Re: Cloudbusting & interpretations...

["Ronald W. Garrison" <rwgarr@intrex.net>]

Kim:

I don't think you can say this is all just a result of our
miunderstanding or misrepresenting your comments. Take, for instance, a
part of a recent exchange between you and one recent poster:

  > >Sorry to ramble. but this "Cloudbursting is
  > >about being gay" thread makes me want to puke...
  > 
  > Really?  Go ahead then.  When people tell me they want to puke when
  > hearing
  > gay issues, I always encourage them to follow through...perhaps it
  > would be
  > good for you to vomit that homophobic garbage out of your system.

Now, I think it's pretty clear that the poster (forgot his/her name, but
whoever it was...) was referring to the fact that the *thread* was
getting nauseating--a sentiment I feel much in tune with. The poster did
not claim to want to puke *when hearing gay issues*.

I'm not convinced that it's you who are being misunderstood here.

Let me give you another example. In another exchange farther back (to
"kerry", I believe), you responded thusly:

  *I* am always curious to see what others
  > feel/think about a song (or whatever), but I don't feel some sort of
  > need to
  > then inform people afterwards that their opinion is just an
  > 'assumption', or
  > 'a bit of a stretch', or unreasonable.

I take it from that that you feel provoked when someone says that your
opinion on something is "a bit of a stretch", or represents an
"assumption". If you find that this makes you feel defensive, I can see
why you have some problems lately with these exchanges. I *would*
characterize the "gay" interpretation of this song as, indeed, a
stretch, for reasons I have given elsewhere, and which make good sense
to me. And I must tell that it gets *me* defensive when I am criticized,
or see someone criticized, for epxressing such a (reasonable, whether
correct or not) opinion.

> However many times do I have to say that I totally agree with
> acknowledging
> that a gay interpretation is just a personal one???  I've said that
> *so*
> many times.  Give me a break Ron...I've *never* said that a gay
> interpretation is the definitive, correct and ultimate interpretation.
> I've
> just said that (with a couple of other people here) it is a *personal*
> interpretation, and that I believe that everyone can have a special
> meaning
> for each and every song they hear - including you Ron!!  I genuinely
> believe
> in this, and I wish you actually *did* take more time to properly read
> what
> I typed.
> 
**** I'm sure that you have made any number of perfectly reasonable
statements, and I never *did* represent your view as that of someone who
insisted on her own interpretation. My problem was with other defensive
comments toward kerry, or the person who said he wanted to "puke".

> Actually Ron, you seem to base my apparent 'domineering'
---I certainly never suggested that you were "domineering", rather that
you were *defensive*--i.e., attributing an intent to insult to someone
who, for all I could see, showed no such intent. That's quite a
different thing.

 on the fact
> I've
> sent a number of emails to this list.  I've *constantly* had to defend
> even
> the *possibility* of someone having a gay interpretation.

****...Certainly not against me. I did say that I thought the facts (and
there *are* some relevant facts here--of course, maybe you agree, so I
don't want to say you don't...) that the facts of what Peter Reich and
Kate have said, to me strongly suggest that a different interpretation
makes more sense. But if you think that a "gay" interpretation, prompted
by the phrase "coming out" makes sense to you, not only do you have the
obvious right to think so, but I'll say that this interpetation is
reasonable--incorrect, IMHO, but reasonable--as in, I can see why
someone of sound mind might come to that conclusion. So that's where I'm
coming from.

***** To me, interpretations run the gamut from completely subjective to
completely "literal". Some songs seem to allow almost any interpetation
you want, and leave no clues at all to the artist's intent. On the other
hand, if you were to tell me that you thought At Stewart's "Roads To
Moscow" was about the potato harvest in Idaho, I'd say you had some
tough things in the song to explain away. (It's pure coincidence that
that song happened to be handy.)

  So not only
> do I
> defend that, but then people like you are then *also* criticising me
> for
> being apparently 'forceful'!!

***** Again, it's not a question of your being forceful--at least not in
the exchanges I saw--but of attributing offense where none was intended.
I may participate in debates, but I
> don't
> like creating them for no reason.  Many of us (because I'm not the
> only one
> defending a gay interpretation) have responded because others were
> forceful
> in denying the possibility.  *Even* if I have been 'forceful' (which I
> don't
> belief), I certainly would not be the only one...look at the emails I
> initially responded to, Ron.  If you attack me for this reason, you
> should
> attack virtually every emailer on this list to be fair.

***** I don't think that would be true of a majority of the posters to
this newsgroup, although there may be some who were also quite unfair,
and who I didn't notice, or for one reason or another (fatigue may be an
excuse, sometimes), didn't see fit to respond to.
> 
> >Ron:
> >So go ahead and plop down the sexual orientation card, and play it
> for all it's
> >worth.
> 
> I place too much value in social issues - whether they be gender,
> race,
> sexual orientation, environment, refugees, indigenous peoples etc. -
> to use
> them as 'playing cards'.  Your sarcastic comment is completely
> unfounded,
> and shows a lack of understanding of what I have been saying.
I *do*
> believe some emails (not necessarily from you Ron) have been
> homophobic, and
> my last email with a tangent on 'coming out', was simply because I
> believe
> that some people on this list have little understanding, and respect
> of,
> this issue.
***** Well, at least you do acknowledge that it was a *tangent*. It
started with a remark about how Kate might find this all very funny, and
your response was about all the things you don't find funny at all. I
really don't think the poster would dream of making light of the
troubles you mention, and was surely not referring to them. It was just
that comment that particularly provoked me into using the phrase
"playing the sexual orientation card". Your original tangent really did
seem to come very close to using the issue as a "playing card"--much
more than just a harmless digression.

  I was simply trying to show that 'coming out' is not some
> 'crappy, trendy gay issue' that is "ridiculous".

***** Granted, it isn't, and we agree on that.
> 
> >Ron:
> >I strongly encourage ... to pay particular attention to Kim's
> postings,
> >especially this latest one.
> 
> Hmmm...good idea!  Perhaps you'd also like to try that Ron!

**** This reply should help to make it clear that I hav been.
> 
> >Mark:
> >It is people like YOU, Kim that make rational discussions on any
> subject
> >that may or may not deal with homosexuality impossible, because ...
> >if their opinion differs from yours you will accuse them of being
> homophobic.
> >Of course it is a lot easier to call someone homophobic than it is to
> >have a meaningful discussion, because you can be the poor victim and
> I
> >am the bad man, right?
> 
> I never referred to anyone being a 'victim' or 'bad man', so if you
> feel
> that, then it's in your mind, not mine.  What are suggesting on
> homophobia?
> Hey everyone!!  From now on in life, if an issue of homosexuality
> comes up,
> you must *never* mention homophobia!!  Perhaps Mark, I should only
> mention
> homophobia in a discussion where the topic is completely removed from
> gay
> issues?  (eg. A:"Desert aridification is very serious in the Sahara",
> B:"That's so homophobic".)  Of course not.  If homophobia (or sexism,
> or
> racism etc.) appears, I believe that we should all tackle and deal
> with it.
> I firmly believe that homophobia was behind a couple of emails, and
> therefore my postings are totally relevant.

***** Maybe a couple did have such sentiments, although I don't remember
seeing any on the newgroup.
> 
> Perhaps I should give a quick summary of my reasons, because
> apparently my
> emails (and others') have apparently flown by some emailers:
> -Interpretation-                                  -Response-
> a. An emailer said he thinks of
> his lost companion dog (Cloudbusting)               (no comments)
> b. 'Guildford Four' (Cloudbusting)                  "interesting
> notion"
> c. Someone thought of their own                     (no comments)
> lover (Under the Ivy)
> d. 'Coming out' as gay (Cloudbusting)
> "unfuckingbelievable"
> 
> "HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!"
>                                                     "a good laugh"
>                                                     "I want to puke"
>
***** These are so fragmentary as they're presented here that I can't
even begin to guess where you're going with this. I vaguely remember
some of these phrases, but have no idea if they're connected to
homophobia, although I think I would've noticed such insinuations if
they were there in the original posts.

> Obviously there is isn't *any* possible basis for *any* homophobia at
> all.
> Considering some emailers believe in a "what Kate meant"-only
> interpretation
> (especially the ones on the last comment), as everyone can see above,
> this
> has been applied in a TOTALLY (yeah right) fair way on EVERY
> interpretation.
> 
> Lastly,
> >Mark:
> >I just realized that Kim never said she
> >was gay. I just assumed she was from the way she was talking about
> >"straight people".
> 
> I *have* earlier mentioned my orientation in passing in an earlier
> email...although I never said I was female!  Isn't the power of
> language
> amazing :)
> However, I TOTALLY reject any suggestion that I may have been talking
> only
> about "straight people"...in fact I have never made a distinction of
> an
> emailer's sexuality in my emails, whereas, *you* Mark used the
> expression
> "normal" to describe people!  Homophobia exists in most people (in
> some
> form) - regardless of their sexual orientation (many of the biggest
> homophobes are in fact closeted homosexuals/bisexuals).  I totally
> believe
> in equal opportunity: I read and respect anyone's email - not only do
> I not
> judge "straight people" (such a judgement is abhorrent to me), but I
> don't
> even consider an emailer's sexuality when I read it.  I just wanted to
> clear
> that up...but it is still disturbing to me that you (Mark) seemed to
> consider my email more when you thought I could be straight.  *IF*
> (and read
> IF!) I am correct in that assumption, I think it is disgusting that a
> person's email takes more validity when readers think the writer is
> straight.
***** I didn't see the original exchanges, but this, again, sounds
*very* speculative. I think you should avoid saying things like "*If* I
am correct in that assumption...(then) I think it is disgusting..." That
only needlessly prejudices the discussion in a certain direction.

> And some say there is no homophobia here...
> 
> Kim

====================================
Of course, I can't speak for the others, but I hope the above helps you
to at least understand my own views better.

--Ron

-- 
http://www.intrex.net/rwgarr/