No Subject

[mikael.jakonen@mailbox.swipnet.se (Mikael Jakonen)]

 K Bacon <s340090@student.uq.edu.au> writes:

>If a writer (or listener) doesn't like the way a song is interpreted, then
>too bad...you can't control what others feel and think about a specific song.  

You are certainly right about that. I can only whish that my listeners 
interpret the song as I intended it to, and by what means could I do
otherwise? It would be foolish of me to say "Here's how you should 
interpret my song...". But hasn't Kate herself said that her inspiration
originated in the Reich-story? That's as close as you can get.


>I disagree with the second part of this.  You are saying that I am likely to
>"incorporate" my feelings into my judgements - of course I am (thus I agree
>with your first part of the statement).  However, in the second part, you
>are arguing against yourself...*of course* you have to be aware of
>homophobia (or sexism etc.) to notice it in the first place!!  Do you expect
>people who are unaware about the subtle influence of homophobia to actually
>pick it up!?!  It HAS to be people like me, who look out for these type of
>issues, to comment on them.  Consider the statement "I don't say something,
>who will??".  

You got me there... Actually, I too tend to be someone who speak up
when no one else has the courage to do so. Well, not all the time,
but most. I'll get to a point in my forthcoming reply to Squidley.


>>I don't believe any of the postings in this subject are homophobical,
>>other than in your view, Kim.
>>Being homophobic is bad, but you should be careful when
>>labelling people. Being anti-homophobic could be just as bad.
>
>Obviously I can apply the reverse to you!  You said above that I noticed it
>because of my 'important' views...well I'm saying that you *didn't* notice
>it because you AREN'T as aware of the problem.  There's no way that I'd
>possiblity agree that being 'anti-homophobic' (ie. not believing in treating
>gay people equally) could be as bad as being homophobic.  

Hmm. There seems to be a missunderstanding here. And fortunatly it
originates in my limited knowledge in English. Please do not be misguided
by my eloquence, English is NOT my native language, and thus subject
to error from time to time.

I used 'anti-homomphobic' when I should have used another term.
Perhaps 'contra-homophobic'? 
I included the 'I-was-looking-for-demons-where-there-wasn't-any' story
to reinforce my point, being that if you go out of your way looking
for homophobia, you might end up finding it, true or not.

>Some of these
>posts ARE implicitly homophobic...check your email for the one sent by 'Dan
>the Kitti man' on Oct 7, where he totally rubbishes and ridicules even the
>concept of someone interpreting the song as 'coming out' (of the closet).
>His words were 'unfuckingbelievable'.  Do you (and 'Dan' for that matter)
>think that we have to feel exactly the same about a song as YOU do?  

I never stopped once while reading 'Dan the Kitti man' to even concider
if he was for real. Someone writing 'unfuckingbelievable' is definitly
NOT worth to be taken seriously IMO.
And I do not think that we need to feel exactly the same about a song.
I'm sorry if I lead you to believe I did.

>I stand
>firmly by my view that if someone wants to imagine that it relates to being
>gay, or about growing up, or about their own relationship with a father/care
>giver, or coming out of prison (as I said before, I also sometimes think
>that 'Cloudbusting' refers closely to the Guildford Four (In the Name of the
>Father)) then that's totally normal, and should be encouraged.  

An interesting notion. Hadn't it been for the title and my prior 
knowledge of the Reich-story, I whould have accepted the Guildford Four 
as probable inspiration for Cloudbusting. I have seen "In the Name of
the Father" and I was deeply angered as well as touched by the story.

>Well...I know what you mean, but I still think it is becoming a game of
>semantics.  Look at Cloudbusting itself - it is NOT a specific song and
>gives very few details about the background of the song.  Therefore, is it
>really telling a story?  A specific story??  Even if you read between the
>lines, it would be highly unlikely that a listener could guess what
>'Cloudbusting' is about, and what Kate was thinking.  

That's why I belive Kate told us (I can't access Gaffaweb at the time
to confirm) about her source of inspiration. Why else bother to call
one of the singles "orgonon mix"?

>        I feel the essential point that you have missed, is that every
>individual still interprets the 'telling' of a story differently (before you
>even get to the 'means to me' stage!!).  This is proven in psychology...

I'm not into psychology enough to argue with you, on the contrary,
I have to agree that no event has a single true interpretation.

>Thanking all for taking the time to read my views :))
>Kim




From: "squidly" <squidly@clara.net> who writes:

>> This is what I meant: I think the original writer of the question was 
>> obviously preoccupied with thoughts about homosexuality, and thus 
>> came up with the idea that "son's coming out" was a reference that. 
>
>I'm sorry but this is *REALLY* patronising!  You seem to be making the
>(somewhat dangerous) assumption that all gay men and women evr think about
>is shagging and things queer.  While I'll admit that being gay HAS coloured
>who I am and how I behave - how could it not when I'm under a constant
>barrage of homophobia - I have more to my life than who's going to be
>sitting on my face tonight or whether there are gay messages coming out of
>the woodwork.   (ooh a flower! it CAME OUT of the ground!  It MUST be a GAY
>flower!!!  Get a grip for gods sake!)

I figured this was bound to happen, though I did not whish it.
Squidly, you end your letter with these words:

>"When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean, neither more nor
>less"
>Humpty Dumpty

When I wrote "preoccupied with thoughts about homosexuality" I though
it was clear that I did not mean gay people explicitly. Don't you think
that heterosexual persons too can be occupied by thoughts regarding
homosexuality? Some years ago I too was preoccupied with it, but my
problem was somewhat different from yours. In my arrogance I had thought
myself free of prejudices, then someone made me stop to think. 
The following months I spent much time wondering if I was homophobic,
and what to do about it. 

>> It takes courage to voice such a question without hiding behind
>> an alias (hint to all of you using alias...), and it pains me to 
>> see Love-Hounds mocking him for it.
>
>It pains me too, but I'm afraid your comment doesnn't redress the
>balance....the attitude expressed in the above comment seemed to be "Oh he
>can't help himself, he's gay"......if ever there was a cause for anger, its
>attitudes like that!

This just proves my point about preoccupation. Since Squidly too
seems preoccupied with thoughts concerning biased wiews upon
sexual dispositions, Squidly seems to fail to recognize the possibility
that I might belong somewhere in the middle(?), (Not in the middle 
of sexual dispositions, but in the middle of homophobia and contra-
homophobia), again seeing homophobia where it's not.
Well. All I can really say is I'm sorry if you misunderstood me.


>I beleive you're entirely wrong....but then I guess that's open to
>interpretation, too, right ?

I'm trying to be un-biased. But perhaps I'm standing too close
to myself to see correctly.


>Being anti-homophobic ? That'd be "homophile" wouldn't it ?  Which in my
>book is okay......but then....I love everyone :-) ( but not in the
>"biblical" sense )

Note my answer to Kim about my poor choice of word...



-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Music is like vintage wine. It keeps getting better over the years, 
if those who made it knew how to make it right...

Mikael Jakonen                              
mikael.jakonen@mailbox.swipnet.se     
=============================================================================