Re: Interpretation

[ANGLTRED@aol.com]

<< > But considering that most people today wouldn't be sitting
 >at home quitely poring over A Book of Dreams, reading the lyric sheet
 >and attempting Biblical-style exegesis of the song, I don't think you
 >can insist that Kate's "intended meaning" should be seen as the starting
 >point for interpretation and/or application.  >>

If people don't know what A Book of Dreams is about, then they shouldn't try
to "interpret the meaning" of Kate's lyrics.  My point is that we *must* put
Kate's words into their intended context.  Kate was obviously alluding to
this particular book, and it's mandatory that her words be considered within
the context of the book and exactly what she was stating regarding this
particular piece of literature.  People, like me, who have not read A Book of
Dreams, should never even enter the discussion of what "Cloudbusting" really
*means* because we don't know what the heck we're talking about!  (and you'll
see, that I have never attempted to give an opinion as to the phrase "son's
coming out" because I have *no* knowledge of A Book of Dreams whatsoever).
 Now, we can say, "Here is how this song affects me..." or "This is what this
song reminds me of...." or "I like the way this song makes me feel...." etc.,
but we cannot begin to claim to have insight into the meaning.  

It's like when I say the word "can".  Now....what does this mean to you?  Out
of the proper context, it may well refer to any number of things:  a "can" of
tuna, a "can" opener, someone dancing the "can-can" or perhaps it's someone
assenting to the fact that they are able ("can") do a particular task.  This
word has a broad range of meaning, but depending upon the context, it has a
specific meaning which the user of the word intends to convey.  It's the same
with music lyrics--they are meant to convey a particular message, and whether
it's one word or a string of words, they can only *mean* one thing within
their proper context, and that meaning is the meaning which the author
intended.

>When the medium of
>transmission is radio or TV, meaning is determined as much by the other
>images and sounds juxtaposed with the text as by the text itself. 

It is my firm belief that these images and sounds are used as stylistic aids
which help the writer convey his/her meaning.  Again, they can provoke a
certain thought pattern or emotional experience, but we cannot determine
their meaning outside of the broader context of the song and author's
intended purpose for writing those words and using those sounds and images.

>To say that a
>fleeting interpretation of a snatch of a song is invalid is to ignore
>the fact that people can and will derive meaning from such fragmentary
>texts, 

They will NOT derive "meaning".  They *will* interpret what they hear, but
this does not mean the interpretation of the meaning is accurate.  This is
not to say that even invalid interpretations are not helpful and useful to an
individual, but this does not change the fact that the interpretation of the
meaning is still inaccurate.  Perhaps what we're discussing here is merely a
matter of semantics, but I hold firm that without background and context, one
absolutely cannot derive the true "meaning" of a collection of words.

> The only realm where interpretation has ever been controllable
>is in the academy, where rigorous intellectual methods are applied to
>"high art" texts and a critical concensus is achieved _because the
>players have to stick to the rules._ 

I know like I sound like a hard-liner on this one, but I believe the rules
are there for a reason and that they apply to *all* written material.  If
not, then interpretation is a free-for-all.  Once you begin to condone a
reader-response interpretational style, then all attempts to define "meaning"
are irrelevant.  In my college literature courses, I was taught the
"reader-response" method of interpretation and it just never "clicked" with
me.  How could someone in the very same classroom come up with an entirely
different meaning than my own, or which even opposed my own interpretation of
the meaning, yet we could still both be right?  It's simply not logical.  

And Brian, perhaps my current vocation, which does involve extensive exegesis
of Biblical texts and other ancient literature, as you seemed to pick up on,
does impact my views on the interpretation of *all* literature, but it makes
sense to me that meaning would lie with the author and it's not the readers
job to say what it "means" to them, but what the meaning was for the author
and to move on from there to a discussion of application.  As I said before,
without the rules, it's a free-for-all and any meaning would be considered
 valid.  I could listen to "the Dreaming" and announce, "Well, what this
*means* to me is that the political atmosphere of Australia renders the
consumption of hamburgers a trivial and senseless pasttime."  

Okay, perhaps that example's a bit extreme and silly, but my point is that
any person, regardless of knowledge on the subject, can come up with any
piece of drivel and by your method of finding the meaning, it would be deemed
a legitimate interpretation.  *That* is what I cannot find room for within my
framework of understanding the interpretational process.

Just because people think they can develop meaning from thin air, does not
mean that they have done so.  It means they have erred in their
interpretational method.  This is one of the many reasons why people in the
world today are so wishy-washy regarding the meanings of just about anything.
 "You stay over there and do your thing and I'll stay over here and do my
thing and let's not discuss it again" is the attitude among 20th century
Americans....and may well be the attitude of others throughout the world,
although I don't know enough to say.  This "I'll do it my way and you do it
your way" is a nice, friendly, and peaceful way of tolerating others, but
while we're all doing things our own way, there is no longer a sense of
responsibility toward the truth.  And that, is where your interpretational
method falls short and that is a shame.

But in the end, the MOST IMPORTANT part of this discussion is that we're all
enjoying Kate's music and *that's* what makes us a happy community of
Love-Hounds, despite our differing beliefs on certain matters!   :-)

~~~Sam