Interpreting the Word of Kate

[IEDSRI@aol.com]

The recent exchange of opinions about what is an acceptable interpretation of
the 
"meaning" of Kate's lyrics and what is not prompts IED to try to find a happy

middle ground.  By nature he wants to agree fervently with the (fervent)
opinion
of Sam, and say that really only Kate's own intended meaning is "correct";
that our
own alternative meanings have, at best, secondary value.  In principle this
is certainly true; but in practise, can such an "official" meaning every
really be arrived at?  As the last twenty years of discourse in literary
criticism (and every other branch of the humanities) has made undeniably
clear (and as Robb just said in reply to Sam), all meaning conveyed through
words can only take shape through its interpretation by the reader (or
listener).  Furthermore, as Robb has just pointed out, there are not only the
unintentional (though inevitable) ambiguities associated with all words to
take into account, but also the ambiguities of meaning which Kate herself
intended her work to carry (an intention which, by the way, she has set about
realizing more deliberately -- and more intelligently -- than any other pop
songwriter that IED knows of).

There are several dangers in assuming that only those readings which Kate
herself 
has explicitly endorsed are "valid".  First, where will Kate Bush endorse
these
readings?  In interviews -- simply more groups of Kate's words (and, in the
case of printed interviews, even this is sometimes doubtful), themselves
therefore subject to readings (and misreadings, to be sure).  Second, Kate's
responses to profferred interpretations of her own songs are more often than
not tempered by a characteristic sweetness and openmindedness (or at least
the appearance of such) which can sometimes result in an ambiguity about the
very question whether she has or has not endorsed a given reading, even when
she has acknowledged its existence.  Third, Kate herself seems to be writing
in a way that invites -- within reasonable limits -- a variety of
interpretations, thus making an express vote of approval by her of one
reading less than an implicit rejection by her of any or all other readings.
 And fourth, if only her own "official" explications-de-textes are
acceptable, what are we to do in the case of those songs about which she has
yet to make any explanatory comment?  There are many songs about which Kate
has still said not a word -- may we therefore legitimately say nothing at all
about these?

The answer is continued dialogue and the free exchange of ideas!  In this way
we can 
all benefit from well-founded and enlightening new readings, and reject the
badly
reasoned and absurd ones.  To wit:        

There has been a recent thread about "Under Ice" and drugs:  an interviewer
made 
the same connection once, ca. 1986, and asked (or rather told) Kate about it.
 In 
her usual polite way, she made it quite clear that whatever connections
existed
between this song's imagery ("cutting little lines", etc.) existed in the
listener's
head, not in hers.  She did not exactly say "You're wrong!"; but she *seemed
to give
the impression* that she thought the idea rather far-fetched, and certainly
unintended.
Given the fact that the lyrics clearly refer explicitly to the scene on the
ice, and only very awkwardly accomodate a reading of cocaine imagery (not to
say inappropriately, since cocaine carries a very different meaning than
opium), it seems 
more reasonable to reject such a reading than to accept it.  

Now, the reference to "like poppies heavy with seed" in "And Dream of Sheep"
is obviously another matter:  here it would be just as far-fetched to suggest
that there is no intentional reference to the soporific effects of opiates.
 Indeed, we don't really even require Kate's explicit agreement in order to
draw the conclusion that this line is an implicit reference to drugs.  But it
would be absurd, again, to go further and theorize that the use of this
simile was a coded admission that the heroine of "The Ninth Wave" -- or by
extension, Kate -- was an opium-eater or a heroin addict.
In short, let's keep up the fine discussion, but use our common sense.

-- Andrew Marvick (IED)
   S        R         I