You bet your life!

[Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>]

> From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu

>      Look, for the fiftieth time, IED doesn't claim that such
> interpretations are necessarily "wrong". He doesn't _care_ whether
> they're wrong or right. The point is, if Kate Bush tells us "No,
> that's wrong," then whether it makes sense in and of itself becomes
> _irrelevant_. IED used the term "invalid" as well, and that may have
> been a misuse of the word.  But what he meant was and is clear: IED
> will entertain any notion about Kate's work that anyone wants to
> share with him, but if Kate Bush tells me it's wrong, IED will
> _bloody_well_take_her_word_for_it_.

Look, for the fiftieth time you have ignored the fact that not
everyone shares your opinion about what is "relevent" and what isn't.
So what if you think discussion ends with what Kate says?  I don't
agree, and you haven't given a single shred of argument to make me
think that I should agree.  Discussion of what Kate intended may
indeed end with what Kate says, but discussion of what something
"means" may very well not.  Meaning is not determined solely by what
the originator of a communication intends, but also by what the
receiver of that communication interprets.  If the the intended
meaning is different from the received meaning (and neither the sender
nor the receiver are making mistakes) there is NO one true meaning to
the communication -- there is only the "intended meaning" and the
"understood meaning".  If we were going to insist that there be a "one
true meaning" (which I don't think is a good idea) to any
communication, we would want to attribute it to the interpretation
that makes the most sense -- not the intended meaning.  The intended
meaning in most cases is most likely to be the one that makes the most
sense, but this is not always true.

Since you seem to like to quote John Carder Bush at me, IED, how about
if I do the same to you.  He seems to think that interpretations
unintended by Kate are fine and wonderful things.  This is what he
said to me about it (and you know it because I've already told you):

        Entendres are, indeed, interesting things.  Over the years I
        have evolved a sort of personal understanding of this planet /
        God / life in terms  of rhyme.  If you can see the Supreme
        Being as merely a harmonizing force, then coincidence,
        synchronicity are easily explained; as the poet makes his
        rhymes, the pattern of life makes its rhymes.  And in double,
        tripple, or whatever, entendres, the poet exercises a god-like
        technique.

        Keeping this in mind, I feel that for someone working in an
        artistic medium, and thence becoming "godlike", by imitation,
        there must come a series of levels of progress, each level
        preceded by intense periods of obsession and worry  with the
        creation  -- late nights, wrong food, ill health, etc. -- and
        at each level something crystallises, and an energy vortex
        with a consciousness of its own starts going.

        Once it is able to generate its own creative direction, it
        needs to be fed and looked after like any machine, but it can
        be relied on to offer up an image, a line, in which the levels
        are all there, up and down, and can be understood depending on
        the level of the receiver.  Sufi strories, Zen stories, Greek
        myths all have this spiralling mult-interpretation power, as
        do all the great written works of religion.  You can keep
        coming back to them and finding the next level confirmed as
        you grow.

        So I am sure you are right when you find these meanings in
        Kate's music, but whether it was conscious or unconscious is
        not important if you accept that she is a vehicle for the
        Great Rhymer.  Kate's subject matter for her lyrics has always
        been extraordinary, which I think comes  from an ability to
        empathise with life forms that is unusually sensitive.


So the short of it is, Andy, you may not want to talk about meanings
of art not intended by the author, but who the f*** are you to tell me
that I and others shouldn't -- especially when I explicitly say that the
interpretation I am discussing was not intended by the author?

>> ...some not subtle at all.  I think the fact that Kate has refered
>> to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow" should speak for
>> itself on where Kate thinks your mind should be!

>      Douglas has made this sickening claim at least once before in
> this forum, and once again IED challenges Doug to provide proof that
> Kate actually said this. IED doesn't believe it. Not that it isn't
> possible that she _might_ conceivably say something like that. It's
> just that one ought to have absolute proof that she _did_ say it
> before one goes making assumptions about her sexual humour in any
> general sense. IED will gladly apologize for doubting Doug about
> this citation if and when Doug offers real tangible proof (page and
> line number) that it is legitimate.

Andy, you never challenged me the first time I made this claim.  I'll
tell you what, though.  I'll again bet you a round trip plane ticket
to London for the next time Kate tours that I can produce the magazine
and page number within a month.  Just keep in mind that it was a good
idea that you didn't take me up on this offer with repect to Gaffer's
tape.  I don't make up things like this, Andy, and you do nothing to
increase your credibility by constantly challenging me on issues like
this and losing.

Now, I can't guarantee that the pun wasn't introduced by the
interviewer or by the editorial staff of the magazine, but I can
guarantee that I have an interview where, as it appears in print, Kate
refers to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow".  And it's in a
major British periodical, not some fly-by-night rag.  If you don't
wish to place the bet, however, I have better things to do that wade
through an entire filing cabinet full of articles on Kate, searching
for one line, just because you don't believe me.

>> Then again, Kate spelled Orgonon wrong by mistake....

>      IED is even more predisposed to mistrust Doug's citation re
> "Nice to Swallow" in light of his false claim immediately above.
> The fact is that John Carder Bush was once asked point blank about
> this very "mis"-spelling. IED quotes his eminently Bushian reply:
> "It may have been intentional..."  Furthermore, Doug knows this,
> since IED has posted the information at least once before. And it
> may very well be a pun.

Well, I asked Kate, *HERSELF*, and she said that the misspelling was
NOT intentional.  By your very own reasoning, Mr. Marvick, the
discussion is over. QED, IED.

> If so, it's a pretty good one, and quite appropriate, considering
> the nature of Reich's theories about the therapeutic effects of
> orgasm on the psyche. A pun much like "your sun's coming out," from
> the same song.

If it's a pun it's a very bad one.  There is a real word "organon".
Reich used the name "Orgonon" as a pun -- a cross between his "Orgone"
name for "orgasmic energy" and the word "organon", which means "a body
of principles of scientific or philosophic investigation".  Thus,
"Organon" was the place where he kept his body of principles on Orgone
investigation.  How would changing the word back to the normal word
"organon" be a good pun?  It would just be lame.  It would be
destroying Reich's perfectly wonderful pun.  And if you think it's
supposed to be short for "organ on" as John Reimers is deluded into
believing, that's just ridiculous.  The world already has "orgasm" in
it.  How is alluding to naughty parts going to make it any more
naughty?

Thanks again, IED, for taking the opportunity to repost highlights
from my interview with Kate Bush.  I don't know what you are trying to
prove, however, since I have many times since disavowed the philosophy
I had when I did the interview as the result of a hormone inbalance.
Also, thank you kindly for removing all the parts where Kate actively
avoids answering questions for which we *know* there is an answer.
After all, those parts are of total inconsequence to the serious
Katologist in understanding Kate's attitude toward others
understanding her work.  Also, thanks for leaving out the part where I
ask Kate about the meaning to "My Lagan Love" and she says that she
just slapped it together and didn't spend any thought to the lyrics.
Later, when I asked John Carder Bush how Kate could have given no
thought to the lyrics to "My Lagan Love" and come up with such lovely
and deep lyrics, he revealed that, in fact, he had written the lyrics
to it, and that my interpretation was right on the money.  We wouldn't
want anyone to know this, however, IED, because it might damage your
theory thate Kate's words are the end-all and be-all of understanding
her work.

Honky With an Attitude,

|>oug