Re: Interpretation (yes, I'm back....again)

[ANGLTRED@aol.com]

John wrote:
<< 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...) >>

Oh come on, John!  I said I wanted to get *out* of this thing! It's worn out
already.  But then you go and ask for my help....sheez... ;-)

Actually, John, you know how I said that we *must* put Kate's words into
their intended context?  That goes for MY words as well.  You pulled that
first quote of mine out of context.  I did not say "(people) shouldn't try to
interpret the meaning of Kate's lyrics."  That's absurd.  While I don't have
my exact words in front of me, I recall them fairly clearly, and I believe I
was discussing trying to interpret when you don't have a clue as to the
background behind the words.  I think what I said is something along the
lines of those of us (myself included) who have not read Book of Dreams and
have no idea what it's about should not try to interpret Kate's lyrics in
Cloudbusting.  There are still ways we can all apply the word to ourself, but
that does not mean we have accurately interpreted the song.

I suppose another example of this "words within their context" issue is the
fact that from my name, Sam, several people including IED, assumed I am a
male.  All they know about me are the words I type and nothing more.
 However, if they were to put my name within the context of my person, they'd
discover that I am actually female.  So, their "interpetation" of my gender
is *wrong*, whether or not it subconsciously affected who they "think" I am.
 We should never assume to think we are right unless we know all the facts.  

I always made room for the personal responses.  My understanding of
interpretation is that there is interpretation (meaning) and there is
application (personal response).  Go back and read what I wrote in previous
posts if you want clarification on my view of this matter.  But yes, you are
right in that I believe that "true meaning" is derived through objective
analysis.  But this does not mean that whether we have subjected ourselves to
this process or not, that we can't appreciate the music and apply it to our
own life situations;  however, we will most likely be applying it in a way
that was never intended, and therefore not based on the "true meaning"...but
if it's still useful to us, then more power to us!

IED wrote:
>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.
.....
> 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.

Thank you, IED.  Although due to the usual bloops and blunders involved in
actually *receiving* my Love-Hounds digests, I never got the Love-Hounds with
your posting, so, while I am reading them "out of context" and I have no clue
what else you stated, I do appreciate these statements of yours that I read
in John's posting.  I think you understand what took me a gazillion words to
say, and you stated it so succinctly.  That is *exactly* what I intended to
say...thanks for making it clearer.

Can I please leave this strain behind now, John?  I have so many other
important things to do too, like Christmas shopping, washing my car, brushing
my teeth.... ;-)

~~~Sam (as in Samantha)