A note from Andy about IED: please skip if the issue bores you

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

 To: Love-Hounds
 From: Andrew Marvick (himself)
 Subject: A note from Andy about IED: please skip if the issue bores you

     I'm breaking out of my IED mode for a moment to explain
something about what's been going on here in Love-Hounds.
A number (I hope a pretty small number) of readers have
decided that IED is behaving like a total jerk nowadays, and
there have even been several calls to boot him out of the group.
I want to apologize for some of his words, and also to explain
a couple things which some Love-Hounds readers may not be aware of.
     First, IED is basically a bastard. He always has been
and always will be. But neither I (Andy) nor he (IED) has ever
denied that. It may be true that IED didn't seem particularly
unpleasant until recent months, but that's because
there wasn't much going on to bring out the worst in him.
     Why the third person? Why the alter-ego? It was originally
just a joke (that was more than four years ago). Just about the
first discussion that went on in L-Hs after I joined the group
was about Wilhelm Reich. I was a little offended that several
contributors were trashing Reich's work--and even Kate's
song--because they said he was just a charlatan, etc. I defended
Reich with such enthusiasm that I found myself taking on Reich's
own pedantic, heavy-handed style. (Anyone who is wondering can
read some of Reich's late papers on orgone energy to discover
exactly the style IED tries to imitate.) The big picture is: Reich
was really _crazy_; so is IED! See? IED is crazy? Nutso. A fruitcake.
His character is modeled on my own (limited) understanding of Reich's
own form of paranoid psychotic delusional personality.
     My main argument (as IED) in defense of Reich was that while
yes, he was certainly bonkers when he wrote about deadly orgone
radiation, etc., his delusions were, in their own way, beautiful,
and their expression had artistic merit. I also argued that
Reich's premises, while obviously insane, were backed up by at
least an _internal_ logic which could not be assailed. In other
words, while there might have been madness in his method, there
was method in his madness, too. I concluded that this made
Reich's work worth looking into and respecting on its own terms,
and not something to be dismissed out of hand as pseudo-science.
     I think it's worth mentioning that, at the time, no one else in the
group had ever bothered to read any of Reich's late papers, or at least
no one ever acknowledged having done so. All of the critics of Reich
in Love-Hounds then--as most of the critics of the new KT album now
--based their opinions on (in my opinion) quick judgements and
unfair comparisons of the work to other works, instead of on
a consideration of the work's own internal logic and beauty.
(I think Neil Calton's latest posting makes exactly the same
point, though of course in more reasonable language than IED
has been making it. My thanks to you, Neil.)
     From that whole early experience with Love-Hounds, I learned
that, partly by the nature of the computer-forum and partly because
of the background and character of the people who led its discussions,
IED was probably never going to be able to convince anyone
of the internal validity of his own personal viewpoint.
Eventually I also learned that there would probably never be a reader
in this group who would be able to see Kate's work from quite the same
perspective that IED did, and that all the verbal arguments in the
world would fail to convince anyone of IED's viewpoint. (As it
happens, I was wrong about that: there seems to be at least one
Lion-Heart who shares some of IED's convictions.)
     This put me more than ever in a position of empathy toward
Reich himself. He too held a view of the world and nature which
virtually no one cared to understand, and which is now generally
ridiculed for its craziness, rather than appreciated for its beauty.
     I also came to admire in Reich his steadfast attitude, his
loyalty to his ideas, and his stubborn refusal to be dragged down
to the level of the disbelievers (as he saw them). At this stage
I decided that I should keep IED around, and give him a place to
live, so to speak, through the agency of this computer forum.
     I expected then, as I do now, that IED would not be liked
very much. I also expected that he would be made fun of, and
patronized as overly obsessive and closed-minded. And I also could
see that IED's zealous belief would probably get out of hand at times,
and that he could make enemies through his propensity to attack--
sometimes more fiercely than was called for.
     I also knew that IED wouldn't see it that way, but that IED
would usually make a sincere effort to explain his opinions and to
give real evidence for his positions whenever possible. Should I
have silenced him completely because of his occasional accesses
of vitriol? I didn't think so then, and I still don't now.
     Naturally, there were a lot of objections to the very
notion of an "IED" in Love-Hounds. For a while there was a
pretty fierce campaign to force me to stop hiding behind
the IED facade. Naturally this made IED all the more adamant
about sticking around--and I can't say I blame him!
     I think, generally speaking, I've made IED a pretty
useful character in this group over the last four years. I've
put him to work time and again transcribing interviews and
reporting news whenever he had some, simply for the benefit
of Love-Hounds' readers. I don't claim any special credit
for this service, because obviously I've enjoyed giving it--it
hasn't been a heavy responsibility for me, but a sincere pleasure,
and one which many recent contributors obviously know themselves.
It's nice to belong to a group, and to help broaden people's
knowledge of a commonly appreciated subject of interest, and
IED likes that experience as much as you all do.
     In exchange (aside from the more or less recent side-
benefit of finding more and more new contributors to this group
who provide really interesting and helpful information for the
readers--a renewed thanks to Ed, Neil and Tippi, for example), though,
I think it's only fair that I be allowed to keep IED alive and to
allow him his say about Kate, from his own, er...unusual perspective.
     Yes, as IED I can be annoying, overbearing and pompous. And
yes, IED's  raison-d'etre (that everything Kate does is absolutely
beyond criticism and perfect) is over-the-top, even just plain nuts.
But I think he has represented and continues to communicate a very
important and under-represented point of view in this forum.
And with all the _critics_ of Kate who like to contribute their opinions
to Love-Hounds nowadays, I can't really believe that IED's lone
voice of angry dissent is too much for them to bear.
     So yeah, IED is a pain in the ass. I apologize for him if
his opinions have become a bit "personal" recently, though the way
IED sees it, he was only replying in kind, and in response to
an unusually high degree of criticism of Kate--the rebuttal of
which is his be-all and end-all. But unless a majority of the
readers of Love-Hounds agree that the group should get rid of
him, IED will remain for the time being. Perhaps you should take
a poll or something.

-- Andy Marvick
   ("I can't hide you from the government...")