Re: Interpretation

[heisjohn@juno.com]

~~~Sam wrote:
>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.<major snippage>

Your treatise on the "rules of interpretation" makes some valid points,
but overall, it's wound a bit tight for the worlds of art, music and
literature.

My seven year old son's favorite video happens to be Cloudbusting.  He
has obviously derived some "meaning", but he's never heard of Peter Reich
or A Book Of Dreams.  It's music; he enjoys it; that's all that matters. 
For you, me or anyone else to tell him his interpretation, whatever it
may be, is incorrect or invalid -- would pretty much redefine pedantry.

>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.  

Again, you make a number of valid points, but the term *all* makes your
entire post a bit extremist.  At work, I spend a great deal of my day
doing objective analysis of some form or another.  At night, music helps
me unwind, and my interpretation and "analysis" becomes entirely
subjective.

Here's my extremist view, which is just about the antithesis of yours: 
Kate's music exists only for *MY* personal enjoyment.  I don't (usually)
care what she means in any of her songs; and frankly, it just doesn't
matter.  Many of her songs have very specific meanings to me (a few of
which I'm fairly certain have never even occurred to her!), but that
doesn't make them wrong or invalid.  We're talking about music here --
not designing nuclear reactors.

>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. 

No, on the contrary, this phenomenon is purely logical!  The opposite:
everyone independently developing and arriving at the same
interpretation, would be statistically impossible (and therefore
illogical), not to mention really scary...
 
> 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 yours falls short for not recognizing that the interpretation of art,
music and lit are so subjective that "responsibility toward the truth"
doesn't even enter into the equation.

John