Mailbag: Kate-echism XVIII.1.vi

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

 To: Love-Hounds@EDDIE.MIT.EDU
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: Mailbag: Kate-echism XVIII.1.vi

 >>Question: Does anyone out there know what the picture on the back coverof
 >>        "The Whole Story" is of ???
 >
 > It is Kate's model of the "Cloudbuster", a device created by Wilhelm
 > Reich for the purpose of creating rain by manipulation of orgone
 > energy.  The evidence for its functioning is generally considered weak
 > enough to merit the label of "crackpot", a label in which TIM concurs.

     Again, no one in Love-Hounds has ever disagreed with this
description of Reich's later work -- _as_science_. IED can't believe that
you folks are really incapable of considering anything except insofar as it
can be verified by scientific testing. You _must_ be acquainted with the
experience of beauty for its own sake, surely?

 >The model may have been used in a video presentation of the song
 >"Cloudbusting", but as TIM has already stated, he finds Ms. Bush's
 >expressions so sophomoric that he avoids viewing her videos.  This
 >opinion was recently reinforced by a viewing of Peter Gabriel's CV, in
 >which Ms. Bush appears in a segment directed by Godley and Creme and
 >utterly spoils the segment with her hamming.  The video is so bad that
 >another presentation of the song, omitting Ms. Bush, was later shot.

     Of course TIM is perfectly entitled to his opinion about the G. & C.
_Don't_Give_Up_ video and Kate's performance in it. IED has never been
a fan of the "eclipsed sun" video of that song, either. But he can
see no justification for blaming its lack of success on Kate!
She was obviously just doing what she was told to do by the directors
and Gabriel. The description of her performance as "hamming" is, in
IED's opinion, unfair. Remember that Kate sang the part in the
original recording over two separate studio-sessions, trying to
produce an American country-western tone _per_Gabriel's_instructions_.
It has also been reported that Gabriel's first choice for the part
was none other than _Dolly_Parton_. Given this information, it is
very hard to conclude that Kate's heart-on-sleeve delivery
was something she herself should be held responsible for--whether
one likes the performance or not. She was only following instructions.
After all, the woman's part in that song practically requires such
an interpretation, and Kate's emoting in the video is really
rather restrained in comparison with the plaintive character of the part.
     One other thing, TIM. While you are of course welcome to your opinion
about the video, you should realize that that opinion loses much of its
persuasiveness when followed by the statement that Kate does not appear in the
alternate video for the song. She _does_, repeatedly. IED is willing to accept
that one need not necessarily notice _everything_ in the work one is planning
to criticize (though it couldn't hurt). But is it unreasonable to expect that
the critic should bother to find out _who's_in_ the video--or _at_least_
to _look_ at it before offering his "expertise"?

 ><Homeground> looked very good. Is it possible to get a subscription for
 >a reasonable price? Or is there a better KT magazine that I should look
 >into getting?
 >
 >-- Mike "Can't wait for KBVI" Fischer

    Depends on what you call reasonable, Mike. _Homeground_
sells for between $4 and $5 per issue in the L.A. area. A one-year's
subscription, which includes six bi-monthly issues and occasional
news updates when/if required, now costs 9 Pounds 20 Pence (about
$17.00)--air mail to the U.S. The subscription copies show up
at just about the same time the Tower copies do, though another
store here in L.A. gets them in before the sub. copies. The address
is: _Homeground_, P.O. Box 176, Orpington, Kent BR5 3NA, England.
     _Homeground_ has long been arguably the best KT forum anywhere,
and that was true even while the KBC _Newsletter_ was still in operation.
Now that the latter has been suspended indefinitely, _HG_ is without
rival in the KT fanzine field.

 >Not quite. The words are: "Irgendwo in der Tiefe, gibt es ein Licht".
 >-- G.

     You're quite right, G. IED apologizes for his mistake.

 >> He would further mention that reference to oneself in the third
 >> person is a common feature of crackpottery
 >
 >     Right on, dude. That was absolutely beautiful!
 >Definitely the best shot against Marvick that I've ever read.
 >
 >-- Mike Schmelzer

     IED was genuinely unaware that his correspondents in Love-Hounds
think of themselves as being "against Marvick". He honestly doesn't
think of himself as being "against" them! His only intention in
contributing to this group is to spread as much accurate information
about the work of Kate Bush as possible, and to provide defense of
that work when he feels that a defense may be beneficial to the
readers. That has always been his only intention. As his acknowledgement
of his recent error concerning the lyrics in _The_Ninth_Wave_ shows,
he is (and always has been) willing to admit personal failings whenever
they are shown to him to exist--especially when those failings confuse
a Kate-related issue. In the case of the recent argument over Wilhelm
Reich and Kate Bush, IED has so far made no such errors, and therefore
will not retract a word. He is sorry if Mike Schmelzer and XYZ/dana/Dana
are offended as a result of IED's commentary on the subject, but he can
do nothing about that. When a Love-Hound makes false, misinformed
or unfair remarks about Kate or her work, IED will say so, whether
feelings get hurt or not.

 >My posting was carefully-conceived; it was composed over an 8-hour period
 >after much research, editing and re-editing.  Every word was carefully chosen
 >to avoid any misconception.  Some phrases were meant to be provocative,
 >but IED exceeded my expectations in rising to the bait.

     It makes no difference whether you spent eight hours or one
minute composing your posting about _Cloudbusting_, XYZ--all that matters
is the result: a messy, unsupported message leveling unwarranted
criticism at Kate Bush. IED is sorry if your posting, the weakness of which
IED felt it important to expose in Love-Hounds, was the product of
so much careful labour on your part. Nevertheless, the errors and
distortions exist in it, and they are a matter of record.

 >First, since the lyrics alone were being discussed, the video is at best an
 >appendix to the discussion.

 Your premise is false. IED responded to your criticism that Kate
was somehow culpable for failing to condemn the work of Wilhelm Reich.
IED pointed out several aspects of the subject which you had been
unaware of--among these were a number of details included in the
video. Whether you had seen that video or not has no bearing whatever
on the relevance of Kate's video to the subject of Kate's attitude
toward Reich. The fact is, you passed a harsh and hasty judgement on
Kate about this subject, before you had bothered to find out all that
Kate had actually _said_ about the subject. That's the danger of
mouthing off half-cocked: you're liable to suffer a backfire.

 >Second, it is not clear how reading these would make me more `scientific'
 >since you have already granted that they have `no scientific validity'.

    You're confused again, XYZ. IED was pointing out the lack of logical,
step-by-step thinking in _your_ comments. IED has never denied that there
is a lack of scientific support for Reich's ideas. But he finds it
odd that someone like yourself, who apparently values such qualities
as scientific verifiability very highly, is so careless with the facts
himself. IED was being ironic in saying of you, "Some scientist!" Get it?

 >Essentially it says I cannot consider anything
 >worthless that I have not rigorously and exhaustively studied.
 >But that is not how science works; everyone relies on expert opinion to
 >guide one's way through the dense forest of conflicting claims. (Of
 >course, when someone finally decides to become an `expert' on a subject,
 >_then_ one should be more exhaustive.) I have played this game with other
 >people before (e.g., Velikovsky, creationism, homeopathy) and they
 >always claim this is an unjust approach.  But if you read some of their
 >literature, to appease them, then you are told you read the wrong parts, and
 >if you read it all then you are told that you did not understand (or worse
 >you refuse to understand).  It is a no-win situation that recurs all
 >too often.

     This is a specious argument. As IED has already said several
times in this increasingly silly discussion, he agrees that one
can't be expected to learn everything about a subject before
deciding that it holds nothing for him. But this is quite different
from noisily announcing that a vast body of work (like Reich's) is
entirely without value either as science or art; criticizing
another artist's work on _moral_ grounds for failing to make the
same kind of rash condemnation which you have made; and then blithely
admitting that you have made no firsthand study of the subject
whatsoever!
     Here is IED's point: Certainly it's true that
one must be selective about what information one invests time in
acquiring. IED would never deny, either, that it is acceptable to rely on
one's general life experience for the formation of opinions and
personal taste. But it is _also_true_ that one should not base
_all_ of one's conclusions on _nothing_ except second- and thirdhand
information, general experiences and wildly emotional personal biases!
In other words, XYZ, _it's_all_relative_. So, for example, IED would
never have made the slightest objection (nor, probably, would he have
even bothered to respond) had you announced in Love-Hounds that you
personally didn't enjoy the lyrics of Kate's _Cloudbusting_, and that
you had such deep feelings about the immorality of Reich's later
career that it spoiled the atmosphere of the song for you. But instead
of that, you came out shouting (in _very_ angry language, whether you
wish to remember it as such or not) that not only was all of Reich's
work utterly without value of any kind--either as science or as art--;
but also that because this was somehow a "fact" which any respectable
person should agree with you about, it was somehow reprehensible of
Kate to dare to write a song about Reich without making explicit not
only the subject, but the _immorality_ (as you see it) of the subject
as well. When in fact, you hadn't bothered to find out even the most
rudimentary facts that 1.) Reich's early work is _quite_ different
in nature to his later work; 2.) Reich's own original writing--as
opposed to the carefully pre-digested and myopic synopses of Gardner--
is actually quite remarkable as literature; and 3.) Kate's song wasn't
even _about_ Reich Sr., but about his son's deeply personal account
of his childhood!
     Now, relying on general knowledge of the world and personal
taste is one thing. Blaring long series of silly, unsupported and
misinformed statements about a subject you evidently know _nothing_
about is quite another!

 >I would hate that think that I would have to have a mystic outlook in order
 >to approach Kate's music.
 >
 >-- dana

     Well of course not, XYZ (or dana, or Dana, or whatever you
choose!). Nor has IED ever even implied any such thing, as you
surely know! IED thinks it's safe to say that Kate would have
no problem with a skeptic enjoying and even appreciating her
work--possibly better than many "mystics", even. Why not?
    It _would_ help you a little, perhaps, however (in IED's opinion) if,
instead of assuming that what hasn't yet been proved is necessarily
impossible, you entertained the notion that what hasn't yet been proved
might simply be beyond human science's present capacity to recognize.
You know, science didn't even admit the possibility that the Earth was
round until quite recently in human history. Wouldn't you at least
concede that there's still a lot we don't yet know?

-- Andrew Marvick