Re: "Lily" and religious references

[smc@gandalf.rutgers.edu (kirke)]

chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (chris williams) writes:


>Chris here,

>Well, as I stated, there have been a number of people posting some
>fairly involved descriptions of the "ritual", and not one of them has
>added one iota of new actual information or worthwhile analysis
>of the *song*.
>It's just "believers" taking the opportunity to post about their
>beliefs, (one of which is that Kate must *share* their belief.)

>Jean Devitt Kirwin:
>> Granted, there is some debate on whether Kate actually believes
>> in this so called 'bullshit' or not.... personally, being very
>> well read on the subject, there isn't a doubt in my mind that
>> Kate has most certainly dabbled in the arts of the white witch..
>> or the 'wiccan' as many prefer to say, in avoidance of malicious
>> retribution.  When I heard the song, I was thrilled!! There isn't
>> a doubt in my mind... of course, those of you who know nothing
>> about the topic will continue to wrestle with the thought...

>   It is no "proof" at all.
>  
>   Kate wrote _Cloudbusting_, and we cannot claim that she believes
>in orgone energy.

>   Kate wrote _Them Heavy People_, and we cannot claim that she
>is a follower of Gurdjeff.

>   Kate wrote _Coffee Homeground_, and there is no proof that she
>ever poisoned anyone.

>   Kate wrote _Pull Out The Pin_, and she is not (to my knowledge)
>a Viet Cong. 

>   Kate is a *writer* who create fictional characters who do and
>believe things that she doesn't. I think it's fairly obvious
>that I don't need to explain the difference between fiction and
>reality. 

>> But then again... this all may be just too far out for most
>> of the group readers to accept, so I apologize if I have
>> offended anyone's beliefs or pre-conceptions about Kate and
>> what she REALLY belives in....

>   You have no more proof of what she does or does not believe
>than your own desire to have her believe the same as you do.
>To date, we know these two facts: Kate was confirmed as a 
>Catholic and she has some level of belief in the "paranormal."
>(Nobody's perfect.) Everything else is conjecture.

>    Jean believes that the presence of this "proves" that Kate 
>is a Wiccan, but the next post on my system proves... 

>> If anybody can answer this quiestion for me I would greatly appreciate
>>it. In the song "Lilly," Kate refernces the angels Gabriel, Raphael, Michael,
>>and Uriel. This is very similar to the prayer found in the Jewish prayer called
>>the "Night Prayer" which reads "...may Michael be at my right hand, and Gabriel
>>at my left, before me Uriel, behind me Raphael..." The only difference in
>>Kate's lyrics is that she transposed the "directions" of Gabriel and Uriel.
>>Does anyone know the origin of where this cam from??? My prayer book gives no
>>clue, and the only thing I know about is that they were angels. 

>..that Kate is actually Jewish! (Boy, will Ed Suranyi be happy.)

> 

>                          Chris Williams of
>                             Chris'n'Vickie of Chicago
>                               chrisw@fciad2.bsd.uchicago.edu (his)
>                                 vickie@njin.rutgers.edu      (hers)
>                                   katefans@chinet.chinet.com (ours)



	Chris,  I disagree with your contention that examination of the
sources from which Kate Bush may have drawn her material is irrelevant,
and I think that you are personally uncomfortable with it, thus motivating
your responses.  Whenever I try to analyze a song, a paper, or a poem, I generally look for the sources from which the material may have come.  It often
provides clues as to the intent and meaning of the work, and it invokes
symbols which may have been part of the intent of the artist.  Kate Bush is
known for her tendency to refer to literature, etc., in her works.  It makes
good sense to examine her sources.
	The Jewish prayer to which you refer comes from the same mystical
tradition which gave birth to ceremonial magic and modern-day Wicca: 
Jewish Qabalistic thought.  All the forms of invoking the quarters/guardians
do the same thing: surround the individual with powerful, primal protective
forces.  Whether this is cast in terms of Jewish, Christian or Wiccan belief,
the intent is to seek magical protection and to commune with beings that
are wiser than one's self.  This is clearly very relevant to 'Lily," in
which Kate is singing of her fear and despair, and turning to a loved one, a trusted one, for help.  This person could be a witch, a Jewish mystic, or a
ceremonial magician, or just an occultist drawing on what works from various
paradigms.  Kate herself may fit into any of these categories.
	As well as suggesting that the person (Jean) who posted previously
about the possibility of Kate's being Wiccan (ah, the dreaded run-on sentence!) is a fool, you suggested that she had contributed nothing to the discussion
about the song and that she was merely prosyletizing.  When I read the post
I noted that she suggests that the circumstances of Kate's life may have led
her to this use of a magical rite/spell.  That's clearly supported by the
song, and if you bother to look at tyhe Banishing Ritual, you find it
further supported.  Note that she refers to protection with a circle of fire...this is a reference to the fiery flaming pentagrams of the ritual, I believe.
[See my other post on Lily].  Thus, examination of a possible source leads
to one possible point of lyrical analysis.
	I also see no harm in Jean's statement that she believs Kate to be Wiccan.  She might be.  We don't know.  Since her lyrics suggest it as one
possibility, that is a perfectly logical hypothesis.  You are simply being unreasonable.  If you are uncomfortable with kate's use of magical/spiritual
references, don't read posts about them, and certainlty don't attempt tp to
derail or suppress discussion about them.  Your problems with the subject
may prevent you from analysis and discussion of the magical elements of
her work, but they don't impede the rest of us.  No one would suggest that
discussion of the Christian elements in say, faulkner's works is foolish,
nor that the suggestion that he could have been Christian, based on passages from -A Rose For Emily_ is the equivalent of proselytizing, even if the critc
was Christian.  Likewise, no one would be foolish enough to say that even
discussing those elements in terms of Biblical sources was pointless.

							kirke
							smc@gandalf.rutgers.edu