Ooch! Ouch! Jeez, that smarts!--MUST BE DOUG ALAN'S BACK...

[IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu]

     First, some late additions to the _Cathy_Demos_ list, as of 4/25/89:

132. John Mc. <JOHNMC@nuhub.acs.northeastern.edu>

133. Dan Vanevic <cbnews!rael>

     At this point all IED is doing is listing your names. It doesn't
help you to get a tape, though. You'll have to do that on your own,
by asking for someone who has a copy to make a copy. Check the master
list, which all interested parties naturally saved.
     Jeff Adams suggests that a VHS HiFi copying group be organized
for future Love-Hounds tape-dubbing projects. IED is willing, in theory.

 >> Now, is _this_ one backwards or forwards?

 > I really can't say myself, not having the technical equipment to play
 > with the sound, but wouldn't it be likely to be in German?

     Well, possibly, but it doesn't sound much like German to IED.
(On the other hand, it doesn't sound much like anything _else_, either.)
Don't be misled by IED's spelling of the phonetics, though: his "Zwoh"
is with an English pronunciation of the "z" and "w" sounds, unlike the German
(Austrian/Bavarian) dialect form of "two" (zwo), which sounds quite
different.

 > And now for a different subject altogether...In looking at the
 > information contained in the back of the "Visual Documentary" book, I
 > noticed the song that Kate did for the film called "The Magician of
 > Lublin".  The movie has been put out on videotape, but I have yet to
 > find a copy to rent.  How much of the song "The Magician" actually
 > turns up in the movie?  Also, is there any soundtrack records or CDs
 > still existing of the "Castaway" soundtrack with the KB song "Be Kind
 > to my Mistakes"?

     Not for the first time, here is the information requested.
The track you seek, _The_Magician_ is the theme song of the
film _The_Magician_of_Lublin_ (starring Alan Arkin). The music
is by the film's scorer, Maurice Jarre, and the lyrics are by
Paul Webster. The melody is heard during the end titles as played
by an orchestra, but Kate's vocal version only crops up (edited) in the
middle of an extremely noisy dialogue scene with Alan Arkin (who has
the bad taste to shout angrily and at length while Kate Bush is singing).
The song is in waltz time, and actually sounds a bit like _Ran_Tan_
_Waltz_, but it's very, very hard to hear or listen to. And although
the film itself was (at least at one time) available on video, the
song has never been released by itself anywhere. Maybe when EMI
finally put out a non-LP-tracks CD compilation...

 >So what does Kate herself think about bootlegs?  It would seem to be
 >rather uncaring to be making copies of her stuff if she doesn't like
 >her stuff bootlegged.

     Well, Wayne, you certainly have a point. That was one reason
why IED made his tape of non-LP tracks available to Love-Hounds
_for_free_ (except for the expense of a blank cassette and postage).
He would never want to profit from anything that belonged to Kate.
     On the other hand, many of the b-sides are unavailable in this
country (except as hard-to-find used records and the occasional
import), so IED felt that a home-dub, not-for-profit copy of those
tracks was not something Kate or the Bush family would be likely to
find objectionable. If and when a b-sides CD comes out, IED will not
make further copies available. Meanwhile, he has often suggested
to newer fans that if they want to see Kate's videos they should
buy the official products that are out there. Remember that every
cent you spend on Kate's official merchandise is a cent more in
the Tour of Life II kitty!
     As for Kate's feelings about the release of some of her very
early demo recordings on bootleg vinyl--almost certainly she is not
pleased. And IED feels somewhat guilty for buying and enjoying them;
and more guilty for disseminating low-fi copies from the low-fi
vinyl records to other Love-Hounds--even though he has received no
financial remuneration for his labors. His only excuse is that he
is a hopeless Kate Bush fanatic, and is a slave to his addiKTion.
His fervent hope is that Kate will eventually see the senselessness
of withholding these demos from the public herself (since it only
means that bootleggers will reap all of her own potential profit), and
decide to put at least some of the early recordings out on EMI, in a
properly produced edition.

 > There are three versions of "Running Up That Hill" that I know
 > of (not including the live version with David Gilmour): the
 > album version, the 12-inch single remix (which is sort of
 > more polite -- each instrument comes in one at a time, plays
 > for a little bit and then makes way for the next instrument),
 > and the "instrumental" version (which still has some vocals).
 >
 > -- |>oug

     Well, the "Extended Mix" (5:47) of _RUTH_ doesn't bring in _all_ the
instruments. Only Linn-drum sounds are heard; the larger acoustic
drum sounds have been left off that mix. More importantly, there are new
vocal passages in that mix which do not exist in any other version.
     The "Instrumental" (ca. 4:57) version is simply the exact same mix
as the final album mix, except for the omission of lead vocals. The
timing is identical, and all the backing vocals are intact.

 > The instrumental version is on the 12-inch single, though the
 > single you saw sounds nonstandard.  On the B-side of the real
 > 12-inch is one of Kate's most beautiful and haunting songs of
 > all time, "Under The Ivy", a sad and simple piano ballad.

     Hear, hear. But let's say "deceptively simple".

 > ...had them for much less than what IED's store charged
 > him (you got ripped off!).

     Doesn't he know it! IED paid about double what some dealers are
charging. But then, at the time IED was happy to pay the inflated
price. And he did get the record a good deal earlier than anyone else he
knows of. All in all, it was a worthwhile purchase, even at $20.00.
     Now on to important business!

           *                          *                           *

 >Did IED go through the effort of retyping |>oug's entire
 >interview?  This would hardly have been necessary considering that
 >|>oug can most certainly guarantee that he still has it online.)

     IED merely adapted the format for his own purposes (to match
his other printouts of interviews). He hopes the liberty is not
too greatly resented by Doug.

 >>KATE: Right! Well, um...I think you...It's kind of weird the level of
 >>      interpretation that you are reading into things, because...I
 >>      mean, a mule--in our country--all it represents is a stupid
 >>      animal. They are considered stupid.
 >>
 >><This, of course, is the dominant significance of the mule as a
 >>symbol in the United States, as well. The expression "stubborn as a
 >>mule" is considerably better known in both countries than the
 >>sterile condition of the animal--as the interviewer ought to know.>

 > Of course, "stupid" and "stuborn" are two completely different words
 >with completely different meanings.  Yes, in the U.S. mules are used
 >very often to symbolize stubborness.  They are not however often used
 >to symbolize stupidity.  In fact, mules are often very stubborn
 >animals.  They are also, in fact, very intelligent animals.  The
 >distinction bewteen stupidity and stuborness is something that Mr.
 >Marvick ought very well to know.

     IED must conclude that Doug doesn't remember that this fuss over
the "mules" and "jackasses" was already the subject of a dull argument
in Love-Hounds a long time ago. Why Doug suddenly wants to resuscitate
it now IED has no idea; but he is happy to oblige.
     Let it be understood from the beginning by anyone masochistic enough
to be reading the following, however, that this time DOUG STARTED IT!
     Doug simply hasn't got the point. (Admittedly, IED
didn't make that point very clear in his too-brief annotation which
is re-printed above, so perhaps he shares the blame with Doug.) If Doug
looks at what Kate said (above), he will see that _her_ understanding is that
the mule has a simple and one-dimensional symbolic meaning. Whether that is
_Doug's_ understanding or not is _quite_irrelevant_. This is the basic
fact to which IED addressed himself.
     IED's reasoning was this: Kate sees the mule as "stupid". Well,
actually the mule is not associated--literally--with "stupidity" either
in England _or_ the U.S.  What, then, could Kate have in mind? Well,
_obviously_, she is thinking either of the term "stubborn as a mule" or
"dumb/stupid as a jackass". The point being that, although there are
differences between the precise definitions of the words "stubborn" and
"stupid", just as there are differences between the precise definitions of
the words "mule", "donkey" and "jackass", those differences are much
_smaller_ (especially to one who, like Kate, has just said that she
thinks of the term "mule" as having only a simple and casual symbolic
significance) than the basic _similarities_between_ the words.
Thus "stubborn as a mule"--which does indeed conjure up associations
with "stupdity", whether Doug likes it or not, and whether their
precise meanings are identical or not--and "dumb as a jackass", seem
to be essentially interchangeable in Kate's view--_as_they_are_in_most_
_people's_ common, casual understanding of these expressions. In short:
identical? No. Very similar and interchangeable in such casual contexts?
Certainly!
     All this has nothing to do with Doug's even more irrelevant and
inapplicable drivel about the sexual condition of these various
animals. Kate has already said that the association _for_her_
was a very simple one, having only one basic symbolic meaning, nothing
more. She couldn't have been more explicit on this point than she was in
her statement above. So what could possibly be the point of Doug's
insisting on the _actual_ distinctions which may exist between mules and
jackasses? Kate doesn't recognize these distinctions (or wouldn't recog-
nize them unless some fussbudget insisted pedantically on pointing
them out to her), so what relevance do they have to Kate's song? The
answer is _none_.

 >The reason that the use of the mule to represent stuborness did not
 >occur to me is that the song "Get Out Of My House" seemed to have a
 >happy ending.  (And of course, the mule could never symbolize
 >stupidity to me because mules just don't symbolize stupity --
 >jackasses do, but a mule is not a jackass).  The man and woman seemed
 >to have found something in common in their muleness and sang to each
 >other.

     This is quite incredible. How could Doug have thought that the
ending of _GOoMH_ was "happy"? It's true that there are many subtle
changes in Kate's vocal inflection toward the end of that song. One
could say that in the line "I change into the Mule" she seems to be
emoting differently than in the earlier lines. But considering the "mad",
frantic confrontation of "hee-haw" sounds between male and female characters
in the final section of the song, it's patently ridiculous to call
the ending "happy"! Certainly the lyrics don't help such a reading.
     On the other hand, the ending _does_ indeed contain the "some
sort of hope in there" that Kate said (of _The_Ninth_Wave_) she feels
should be part of all works of art. If Doug re-reads the passage in
question from his own interview (IED reproduces it below), he'll
see that Kate was saying that the theme of the song was the error
people can make of running away from their problems, and that the
only way to solve problems is to confront them. She also explains that
when the female character in _Get_Out_of_My_House_ changes into a
mule (whether a stubborn one or a stupid one), she _does_ finally turn
and confront the male character (who has changed into a mule as well).
This is the quintessential Kate Bush "ending"--sad but hopeful, very much
like the ending of _The_Ninth_Wave_. In both, the protagonist has come to
a new realization of the "right way" to proceed/feel/think, and is
therefore able better to resign herself to _whatever_ fate might befall
her, whether that fate be "happy" or not. And this, of course, is
an essential element of Kate's own avowed philosophy, described by
her in numerous interviews.
     So we do not learn what actually happens when the two mules confront
each other in _GOoMH_; nor is it important. What is important is that
the  protagonist has finally been able to confront the force which
threatens her--she is no longer running from it. In a similar way
the heroine of _The_Ninth_Wave_, in the final bars of _The_Morning_Fog_,
has found reasons for living: whether she will actually survive the
physical ordeal or not, she has at least gained a new appreciation
of the important aspects of her life (love of family; and faith in the
human spirit, so to speak, as represented by her "future self" in
_Jig_of_Life_). It's therefore extremely important, IED believes, that
both _The_Dreaming_ and _Hounds_of_Love_, as albums, conclude with the
same basic situation. In both,  the ultimate "fate" of the protagonist is
not resolved, because that is not the artist's concern. Rather, it is the
insight that those protagonists gain along the way that matters.
     This is why Kate may have made the choice of the mule, also. It is now
known that, to Kate, the mule is a "stupid" animal. Its actions, in other
words, are "thought-less": prompted by the crudest form of emotional
stimuli or instincts. Kate has more than once insisted that music
(art) is "pure emotion"--especially in the Russell Harty interview.
When Harty patronizingly says "We've been to Bronte-land...Where will the
arrow of your powerful intellect fall next?" Kate's immediate and strong
reply is: "Well, I think the answer to that is that art is _emotion_. Art
is pure emotion..." Her reply has always seemed to IED to represent
an implied preference for the value of emotion over the intellect.
If so, the choice of the "stupid" mule as the guise in which the
heroine of _GOoMH_ finally faces her "problem" makes excellent sense.

 >I'm not the only one who had this interpretation.  I spoke to many
 >people about the song over the years, and most of them seemed to feel
 >also that the song had a happy ending, and that the man and woman were
 >happy to be mules together...The sexual neutrality of mules then
 >seemed a likely explanation...

     Again, IED doesn't see any signs of "happy endings" in _GOoMH_, at
least not in the banal sense that Doug and his friends apparently mean. The
fact that Doug was joined in this interpretation by "many people" adds no
_evidence_ of any sort that the mules enjoy a "happy" reconciliation! Doug
will have to learn that he can't strengthen an inherently weak intellectual
position merely by claiming that advocates as undiscriminating as himself have
joined him in embracing it. "Cloudbusting" doesn't become "Cloudbursting"
simply because a lot of careless listeners continue to misspell it.

 > Kate, on the other hand, says that she intended the song to have a
 > unhappy ending.

     Kate does _not_ say that she "intended the song to have a <sic>
unhappy ending." If Doug reads his own interview very carefully at
that point (IED reproduces the passage unedited below), he will see
that Kate is basically _agreeing_ that the choice of the "stupid"
mule madly turning and _confronting_ the other character _is_ a more
or less hopeful ending, in that it represents the resolution of Kate's
theme (which is that it's important to confront one's problems, and not
to run from them). There is no contradiction between the song and her
comments in Doug's interview.

 >> <Except that it does _not_ sound like "And they said they wouldn't
 >> let me in" when played backwards.>

 >  Says you!

     Well, actually, says the Kate Bush Club, too. When the solution
of "We let the weirdness in" was finally submitted, it was explained
in the _Newsletter_ that such was "the" answer to the puzzle. There
was no mention of any palindromic backwards message at all. On the
contrary, Lisa printed several mistaken answers produced by people who
had been "on the wrong track"; and all of those were attempts to
interpret the message as words when played _backwards_. So although
there has never been any explicit denial of the possibility that Doug's
theory has any basis in fact, there is certainly enough against it to
make it seem doubtful at the very least.
     IED is grateful that Doug finally mentioned where he had heard about
this subject from John (at Tower), and he apologizes for seeming to
doubt Doug's honesty. That was uncalled for.
     But John's explanation to Doug (at least as he just described
it yesterday), does not _in_any_way_ add support to Doug's own theory
that Kate intended the message to say something specific when heard
_backwards_. All John seems to have been describing was an instance
of a man who could rattle off words and phrases backwards when he
heard them. Obviously those words and phrases sounded like _backwards_
_nonsense_ when he uttered them, _not_ new palindromic words and
phrases! How, then, Doug came to think that this source inspired Kate
to create a palindromic phrase, rather than merely a re-recorded
backwards phrase, is inexplicable. There is simply no evidence for
it, whereas there is _strong_ evidence (in the _Newsletter_) against it.
     This whole issue is especially frustrating because of the lost
opportunities which Doug's interview is filled with. Unfortunately,
because of Doug's mysterious insistence on having Kate sit and listen to
_him_ rather than encouraging responses from Kate, he allowed many
chances to slip through his fingers. IED reproduces three excerpts from
Doug's interview, without cuts, but with (merciless) annotations.
     In the first excerpt Doug raises the issue of the mules. In the second,
he brings up the "backwards" messages. And in the third he trots out still
another of his wild theories, this one about _There_Goes_a_Tenner_.
Yet in each of these three cases, rather than asking Kate to answer any
of his many premises, Doug just runs on and on with his ideas (presenting
some--admittedly not all, but a surprisingly large number nonetheless--
as though they were already proven facts); and then he asks absurdly at the
end, "How did you do that?" or "Comment?"--presumptious questions that
are guaranteed to elicit minimal replies. The impression one gets is of a
Doug Alan lecture, which Doug has generously allowed Kate Bush to
attend--providing she accepts the role of an appreciative and reasonably quiet
audience--on the subject of bizarre hidden meanings in the work of Kate Bush!
     Example Number 1:

         In a recent interview you said, "I don't really know why
    people think my songs are strange." I'm not sure that this
    was said by the same person who sings "We let the weirdness
    in" at the end of the song _Leave_It_Open_ <Missed Opportunity to Get
    Kate's Reply Number 1>. In any case, what is really strange about the
    singing at the end of _Leave_It_Open_, is that if you play it backwards,
    it also sounds like intelligible singing <Missed Opportunity Number 2>.
    In fact, it sounds to me like "And they said they wouldn't let me in"
    <Missed Opportunity Number 3>, which is wonderful because then it has the
    opposite meaning backwards as it does forwards. <Missed Opportunity
    Number 4--Can the readers of this posting (if there are any) imagine
    that while Doug is spouting out all these highly improbable theories,
    _Kate_Bush_ is _sitting_there_ in front of him, and he's not asking her
    what she thinks about all these dubious premises? But wait, Doug still
    has more to tell Kate before deigning to ask her opinion:>
          There is also something like this on _Hounds_of_Love_, in the song
    _Watching_You_Without_Me_ <Missed Opportunity No. 5>. There is one part
    where you sing what to me sounds like "Really see" several times <Missed
    Opportunity No. 6>. And if you play this backwards, it sounds exactly the
    same. <Missed Opportunity No. 7.-- Mind you, Kate is still sitting there,
    no doubt wondering if Doug even wants to ask her any actual _questions_
    at all!> Still like "Really see", though I'm not sure it's "Really see"
    --it just sounds like that to me <Not that he'd bother to _ask_Kate_
    to find out, or anything! Missed Opportunity No. 8>. But whatever it
    sounds like, it sounds exactly the same backwards. <Missed Opportunity No.
    9--especially since this claim is _totally_ false. The phrase, when played
    backwards, has _completely_ different phonetic sounds--in fact, it becomes
    very clear that the phrase that sounds to Doug like "Really see" is simply
    the phrase "We see you here" played backwards. And even if IED is not
    correct about that, there is _no_ excuse for Doug's making absolute state-
    ments to the contrary, without even bothering to confirm them with Kate,
    the supreme authority--who is _still_ sitting there waiting to be
    asked a question!>
         Well, the question is, I'd be really interested in knowing how you
    did this sort of manipulation. <Missed opportunity number 10: the question
    assumes both that the manipulation was such as he has just described, and
    that the manipulation was the same in both songs, neither of which is
    at all likely. Kate's answer to all this is, as one might expect,
    vague and not apparently directed at any specific part of Doug's comments:>
         "Well, that's something I've been experimenting with for a
    while, and would like to continue experimenting with. It's just
    a way of using backwards ideas, but actually saying
    something cohesively."
         But how do you actually get a message or singing which
    sounds like something both forwards and backwards. <Missed Opportunity
    Number 11--Since it's not the least bit clear what part of Doug's speech
    Kate's vague remark is in reference to (if indeed it refers to any specific
    part at all, or merely the very general topic of how she came to "use back-
    wards ideas"), Doug's question _should_ have been: "_Do_ you deliberately
    construct messages so as to say something both forwards and
    backwards?" Without an explicit acknowledgement or denial of this
    premise it's pointless to expect more specific information such as
    "how" said hypothetical effect might have been produced.>
    And what are the technical issues involved. I mean, it seems like it
    would be really hard to do.
         "It is. It's very difficult--it takes a lot of time and
    an awful lot of patience."

  But this peculiar technique of interviewing is carried on throughout the
entire "conversation" with Kate. Here is a second example (in his re-posting
of the section about the "mules", Doug conveniently omitted the larger
part of his "question" to Kate. Here is the way the "discussion" actually
progressed):

         I find the use of strong symbolism and metaphor and allusions in
    your lyrics to be extremely interesting. For example, in _Get_Out_of_My_
    _House_, the woman who is singing the song has been left by her lover
    <M.O. #12> and feels hurt <M.O.#13>, and identifies herself with a house
    <M.O.#14--All of these assumptions are totally unsupported, and fairly cry
    out for comment from Kate--comment which, as usual, Doug does not seek.>
    This is a biblical allusion <M.O. #15>. When she says "I wash the panes",
    it is a triple entendre, because she's saying she's washing the windows of
    her body, which are the eyes <M.O. #16>. This means she's crying <M.O.
    #17>, and by doing so, she's washing the hurt and pain away <M.O. #18>.
    Then she says "No stranger's feet will enter me" saying that she won't
    let anyone into her house, which is saying she won't let anyone into her
    her body <M.O. #19--though this last idea, at least, may very well be
    correct, it wouldn't have hurt a bit to ask Kate if she agreed>,
    which is also reinforced by the biblical use of "feet" as a
    euphemism for "private parts". <M.O. #20. Another perfect example of Doug's
    tendency to dig up a symbol from left field in order to support a theory
    which is itself built upon equally unlikely symbols, and then to
    assume that the unsupported ascription of these symbolic meanings to
    Kate's text somehow _supports_ his theory. At the _very_least_ he should
    have _asked_Kate_, who all this time is still sitting there in front of
    him, by now no doubt beginning to abandon hope of being asked a question!>
         Then a man tries to enter her life again <M.O. #21>, but she's
    too scared <M.O.#22>, and she tries to escape by flying away, but he
    turns into the wind. She then turns into a mule, perhaps for its
    stubborn ability to withstand the wind <M.O. #23>. And then he also
    turns into a mule. Now it seems that they have a ground for communi-
    cation <M.O. #24>. Because mules are neuter, and they can communi-
    cate on a platonic level rather than a sexual level <M.O. #25>.
    Now a friend of mine believes that this last part is a flaw in the
    song, because mules are not really neuter after all. They are only
    sterile. Personally, I think it isn't a flaw because the idea comes
    across loud and clear to me <Ubboy!>, and somehow it seems that
    "I change into the amoeba: Ooze! Ooze!" just wouldn't work so well.
    So the question is, what do you think of this interpretation? And
    could you respond to my friend's slight criticism?
          "And what was your friend's criticism?"
          He said that the ending is a flaw because mules are not
    really neuter, they are only sterile.
          "What does he mean?"
          Well, it seems to me--and to him--that the end of the
    song is sort of a positive note because they've found a
    grounds for communication. And sort of on a platonic level,
    because mules might be seen as being platonic, because...
          "Why?" <Bushese for "What planet are you and your friend from?">
          Oh...well...Mules are sterile...uh...A donkey and a horse...you
    know...have a sexual relationship, and then they have
    mules, and mules don't have children, but they really can have
    sex. They just can't have children, but a lot of people actually
    think that they just don't have sex. Which isn't really
    true.
          "Right! Well, um...I think you...It's kind of weird the
    level of interpretation that you are reading into things,
    because...I mean, a mule--in our country--all it
    represents is a stupid animal. They are considered stupid.
    And that's the allusion that was being used in that case.
    And it's very much a play on a traditional song called _The_Two_
    _Magicians_ about someone who's trying to escape someone,
    and they keep changing their form in order to escape them.
    But the other thing keeps changing its form. And that's
    actually what the whole song is about--someone who is
    running away from something they don't want to face, but
    wherever they go, the thing will follow them. Basically,
    you can't run away from things--you've got to confront
    things. And it's using the person as the imagery of a
    house, where they won't let anyone in, they lock all the
    doors and windows, and put a guard on the front door. But I
    think the essence of the song is about someone trying to run
    away from things they don't like and not being able to
    escape--because you can't."
          But if the symbol of mules is just stupidity, at the end,
    then it would seem like it would be a negative ending, and
    it just sort of seems to me, most of your songs...a lot of
    them...end on up notes. And it sort of seemed like it was
    a positive note at the end.
          "Yes, I think the mule is that kind of...the stupid
    confrontation...I mean, there's not really that much to
    read into it. It was the idea of playing around with
    changing shape, and the mule imagery was something I liked
    inordinately. The whole thing of this wild, stupid, mad
    creature just turning around and going, you know,
    'Eeyore! Eeyore!' (Kate makes convincing eeyore sounds.)..."

  How this interview could ever have taken place in the manner
it did is a mystery. What did Doug think was the point of having
an interview with Kate Bush, anyway? Evidently it wasn't to learn
something new. (Even so, Kate provided the key to a correct under-
standing of the mule symbolism in her answer--which IED pointed out above--
but Doug, apparently still misunderstanding her words even now, claimed
wrongly yesterday that Kate's song was inconsistent with her stated
objectives. For when Kate answers "Yes, I think the mule is that
kind of...the stupid confrontation..." she is _agreeing_ with Doug that
there _is_ a hopeful element to the ending of the song.)
It reads more as though our "humble" pseudo-moderator
has no real intention except to "present" Kate with his _explanations_
of her own work, hoping (with truly baffling naivete) that she will
actually _agree_ with them!
     When instead she actually decides she has to reject them
out of hand, and in very decisive language--particularly for Kate, whose
exceptional courtesy usually leads her to avoid saying "No, that's wrong"
whenever possible--Doug betrays a great deal more than surprise. So
unprepared is he, apparently, to accept the possibility that his ideas are
ludicrously off base, that he actually _doubts_whether_Kate_is_in_control_
_of_her_own_conscious_thoughts_--and he voices those doubts _to_her_face_!
     To wit (Example Number 3):

          A song of yours for which the symbolism in the lyrics
     really fascinates me is _There_Goes_a_Tenner_ (from _The_Dreaming_).
     You've said that it is just a simple song about bank robbery,
     but the more I look at it, the more it seems that nearly
     every line is really sort of an allusion to your recording
     career at the time you were recording _The_Dreaming_. You
     wouldn't deny that this was intended, would you?
         "Yes, I would deny it."
          You would?
          "Yes. It's very much a song about bank robbery. I
     wouldn't say it was a simple song about bank robbery, but it's
     about the fear that people feel rather than the glorification of
     bank robbers."
          I dunno. It seems like...Well, to me it seems every line
     sort of could parallel your recording career. I won't go
     and explain it, but like one example is "There goes a tenner."
     "Tenner" could be a ten-dollar <sic> bill--it could
     also be a level of singing: you know, like soprano, alto,
     tenor. And sort of every line is like that.  But you don't
     agree?
          "Well, no I don't because that's not...That was...nothing
     that was in my head when I was writing it. But then I think
     the interpretations that people have of your songs
     afterwards are nothing to do with me anyway. I think it's
     up to them to get what they can out of the song."
         Okay. That seems reasonable. _Maybe_it_was_all_
     _subconscious_. <IED's italics.> It seems so perfect to me.
     <Notice Doug still uses the present tense: apparently Kate's
     flat denials have had no impact on his bizarre delusions.>
     I dunno.

          IED will close now, though he could pick similar holes in
almost any other excerpt from "humble" Doug's "interview". The problem
is, all this takes a lot of time. Doug knows how to get IED's attention,
and he's done it. But he must finish this up. Anyway, what would be the
point of continuing? Doug is clearly a man enmeshed in a whole skein of
strange, delusory theories surrounding Kate's work. If Kate herself
could not free him from his prison of egocentric fantasy, it is certain
that IED will not succeed in doing so.

-- Andrew Marvick