Re: The 9th wave and its interpretation

[Stan Yunick <s-yunick@uiuc.edu>]

I'm a bit of a lurker around here, but I couldn't let this one slide!

The only meaning is Kate's meaning--any other
> "meaning" we may find may be more appropriately referred to as "implication"
> or "significance".  There can only be one meaning to any written or spoken
> word--and that is the meaning the "author" intended to convey.  Any
> interpretation that does not arrive at the true meaning of Kate's message, is
> therefore, a mis-interpretation.  This is basic Hermeneutics 101 and Literary
> Criticism 101.  So, it seems only logical to me, that all the people who are
> discussing their various interpretations cannot all be right.


I firmly disagree.  Having some background in Criticism and in
Linguistics, I can't let this oversimplification remain unchallenged.

But I don't want to bore people so I'll keep it short and sweet.

There is no perfect fit between language and intention, ever.  There are
always layers of things we can see in language that can give rise to
possible interpretations.  (Though I would agree that some
interpretations can be ruled out.)

Normally the way we choose an interpretation depends on the CONTEXT of
use.  (That is, the situation, not just the other words in the text.)  
In reading or listening to something, especially ART, as Kate's music
is, the reader or listener RECONTEXTUALIZES it.  This is normal and
unavoidable.  And most art is DELIBERATELY ambiguous and filled with
conflicting and competing themes to stimilate people to have layers of
reflection on it!

SO, in short:  FOOEY!  We can have more than one interpretation of Kate,
and she probably designed the music to be that way!  


Stan