Suspended in "Suspended in Gaffa"

[nessus@mit.edu (Douglas Alan)]

> From: chrisw@wwa.com (Chris Williams)

>   ...this is the same place where Kate replied, to the question:
>   "What sort of makeup do you use?"
>   with
>   "I don't use makeup anymore! I use latex."

I don't get your point, Chris.  Are you saying that if Kate makes a
joke in one place in a publication then everything she says in the
same publication must be a joke?

You also don't seem to see that there's a big difference between the
two replies.  First of all, since the question about makeup is no
one's business, a serious answer is not warranted.  Secondly, Kate's
answer to the makeup question is clearly absurd and funny, while
Kate's answer about what Gaffa is is neither absurd nor funny.
Thirdly, in Kate's answer to what Gaffa is, Kate continues on past her
description of gaffer's tape on to what is unarguably a serious
description of the song's meaning.  Would it make sense to segue from
a joke to serious discussion without any transition whatsoever?  No,
it wouldn't make any sense!  Give Kate some credit.  She is much more
competent that this.

Let's imagine what a real joke put on the beggining of Kate's answer
might look like:

     Q: What is Gaffa?

     A: "Gaffa" is a brand of latex.  I've given up on using makeup
     and now I use Gaffa brand latex on my face instead.  Suspended in
     Gaffa is trying to simulate being trapped in latex: everything is
     in slow motion, and the person feels like they're bound up. They
     can't move. Defeat.

Would such an answer make any sense?  Would it make sense to
transition like this from a joke to a serious discussion?  No, it
wouldn't.  Kate has a lot of sense, and it doesn't seem reasonable to
assume, as you do Chris, that Kate did such a ridiculous thing.

> Kate is a musician, singer and songwriter. She would be a miserable
> comedian. Her joke telling ability is right up there with the Prince
> Charles. *Many* of her jokes are not especially funny, and the ones
> are tend to be fairly obscure (like the US _Rubberband Girl_ and
> _Love and Anger_. videos.) 

I guess the difference between us, Chris, is that *I* think that Kate
has a fine sense of humour.  I find her jokes funny, and therefore I
*can* tell when she is joking and when she is not.

>> Ignore what?

> The fact that the "gaffa tape" explanation appeared long after the
> far more involved "purgatory" explanation. Coupled with the *many*
> perfectly reasonable puns that exist on the word "gaff."

Perhaps you might concede, Chris, that we haven't ignored this, but
rather that we have a different and less sinister interpretation than
that Kate is trying to lead her fans astray.

As far as I know, no one ever even *asked* Kate what Gaffa is before
her answer in the Kate Bush Club newsletter (the publication where one
would think it most important for Kate to take question about her
songs seriously).  They asked her a *very* different question: they
asked her what the song *means*.  The two questions are quite
different.  The *meaning* of "Suspended in Gaffa" has very little to
do with gaffer's tape, and thus there was no need for Kate to bring up
the subject when asked about the meaning of the song.  Gaffer's tape
is used as a *metaphor*.  What is symbolized by the metaphor is much
of the meaning of the song.  The metaphor itself is tangential; it is
just a means to evoke that meaning.  In earlier interviews Kate talked
only about the meaning of the song, not about her use of metaphors to
evoke this meaning.

There are a number of other metaphors in the song, none of which Kate
has ever talked about either.  What is this story line about busting
through walls and things buried in the garden?  As far as I know, Kate
has never said a peep about this.  Maybe someday she will tell us
more, and when this day comes, will you say, Chris, that Kate must be
joking because otherwise she would have told us earlier?

> Apparently discussion is no longer encouraged on rec.music.gaffa.

Apparently so.  For example, if I try to discuss what I think about
the song "Suspended in Gaffa", Chris Williams says he's going to take
his ball and go home.

> Sorry, |>oug. No, you did not ask Kate if "Night of the Swallow" was
> about fellatio. No, instead you misinterpeted Kate saying "Night of
> the Swallow" as "...nice to swallow..." and defending this very
> vocally in love-hounds. You also, as I recall, insisted that Kate
> was using some word related to feces, rather than her own invention
> "audiully."

Chris, you gotta lay off that cough syrup.  I've never heard Kate say
either "Night of the Swallow" or "nice to swallow" and I certainly
never tried to convince anyone I had.  I also never "insisted" that
Kate said "ordurely", I merely *stated* it once in passing (many years
ago now).  If I misheard Kate, then I apologize.  Mea culpa.  Since
the topic of discussion with Kate was mules, who are known for
producing vast quantities of ordure, and since there is no such word
as "audial", I hope that I can be forgiven for this possible minor and
long-past transgression.

Also, I'm not sure what it is you want to accomplish by your ad
hominem attacks.  Is this your way of encouraging discussion?  I would
think that sticking to the topic under discussion would be a better
way to do this.

|>oug