then, |>oug.  Are
you saying that your interpretations of Kate's song-lyrics are valid
_whether_Kate_intended_them_or_not_? Is _that_ what you believe? VALID
TO WHOM?

 > Actually, IED, I find the idea that two different species can breed
 > and give birth to a third species that is sterile, a fascinating
 > concept.  I suppose you have no interest in the incredible
 > programming system that is responsible for your existance?
 > -- |>oug

     IED confesses that his interest in that general subject (which he
admits is not very great) does not extend to a passion for the
genitalia of barnyard animals.  Sorry.  His failing.

 > I happen to disagree with this. I think that both are relevant.
 > However, the Deconstructionalists are closer to being correct that
 > you.

     Thank you for the lesson in current critical theory, |>oug.
Whether "the" Deconstructionalists think the reader's interpretation
of the lyrics of Kate Bush is more/as/less important as/than Kate's
own intention is of absolutely no concern to IED, who is quite
unrepentantly uninterested in the latest fashions in literary and
artistic critical "ism"-ism. And he'd make a fair wager that Kate
couldn't give a damn, either. So you and "the" Deconstructionalists
can ascribe any degree of importance to your private knowledge of
donkeys' balls that you wish. Kate and IED will get along fine either
way, depending quietly on common sense.

-- Andrew Marvick