Kate-echism XVIII.12.xxiii: re Dana on _Cloudbusting_

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Kate-echism XVIII.12.xxiii: re Dana on _Cloudbusting_

 >From: dsr@abraxas.cs.virginia.edu
 >
 >Last night i was reading the fall 1988 issue of the Skeptical Inquirer,
 >in which Martin Gardner gives an update on the nonsense of orgone energy
 >(which he treated in his book Fads and Fallacies in the early 1950's).
 >Orgone energy and Reich (sp?) is the purest kind of pseudo-science;
 >there is no component of real science at all.   It is completely
 >worthless and artless - anyone could invent something more
 >believable at the drop of a hat.

     Dana, you'd do well to find out a little more about your subjects
before condemning them so violently. Reich's late theories are pretty
clearly insane, that's not really disputable. No one in this group, nor
Kate herself, has ever argued for the _scientific_validity_ of Reich's
theories of orgone energy.
     Of course, it is just as true that relying on Martin
Gardner's secondhand, short-order dismissal of another man's life work
is not the "scientific method" of seeking reliable data in order to reach
a sound conclusion. You really ought to read some of Reich's books your-
self. Try _The_Bion_Experiments_, which is a classic, and not too long.
     IED's main objection to your comments above only concerns
your statement that orgone theory is not just scientifically
bogus, but "artless", as well. The former has never been at issue here.
The latter, however, is, in IED's opinion (and judgements of the
"artfulness" of any work can only remain opinion), _utterly_false_.
The late works of Wilhelm Reich are set out in a mixture of fervent,
deluded conviction and scholarly presentation that give his ideas
a hypnotic, almost magical appeal. They may not be "true", but they
_are_ artful. But this is all irrelevant to Kate's song, as you'll see.

 >Well he reminded me that cloudbusting was one of the related boondoggles,
 >and the apparatus is the same as the ornate version on the Kate EP cover.

     IED has to explain something pretty basic here that you've missed,
Dana. Kate's song _isn't_about_  Wilhelm Reich, at all. The song is a
treatment of Reich's _son's_ memoirs of his childhood. The book, by Peter
Reich, is called _A_Book_of_Dreams_. Neither the song nor the book
deals with the question (if there is one) of the scientific legitimacy
of Reich Sr.'s ideas. Both deal solely with the experiences of a small
boy, his adult memories, and his love for his father. To Peter, as a
child, the theories of orgone energy which Reich attached to the
Cloudbuster (and to every other aspect of his work) were far less
clear or interesting than the machine's other alleged (and to
Reich Sr., less significant) function, namely rainmaking. That is
why there is no mention of orgone energy in the song, only of rain-
making. (The twelve-inch mix's title, _Orgonon_Mix_, is simply a
reference to the child's home, which his father had named Orgonon.)
     Incidentally, your statement that the real Cloudbuster was
the same as Kate's is also false. The originals were little
more than collections of ordinary plumber's pipe mounted on a
platform with a crank to extend them. Kate's, designed by the
famous fantasy painter and film-art director H. R. Giger and built
by Ken Hill, is a brilliant re-interpretation, deliberately constructed
without fidelity to the originals. (Besides which, the video version
was constructed mainly out of cardboard!)

 >I have been a Kate fan for at least 8 years, but do not read this group
 >(for the same reason most people avoid idolaters)...

     What is a "fan" (fanatic) but an idolator for the modern age?

 >That it has received celebrity endorsements is, of course, pointless.
 >So why the song??

     Kate wrote the song because she was deeply moved by Peter's
memoirs. She found the book quite by chance, when she visited
an occult bookstore in London one day and felt the title "calling
out" to her. She does not, as far as anyone knows, believe any
of Wilhelm Reich's theories at all. In fact, in all of her summaries
of the song's meaning, she is very careful to avoid the subject of
Reichian theory entirely, describing him simply as "a very well respected
psycho-analyst" (absolutely true of Reich prior to his advocacy of
Marxist ideology during his years in Europe) and as "a scientist, perhaps
a bit eccentric," which is a typically discrete, Kate-ian way of saying
"a scientist, probably very nuts." Remember, also, that Kate has since
become a personal friend of Peter Reich, whom she greatly respects
and likes. We can therefore safely assume that any negative opinions
she might harbour concerning Wilhelm Reich's work (probably non-existent,
knowing Kate and her eternal, invincible and admirable to think the best
of everyone and everything), she would want to keep to herself.
     Also, it's worth remembering that, although Reich's work may
be less than scientific, his suffering at the hands of a McCarthy-era
FDA in the U.S. on trumped-up charges of "interstate trafficking of
medical supplies" is the only real travesty in the whole Reich story--
certainly not Reich's work, which was always completely harmless, and
often quite beautiful.

 >Does Kate believe it all?  You sure cannot tell be reading the lyrics.
 >(Why would someone write lyrics about a topic 99% of the listeners could
 >not possibly know of and then fail to inform the remaining 1% of any
 >outlook at all??)

     This is really pretty annoying. First, why should Kate have
any kind of _obligation_ to present some "outlook" on the value
or lack of value in Reich Sr.'s theories? Second, just because
_you_ apparently were unable to figure out what the song was about
until now is no reason for assuming that "99% of the listeners could
not possibly know of" them! IED has had many occasions to marvel at
the high incidence of familiarity with Reich among Kate's _real_ fans.
This is not because Kate's fans are more predisposed to get into Reich,
but simply because serious fans of Kate's music go to at least _some_
effort to find out what her songs are about! In the case of _Cloud-
busting_, Kate gave attentive fans several solid clues as to the
subject of the song, among them a "very special thankyou" to Peter Reich
in the liner notes, the title "Orgonon Mix" on the twelve-inch, and
even a shot of the book itself in the video!

 >If she does believe it then my respect for her critical faculties
 >drops right off the scale.
 >If she does not believe it then she should have at least hinted that
 >Reich was a outrageous crank.
 >It is a no win situation.
 >
 > -- dana

     Well, you've certainly got it all figured out, dana. IED,
though, doesn't see sense in either of your alternatives. First,
if Kate _did_ "believe" in Reichian theory (extremely unlikely,
based on what we know of her extraordinary intelligence as
demonstrated over a ten-year-long career), what difference would
that make upon the _power_of_her_art_? Which, after all, is why
we all supposedly respect her--not because she's supposed to have
"critical faculties" of some specified level.
     And if she _doesn't_ believe in Reich's ideas (also probably
untrue, since Kate has many times shown an admirable openmindedness
when it comes to subjects which she is not _thoroughly_ familiar with--
unlike yourself), why "should" she have any obligations to inject
that dibelief into a song about Reich's _son_--or, for that matter,
even into a song about Reich himself? Who's to say what Kate _should_
or _shouldn't_ do in her art, except Kate herself? Why must any
statement concerning Reich be pedagogical and editorial? And what
would any such insertion of opinion have to do with the _artistic_
value of the music?

-- Andrew Marvick