Re: Sam, Will and John on "meaning"

[heisjohn@juno.com]

I wrote:
> > 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.

IED replied:
>This, too, is unfair.  As this reader understood it, Sam's argument 
>allowed
>quite happily for the freedom of anyone to "interpret" Kate's lyrics 
>as they
>chose.

If this is what Sam meant in her argument, then I apologize, but I'm
fairly certain she meant we are "wrong" to interpret lyrics in any way
other than that which the author truly intended.  

> He simply pointed out that a personal response, however valid 
>or
>useful to the listener, is not the same as an informed understanding 
>of
>intended meaning.

No, she pointed out that:  "(people) shouldn't try to interpret the
meaning of Kate's lyrics", and that: " We *must* put Kate's words into
their intended context."  My understanding of her post is that she felt
there was no place for personal responses -- only "true meaning" derived
through objective analysis.  (SAM:  feel free to jump in at any time
here!  I think I'm drowning...)

>It isn't pedantry to recognize the existence of an authoritative 
>source for meaning -- namely, the creator of the message (in this case
Kate 
>Bush).

True (and not what I said), but by definition, it would be pedantic to
criticize the "meaning" an individual finds in a song solely because they
did not follow the "rules of objective interpretation" -- and that's how
I understood her post!  (BTW, your criticism of my use of the term
"pedantry" leads me to believe you think I used it as a pejorative.  I
did not.  I meant it in the classic definition sense -- simply as an
overzealous adherence to "the rules".)

>Your seven-year-old son is to be applauded for loving Cloudbusting.  But
it 
>would be foolish to look to your son for information about the meaning
of 
>the song's lyrics.

Why?  His forthrightness and honesty alone can captivate me for hours. 
Plus, he can inject a perspective of pure innocence that can only be
described as insightful -- a spin that my years of "wisdom" and
experience just can't replicate.  And finally, his literal
interpretations of *everything* have a tendancy to keep me tethered.  I,
on the other hand, have an annoying habit of really overthinking
things... 

But enough of this.  My viewpoint differs from Sam's mainly on semantics.
 I don't think that makes my post "unfair"...

John