Suspended in IED

[Doug Alan <nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>]

>> [|>oug:] I meant that it *alludes* to Kate's 8-track studio, and I
>> fail to see how this allusion contradicts anything.

> [IED:] 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?

Yes, I believe so.

> IED doesn't see how you can be so sure.

Well, like I said earlier, the pieces of the jigsaw fit togther so
well that I find it unlikely to be coincidence.

>> [Doug:] 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.

> [IED:] 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.

It's amazing to me how you continue to read into my words things that
I haven't said.  I said merely that it is "plausible" that "the
garden" is an allusion to death.  Nothing more.  And I can prove it.
Here is an excerpt from the original message in question that contains
exactly what I said:

> Date: Tue, 12 Jul 88 08:41:57 PDT
> From: Douglas Weiman <WEIMAN@SRI-NIC.ARPA>
> Subject: KaTching up

> I hate to throw a wrench into the Suspended in Gaffa debate, but as I
> remember my studies of British folklore, some people in the 18th and
> 19th centuries believed that people passed from the world of the
> living into the world of the dead via the path in their garden.
> Therefore, the way to heaven (even half-a-one) was by going "out in
> the garden."
 
> I think we can all agree that this is _not_ what Kate meant by this
> reference, but since she, herself, claimed the song is about a person
> encountering the Divine -- who knows?  And I thought it was
> interesting...
 
>     [ Who says Kate didn't have this partially in mind when she
>       wrote the song?  Sounds like a perfectly plausible allusion
>       to me.  -- |>oug ]
 
Eat your words, IED!

>> [Doug:] 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 ]

> [IED:] 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?

Easily.  "They are not central to the meaning of the song."  They are
barely audible, whispered footnotes in the song.  They could easily be
removed from the song, and the song would scarcely change its meaning.
That's not to say they aren't important, they do strongly echo the
theme of the song and add a great deal of resonance, but they are
certainly not more central to the meaning of the song than anything
else in the song, and I see nothing in the song to place childhood
higher in thematic priority than any other period of life.

> 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.

This is rich.  You build a castle out of a few playing cards and a bit
of wax found under a fingernail, and you expect us to live in it?  On
the other hand I presented lots of evidence for my opinion and you
just IGNORE it.

None of your supposed sitations are necessarily references to
childhood, and if I wanted to be difficult, every criticism you make
about my evidence, I could make about yours.  We have, for example,
"We all have a dream, maybe".  Sure, Andy, only kids have dreams...
We have, "I caught a glimpse of a god all shiny and bright".  Sounds
to me like an reference to UFO's.  What this has to do with childhood,
I dunno.  Finally, we have "Mother, where are the angels, I'm scared
of the changes".  Well, I have to admit that to me this sounds like a
reference to the oncoming of puberty.  On the other hand, someone else
might think that it refers to a woman who died while changing a flat
tire.  Regarding the voice these words are spoken in, they might sound
a bit child-like.  On the other hand, I know a grown woman who talks
like that all the time.  So you see, none of this indisputable.

> 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.

Andrew, I never said that each piece of evidence conclusively makes
the point.  The way evidence works, however, is that if you have a lot
of little bits of evidence, each of which is inconclusive, they often
add up to a lot of evidence, which is the case here.

Above you demand "referential" evidence, which is pretty strange for a
claim about a supposed allusion.  If I had "referential" evidence, it
wouldn't be an allusion, now would it?  It would be a direct
reference.

>     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.

You are a definite pain in the ass, Andrew.  I never said that "Gaffa"
doesn't have any other meanings.  However, if you are going to say
that it has some other meaning, you better provide some evidence,
because I haven't seen any evidence at all worth mentioning from you
that it has any other meaning.

Regarding whether or not "gaffa" means "gaffer's tape".  It DEFINITELY
does.  Kate has directly said that this is what it means.  Are you
calling Kate a liar?  Are you calling me a liar?  You think I'm lying
about what Kate has said?  Well, Phfsstsfftrrrrptfffffffftp! to you
too!

Also, when Kate said that "gaffa" is gaffer's tape, she wasn't just
echoing what someone said to avoid the issue.  The interview wasn't
like this:

	Q: So, Kate, are you gonna tell us what "Gaffa" is.

	Kate: No.

	Q: Please.

	Kate: No.

	Q: Does it mean "God the Almighty Fig Father Above"?

	Kate: Righto.  You got it.  Can I go now?

	Q: Does it mean "gaffer's tape"?

	Kate: Righto.  You got it.  Can I go now?

The interview was more like this:

	Q: Could you tell us what "Gaffa" means?

	Kate: Sure.  Gaffa is a kind of tape that musicians use to
	      tape down wires in the recording studio.

The ploy of asking me for a specific page number is just a ruse, and
you know it.  You know very well that I have a whole filing cabinet
drawer full of articles on Kate and that it took me more than a year
of full-time work to read them all the first time!  It could take me
another year of full-time work to find it again.

Furthermore, you know very well that we have been given other direct
evidence that "gaffa" is indeed jargon for "gaffer's tape".  This is a
quote that appeared in Love-Hounds a little while back:

> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 87 08:51:26 MED
> From: clindh@sems.se (Christer Lindh)
> Subject: Gaffa / Gaffers tape

> For Your Information:

> Gaffers tape is called Gaffa among all kind of roadies and studio
> people here in Sweden.  "Gaffers tape" is not known as a brand but
> every roadie knows what "gaffa" is.

> I bet it's the same in England, so Kate may have picked the word up
> from some roadie.

At the time, this was your reply:

> About "Gaffa": IED is happy to admit that he was apparently
> completely wrong about this word. Since according to our Swedish
> (Wow!  We've got a Swedish Love-Hound!) contributor Gaffa is a
> familiar nickname for gaffer's tape, it looks as though the meaning
> of that song is at least a little bit clearer. There still remain
> one or two oblique references in that track, however -- at least
> oblique to IED, now properly (but only temporarily) humbled by his
> comeuppance at the hands of wiser L-Hs.

Your claim now that this evidence is vague and questionable is
ridiculous.  Apparently you can't make up your mind and have changed
it again, STUPIDLY, in the face of overwelming evidence.

I'll tell you what, IED, why don't you put your money where your mouth
is.  I will.  If within a year I can't find the exact page number
where Kate says that "Gaffa" is gaffer's tape, I have to pay for your
round-trip air fare (from LA) to London when Kate next tours.  If I
find it within a year, then you have to pay for my round-trip air fare
to London (from Boston) when Kate next tours.  If Kate tours before I
find the quote and before a year is up, then you also win.  Of course,
I'll win, but the free air fare will make it worth my effort to dig up
the quote.

Alternatively we could just have a Love-Hounds vote on the issue of
the meaning of "Gaffa".  All Love-Hounds, please send me your vote
from one of the two selections below:

	(1) |>oug is a psycopathic liar, who is determined to lead
	    everyone astray from the one true meaning of Gaffa so that
	    only he will obtain salvation.

	(2) IED is caught in the grips of a paronoid delusion, whereby
	    he ignores all evidence, even overwhelming evidence, when
	    it contradicts his narrow, preconceived notions.

> 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 Kate *did* refer to her experiences as a musician explicity.  It's
even in the f*cking title of the song!  You can't get much more
specific than gaffer's tape!  Or any more obvious than in the title!

> 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.

I have provided very specific evidence!  You just continue to ignore
it.  The fact that Kate refers to her music career in the very title
of the song is strong evidence that their might be other specific
allusions.

>     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";

How many things could there be in Kate's garden that would be "half of
a heaven" with regards to achieving one's goals in life?  And
actually, Kate certainly wasn't living in the house with the 8-track
demo studio at the time.  But (1) the demo studio was in the garden of
her parents' house, (2) Kate spends nearly every weekend at her
parents', (3) the demo of the song was written in that very studio.

> 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.

Where does Kate ever say such a thing, Mr. Marvick?  Please provide a
specific publication, page and line number.  All I've ever seen Kate
say is that her songs aren't autobiographical, which is a far cry from
saying that they don't include bits of her personal life experience.
Even you would not argue that "All The Love" contains lots and lots of
personal life experience, even up to including messages from her own
answering machine.  And Kate's own words about the meaning of "Gaffa"
directly contradict and vague thing she might have said about not
incorporating her own experiences.

Now to change the topic a bit to a different song on the album, "Get
Out Of My House":

> 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?

"Valid"?  I don't believe I ever mentioned the word "valid", and am
not sure at all at the momentt how I would try to apply that word to
the interpretation of music.  All I said is that my interpretation of
the end of "Get Out Of My House" makes perfect sense, even if it was
not what was intended.  That's it.  "It makes sense."

What I didn't say, but what I'll say now is that my interpretation
actually makes *more* sense than Kate's intended meaning, because Kate
made a mistake, and used mules when she meant donkeys.  (She admits,
indirectly, to not even knowing the difference.)  Certainly, what one
intended is not necessarily what makes the most sense if what one
meant is not what one said.

>>    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.

Andrew, this is a question of genetics -- not genitalia.  Since it is
you that keeps bringing up the subject of genitalia, it is you that
must have the fascination for them -- not I.

>     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.

Actually, Kate probably agrees more with the Doconstructionalists --
not you, IED.  She herself has said that she just writes the songs,
and that it is up to the listener to get their own meaning from the
songs.  That what she intended is really not all that important
compared to what people get out of it.

"Once more at dawn I drive
 The weary cattle of my soul to the mud hole of your eyes"

|>oug