MisK. (mainly more on the :>oug/IED debate)

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (IED)
 Subject: MisK. (mainly more on the :>oug/IED debate)

     First, a big thankyou to Ed Simpson for re-printing that section
from the EMI _Never_For_Ever_ interview on _Babooshka_. Good timing.
     Last, this increasingly tedious argument with :>oug. IED promises
this will be his final say on the subject--even if :>oug makes another
annoying attempt to rebut. For his own blood-pressure's sake, and for
the sake of all other Love-Hounds' nerves, IED will make this his last
contribution to the tiff, even though he anticipates more nonsense from
:>oug tomorrow, and it will be hard to let it slide.
     Spelling someone's name is not like spelling "antidisestablishment-
arianism" or something, :>oug. Especially when the name is only four
letters long. And dyslexia doesn't come into it, since you clearly never
noticed that there's no "s" _pronounced_ in Mill's name. IED made this
--by his standards extremely rare--mention of a spelling error on your
part because you dared to claim that Mill somehow supports your dubious
ethical stance regarding the illegal copying of unauthorized music.
Since IED happens to admire Mill greatly, and has read a _lot_ of
his work, he took umbrage at this liberty on your part. It's likely
that Mill would _not_ have supported you in your present position. He
made nearly _constant_ qualifications of his general definitions of
the common good or interest of the majority, and you ought to know it
before you go dragooning him into your shady forensic forces. IED
admits that he was also annoyed by this mention of Mill because Mill
is one of the supreme stylists in English literature, in IED's opinion,
and it was annoying to see his name not only bandied about unfairly in
one of your (by your own admission) hastily dashed-off texts, but
misspelled into the bargain. IED therefore sends his sincere apologies
for his lack of restraint. The next time he sees you abusing
the English language (and important people's names) and then trying to
justify your lack of care and effort as some kind of laudable avoidance
of "pointless endeavors" while simultaneously claiming "slight" dyslexia,
he'll try to ignore it just as he usually does, and will content him-
self with the knowledge that at least IED tries harder. He will also
ignore your beloved crutch against owning up to the fault of bad
English and inept spelling: namely the utterly specious argument that
an attention to details of language reflects a weakness of intellectual
potency, rather than quite simply an attention to details of language!

 > Furthermore, for one who does not spell my name correctly
 > to my own face, you should talk!

     As you well know, :>oug, since IED and at least one other
Love-Hound has told you this more than once before, the "misspelling"
you refer to stems from a keyboard problem, and is not (at least not
lately) intentional. Furthermore, one could easily turn this
point back on you by noting that for someone who fusses so unreasonably
about readers' occasional failure to use the right hieroglyphs to
produce your Love-Hounds moniker to your satisfaction, you sound pretty
small claiming that IED's objections on Mill's behalf are petty.

 > Utilitarianism says roughly...

     Exactly. That's why IED said it was a stretch for you to claim
_Mill_ as a backer of your flimsy moral principles. Your Cliff Notes
definition of Utilitarianism may lead you to think "it says roughly"
what you claim. But John Stuart Mill never said anything roughly, least
of all what "Utilitarianism" means.

 >>     Now, on to the interpretation argument. :>oug and IED have a
 >>fundamental disagreement on this question. :>oug takes the "modern"
 >>view that the "received" meaning has equal or--at least in :>oug's
 >>view as he expressed it to Kate herself in 1985--greater credibility
 >>than the "intended" one.
 >
 >First of all Andy, it really bugs me that you continually insist on
 >criticizing my beliefs of the past...

     IED has not been doing so. If you'll take the time to _read_ the
above statement, :>oug, you'll see that IED is referring to your present
claim that the "received" meaning can have a validity "equal" to the
"intended" one. This is what you said yourself not four days ago! IED
was careful, in the above statement, to distinguish your present claim
from your claim of 1985. The "or" and the dashes are eminently clear.
If, on the other hand, IED feels it worth the Love-Hounds' while not
to forget some of the more astounding positions you have held in the
past while simultaneously addressing those which you hold in the
present, he does not see how that affects the strength of his
arguments.
     As for your denial that you have ever believed that "received"
meaning has greater credibility than the intended one--it is dis-
ingenuous. Your statement in 1985, addressed to Kate Bush herself, that
her own denial that she intended the meaning which you received
could still be rejected on the grounds that she may have intended it
unconsciously, demonstrates exactly the kind of arrogant attitude which
IED attributed to you. In IED's opinion anyone who could say such a thing
to Kate after having heard the answer she gave is unquestionably someone
who holds his own "received" meanings in such high regard that even
their direct invalidation by the artist cannot shake his faith in them.
That is tangible proof of your position (at least circa 1985) that
your received meaning was more valid than Kate's intended one. You
may not see it that way. IED can't help that.

 >>     Your lengthy quote from John Carder Bush's letter (already
 >>well remembered by IED) is a very interesting explanation--of John
 >>Carder Bush's opinions. They quite obviously stand in conflict with
 >>the statements Kate herself made to your face, :>oug.
 >
 >   No they don't, Mr. Mavick.  As Kate has said many times, not just to
 >me, "the interpretations that people have of your songs are nothing to
 >do with me anyway.  I think it's up to them to get what they can out
 >of the song".  This statement by Kate doesn't go to the religious
 >extent that John Carder Bush's statements do, but they are not
 >inconsistent with John Carder Bush's either.

     This is why our arguments go round and round without resolution,
:>oug: because you _never_read_carefully_! IED already explained very
directly, and in very simple language, the facts about this little
quotation you love to pull out. Only two days ago, IED wrote:
     "IED is naturally as aware of this statement of Kate's as you are,
Doug. In fact, it's clear he has considered it more carefully than you. For
what Kate said to you was that it's up to the listener to get what
they can out of the song. She did _not_ say that what they can get
out the song was _valid_ or _relevant_ to her own artistic intentions--
on the contrary, she is clearly implying that she won't _mind_
whether people develop their own ideas about the meanings of her songs
_even_ if they should be irrelevant to her own intended meaning."
     And this is _quite_ different from what John Carder Bush wrote
to you in the letter. _He_ said that such interpretations were,
in their way, "correct". _Kate_ said _nothing_of_the_kind_. Are
you utterly incapable of reading English, :>oug?
     This brings us to your complaint that IED posted too much
of your interview. IED agrees! But the point of his posting was to
demonstrate two things: first, that in each of the four supplementary
excerpts Kate went out of her way _explicitly_to_deny_ the validity
of your "received" meaning. IED apparently over-estimated your
attention span when he followed the excerpts with the simple comment
that "no further comment is needed". Clearly you needed a more direct
explanation. The other thing IED's re-posting of those excerpts
demonstrated was that your "interview"--and well over three-fourths
of the lines which IED posted from it the other day--consisted not of
Kate's intended meanings at all, but only of your "received" ones.
The astounding length of time you spent lecturing Kate about what her
own songs were "really" about is further clear evidence, in IED's view,
that, at least in 1985, you did indeed consider your "received"
meaning to be more important than Kate's "intended" one.
     Also, IED posted the entire section about _There_Goes_a_Tenner_,
rather than your simple quotation--entirely out of context--about it
being "up to everyone to get what they can out of it"--precisely
because your abbreviated citation misleads the readers about what
Kate is trying to say. Here, _once_again_, is what was _really_said_:
     :>oug: ...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?"
     Kate: "Yes, I would deny it."
     Doug: "You would?"
     Kate: "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."
     Doug: "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?"
     Kate: "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."
    Doug: "Okay. That seems reasonable. Maybe it was all
subconscious. It seems so perfect to me. I dunno."

     IED shouldn't have to point this out, but for the record, it's
obvious that Kate _strongly_ disagreed with your interpretation of
that song. She almost _never_ denies someone's point, yet in this
case she feels compelled to do so more than once, and in very direct
language. Then, after rejecting your idea as soundly as she has ever
rejected _anyone's_ idea in public _anywhere_, she adds the very mild
qualification to the effect that "everyone's entitled to their own
opinion". And it is _this_ bone she threw you at the _end_ of the
exchange which you have tried to use out of context to your advantage.
     And _now_ you have tried to ignore the above evidence of what Kate
meant when she made that statement, by referring to "many other"
interviews in which she said the same thing. Well, IED recalls two or
three other occasions (at most) in which she has said that she doesn't
_mind_ when other people's interpretations differ from her own
intentions. This, again--and IED apologizes if he failed to make
this clear enough for you the first time--is not the same
position which John Carder Bush describes in his letter to you.
Kate has _never_ (to IED's knowledge) said "Yes, people's received
meanings, even when contradictory with my intended ones, can be as valid
as mine" (or words to that effect). She came close to saying _something_
like that on two occasions, as far as IED can remember, but in both cases
it was _she_ who _volunteered_ the idea that it might have been an
unconscious intention on her part. And she was speaking of specific and
isolated instances about individual images, _not_ of her work in a
general sense, or of art itself in a general sense, as JCB was doing. In
the _Hot_Press_ interview (November 1985), when the interviewer pressed
her on what he saw as cocaine imagery in _And_Dream_of_Sheep_, the
conversation went as follows:

    Q: Obviously on one level _The_Ninth_Wave_ is about somebody
nearly drowning. But I was struck by images which suggested that there
could be drugs involved. There's the line in _And_Dream_of_Sleep_ <sic>:
"I can't be left to my imagination/Let me be weak..."
And then there's the mention of poppies.
    A: "Definitely there is the connection, with the poppies. That
imagery wasn't really meant to be drug-orientated, but when you
think of poppies you automatically get that sense of terrible
drowsiness, and I suppose you do connect it to opium."
    Q: Then in _The_Ice_Song_ <sic> there is the reference to "making
<sic> lines, little lines," which can obviously be interpreted in those
terms. There's also a connection in snow and pervasive _whiteness_.
     A: "Yes, absolutely. But really it wasn't conscious when I was
writing it, and it was only a few weeks before we finished the album
that people said, 'God, have you looked at this: "Cutting little lines,"'
and I had really not consciously considered that at all.
I mean, the whole thing is about skaters cutting ice, and leaving
tracks instead of footprints. And it's cold and empty. For me,
the ultimate loneliness is not a complete wasteland, but for it to
be completely frozen. It was _that_ imagery more than a drug-based
one. But you are right..."

     Those last words are, in IED's opinion, the truly telling ones.
"It was _that_ imagery _more_than_ a drug-based one. But you are
right..." This is the way Kate nearly always expresses her disagreement
with someone. She starts by saying, "Yes, in a way," then immediately
points out that she actually thinks quite differently about it, and
finally concludes with a nice polite phrase to the effect that she
doesn't mean to disagree with the other person's idea after all. This
pattern is very, very common in Kate's interviews. It's just her way
of disagreeing politely. Yet in _your_ case, :>oug, Kate is _much_
more positive in her denials. She rejects your ideas--nearly _all_
of them--outright, beginning with the very first song you discuss. The
way IED reads the excerpt from _Hot_Press_, the interviewer really
wouldn't be able honestly to use Kate's reply to his theory about
drug imagery as a confirmation of it. Kate was merely acknowledging
the possibility, while simultaneously trying to emphasize that the
_main_, _important_, meaning of the songs was quite different.
     In _your_ case, she is even _more_ strict with her words of
toleration. It is _completely_ disingenuous of you to use that bone
she tossed at the end of her answer as proof that she _accepted_ the
validity of your ideas.
     The only other such case IED can remember is in the second Daniel
Richler interview (November 1985), done for Canadian TV during her promo-
tional tour of North America. In it Richler alerted her to the co-
incidence of the girl-in-water imagery in Millais's _Ophelia_, her
own painting (_The_Hogsmill_Ophelia_), and the back cover of _Hounds_
of_Love_. Kate readily agreed that there "must" have been some
unconscious connection on her part, even though it was quite
unintentional, as far as she had been aware at the time.
     In both cases, however, Kate was _volunteering_ the possibility
of unconscious motivation on her part for the meanings of _specific_
images, and in so doing was accepting a received meaning which she
had not consciously intended. IED doesn't see how this in any way
indicates that Kate therefore somehow credits _all_ "received"
meanings of her work as having a "validity" "equal" to either each
other or to her own _intended_ meaning. On the contrary, her eagerness
to concede the validity of these two isolated interpretations shows
that the question of "received" meanings in her works is of great
concern to her, and one which she judges with some hesitation and
mixed feelings.

> _The statement which you ascribe to Kate [refering to "Night of the
> Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow"] is so unlike her, is so
 >>unlike her, is so uncharacteristic, that IED doesn't feel it to be
 >>unreasonable of him to ask you to support or withdraw the citation.
 >
 >   It's not unlike her at all.  It's quite within her character.  Kate
 >has made many sexual allusions over the years.  Are you really trying
 >to convince anyone that the same woman who sings "I'm living in that
 >evening with that feeling of sticky love inside", "But some night,
 >she'll run back in fright if she picks on a Dick that's to big for her
 >pride", and "The sheets are stained with your tiny fish", would be out
 >of character if she said "Nice to Swallow"?  Get real.

     This is incredible! :>oug, IED finds it frankly unbelievable that
you can really be incapable of perceiving the difference in tone and
humor between the vulgar self-mockery implied in the phrase "Nice to
Swallow" and the extraordinarily frank, unsatirical, and openly poetic
expressions referring to sex in her songs proper. You just _couldn't_
be quite _that_ insensitive to the meanings of English words. This is
just _too_ ridiculous.

-- Andrew Marvick