Back to LH History main page
Date: Mon, 12 Sep 88 13:27:38 EDT
Subject: random comments
* re IED's ridiculous quiz: He "hit that note and let it float" quotes someone else's (Doug's?) description of Mimi in Act I of Boheme. But Mimi is a "she". What are you playing at?
[ Kate once said "to hit that note and let it float" to describe "that string driven thing" played by Paddy Bush. Kate was probably quoting Boheme. -- |>oug ]
Date: Mon, 10 Oct 88 23:05 PDT
Subject: Two more WSI quiz questions (extra-difficult)
11.) Imitator of the denizen of the realm of eternal reverberation?
12.) The receiver had glowed in the lobby since the end of the Reich, but afterwards insidious odors crept up from behind, leaving us micro-symphonically facing the death instinct in all of us.
Name the five songs suggested by the previous sentence, and explain how they are linked.
-- Andrew Marvick
From: Doug Alan <nessus@ATHENA.MIT.EDU>
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 14:02:31 EST
Subject: Through rain or wind or snow...
As many astute readers of The Love-Hounds Digest will probably already know, due to mailer problems, The Love-Hounds Digest sent out this morning went out incomplete, and did so about ten times. I am very sorry about any problems this may have caused you with your disk quota, phone bills, and system manager. The cause of this problem is that IED posted a 220Kbyte article, the size of which causes many mailers a serious case of indigestion.
PLEASE REFRAIN FROM DOING THIS AGAIN.
Since Love-Hounds is now on autopilot, it is difficult for me to prevent problems like this. Now, I don't necessarily see an article before it goes out to everyone. It is therefore up to everyone to be careful with the articles they post to make sure they are of reasonable length and format.
In the near future I will repost in smaller pieces IED's article that got munged.
Your humble pseudomoderator,
Date: Wed, 23 Nov 88 18:44:37 MST
From: Lazlo Nibble <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Andrew, I don't think it's very fair of you to take advantage of Doug's putting Love-Hounds on "automatic" by pumping all this stuff through at once. If you've got all this text stored online somewhere, why don't you set up a mail server or something? I'm sure it's of interest to a lot of Love-Hounds subscribers but I think there's too much volume being posted in far too short a time. .. even WITHOUT that obnoxious 260+K post you shoved through.
Date: Fri, 02 Dec 88 12:58 PST
Subject: Mailbag: Enya, etc.
Incidentally about thirty other IED postings sent to Love-Hounds in October and November have STILL NOT APPEARED...|>oug!
Well, Craig, IED discovered Enya the other way around. He bought the first album (Enya, actually the soundtrack to the UK TV series The Celts) first, and then the second. The first album is very similar to Watermark in style, except that it's not as advanced technically. IED liked some of the tracks on the first album (including an absolutely heartmelting melody for uillean pipe solo with synth backing, with pipes by Liam O'Flynn) enough to seek out the CD, which he finally found yesterday. There is also a track called Aldebaran, which IED thinks is very beautiful, though it all depends on how high your expectations are. It sounds to IED a lot like an Irish-tinged early-Jean-Michel Jarre album. Since IED has long ago come to the realisation that there is no-one out there with talent anywhere near the level of Kate's these days, he is content, when listening to pop music of any kind, to accept as a given the modesty of other musicians' achievements.
Enya has a definite melodic gift, a laudable interest in synthetic musical processes, and very good taste. (Aldebaran was dedicated to Ridley Scott.) On the other hand, her music is all very much of a type, most of the tracks use essentially the same narrow range of sounds and chords, and she doesn't even write her own lyrics (her producer's wife does that for her). Even with all these pretty serious limitations, IED finds a lot of beauty in her music, and recommends it to anyone who is free of prejudice against sweetness and commerciality; and open to something more than merely the overtly "subversive" in music and art.
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Tue, 13 Dec 88 15:21 PST
Subject: Mailbag, Kate-echism XVIII.12.xiii
> We need a new album, dammit! We're running out of things to fight about! :-)
Never! It's interesting how Love-Hounds seems to thrive on fierce, pointless arguments over Ktrivial matters. IED will put on his thinking-cap to try to come up with something specially annoying to argue over--just for you, Lizoo. (That's love for you!)
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 10:28 PST
As Love-Hounds know, IED has no scruples about cluttering up the Love-Hounds airwaves with excessive wordblocks. Here are the "complete" lyrics of December Will Be Magic Again, Lizooshka.
Date: Wed, 14 Dec 88 22:15 PST
As you all know, Kate Bush is God. Celebrate the holidays accordingly.
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Sat, 31 Dec 88 15:14 PST
Subject: XYZ and cloudbusting
>> Wilhelm Reich was killed for scientific heresy, and that is the part of his story that Kate Bush deals with in her excellent song "Cloudbusting".
> Compare and contast with IED.
IED has no quarrel with Tim's statement above. He only wanted to point out that all aspects of Reich Sr. in the song are told from the point of view of his young son Peter. Wilhelm Reich's work is relevant only because it provided much of the child's early experience of life. Reich Sr. is relevant in the song--as in the book--only as a father dearly loved by his son. In the same sense, Reich Sr.'s arrest by U.S. government agents in the video are depicted because they were a powerful image, in the child's memory, of the forces which caused his separation from his father.
> Reich was not even a minor martyr.
IED has no firm opinion about whether Reich was a "martyr" or not. That he was a victim of the political and social atmosphere of his environment is beyond question, however. Reich's practise in Maine and Arizona in the 1940s and '50s was never "dangerous" in the slightest degree to anyone. XYZ's comparison with laetrile is inappropriate. In the case of laetrile there is a well-documented and rather high incidence of patients whose death may (or may not) have been hastened by their reliance on the drug instead of on more conventional treatments. In Reich's case there were never any such documented incidences. The analogy which XYZ draws is unfair and unsupported by the facts.
> I would like to respond to the rather mean-spirited response by Andrew Marvick, to my posting about Kate and orgone energy.
IED's responses are all too often mean-spirited. This is one of his many failings. It cannot be said, however, that in the present context his ill feeling was not provoked, at least in part, by XYZ's own venomous attitude toward both Reich (whom he so eloquently termed "a outrageous crank" <sic>) and Kate.
> I will not continue this discussion here, (though email is fine), since andrew (he does not think it is impolite to use the miniscule form in addressing others) is repeatedly cited as a reliable source of information in this group; `debates' on someone else's home turf are never true debates.
Actually, there are almost certainly as many readers of Love-Hounds who do not consider much of IED's information and opinions "reliable", so you shouldn't feel at a disadvantage there, XYZ. As for L-Hs being "home turf", you--like any other Kate fan who isn't trying to make a financial profit--are welcome to make Love-Hounds your home turf, if you wish.
For the record, XYZ, IED called you "dana" simply because you called yourself "dana"--for no other reason. In fact, you continue to call yourself "dana". So why is it seen as an insult that IED should reproduce your own form of self-identification as faithfully as possible? Extremely peculiar. There are several Love-Hounds who decline to use upper-case letters in their signatures. IED cannot be expected to know when this is intentional and when it is just the writer's carelessness.
IED has discussed his self-reference in the third person many times over the past three years in Love-Hounds. He is not going to go over it again for a late-comer, and he is sure that the rest of the group are grateful for that. Sorry.
Incidentally, IED did try several times to e-mail XYZ directly, but without success. So for the time being any discussion between IED and XYZ will have to be conducted in public. Apologies to the rest of you.
> (XYZ doubts <Kate> much cares if IED comes to her rescue.)
No argument there. IED never thought she did. But it certainly seems to matter a lot to you!
> The theory is a series of statements that are falsifiable (and false!). It is not metaphysical, philosophical, or religious; if it has no scientific validity is just plain worthless.
Your faith in the omnipotence of science seems almost religious in its intensity, XYZ.
> Is IED saying XYZ is not acquainted with the details of Reich's works?
IED can only go by what you tell him, XYZ. You continue to cite secondhand sources like Gardner (and now H.G. Wells, too!) as the only basis for your highly emotional condemnation of Reich's work. IED once again suggests that you try going to the works of Reich himself. You might gain a broader insight into another person's point of view.
> Further XYZ suggests that IED will find Gardner a far more reliable and less biased source of information than Peter Reich.
Reliable for what kind of information, XYZ? Try to keep the issues clear in your mind for a moment. Gardner is presenting pre-edited and abridged bits of information to you, secondhand, in order to support a very strong personal point of view about Wilhelm Reich's work. Peter Reich is presenting a highly personal account of his childhood experiences, including evocations of his personal relationship with his father, Wilhelm Reich, the man. The two books have virtually nothing in common with each other. They concern quite different subjects. Do you see this yet?
It may be true that Gardner provides more reliable factual information about Reich's work and career than Peter Reich does. But it is definitely true that Wilhelm Reich's many fascinating books will tell you a great deal more about that work than Gardner can.
You're so fond of the scientific method, XYZ, why not follow one of science's most basic premises: don't rely on secondhand information when the firsthand source is readily available to you. Find out for yourself!
>Grand theories by cranks are a dime-a-dozen and Reich's is one of the least interesting. If IED thinks they have a `magical appeal', then IED is easily impressed, or doesn't get out much.
But how could you possibly know whether Reich's books are interesting, XYZ, if you have never read them? One can scarcely experience the magical appeal of Crime and Punishment, for example, by reading the plot synopsis in a Cliff Notes booklet! IED is trying to make you understand that Reich's work is valuable as literature, as art, not for the validity or lack of validity of his claims. You are simply not in a position to judge the value of Reich's work until you take the time to read it--preferably several volumes.
> Incidentally, your statement that the real Cloudbuster was the same as Kate's is also false.
[The rest of this paragraph then seeks to show that, in fact, the statement is true. XYZ does know what it looks like. Sheesh!]
> XYZ conveniently fails to reproduce "the rest of this paragraph"!
How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that the original cloudbuster and Kate's video cloudbuster are "the same"? It's absurd. They have only the most basic qualities in common. It is clear that XYZ does not know what the two models look like, or he would not continue to embarass himself on the point.
>XYZ cannot help but be impressed by IED's choice of `treatment'; this leaves open that it is not `about' the book, but just some sort of impressionistic treatment. If it were actually about the book then all XYZ's other comments still apply. Otherwise it is an ethereal book report.
You raise an interesting point. Kate's method has usually been to treat a story (whether it be derived from a book, a film, a picture, a newspaper story or someone's oral account) without making its source immediately clear. There is a very good reason for this. Kate's intention is always to try to evoke the emotions which she felt in experiencing the original stimulus which inspired the song. The frequent result of this intention is a song which plunges the listener directly into the experience of the story's characters. This means that very often the listener has difficulty figuring out exactly what the facts surrounding the narrative source are. Kate has often said that a bland explanation of the story has the effect of reducing its emotional power. So IED often refers to Kate's songs as "treatments" of a story, rather than literal explications of a text. XYZ may choose to call such songs "ethereal book reports", if he wishes. IED wouldn't argue the point; it's substantially true. But why is this bad ? On what grounds do you criticise Kate's method?
>It is certainly curious that Peter cannot seem to understand orgone energy, while 1000s of others seem to; he tries to avoids claiming to believe anything that is patently absurd. But Peter does claim to understand, or at least is intrigued by the real possibility of, rainmaking. The two are inextricably mixed. To claim to believe in (to even discuss) cloudbusting without mentioning orgone energy is an intellectually dishonest ploy. If this IED's idea of a defense, then the situation is worse than expected.
Once again, XYZ, you have failed to grasp a crucial point. Apparently you haven't yet understood that Peter Reich's book is an account of his experiences as a child. As a child ! Got it? His aim in writing A Book of Dreams was not to address the question of whether cloudbusters actually attract and repel various forms of orgone energy, nor even the question of whether cloudbusters can make it rain. These issues are irrelevant to the book. Peter Reich was simply trying to communicate the emotions which he experienced as a child, during a period early in his life when he really did believe in the cloudbuster's power to make it rain. Although in fact, the boy's experience of losing his father, and indeed of all the last few months he spent with Reich, Sr. prior to his conviction, is symbolised in part by intimations that the "magic" wasn't really true. As Peter's childhood situation crumbles around him, his belief in the cloudbuster (and in many other aspects of his life with Reich, Sr.) takes on an increasingly defensive quality--one of the many brilliant and genuinely moving aspects of the book.
>While XYZ has no evidence, it must be considered that Peter will profit as long as he straddles the fence.
Well, XYZ, you're certainly right in saying that you have no evidence. Since Peter Reich has only written the one book, and since that book has now been out of print for a number of years, and since he has never given any lectures about his father's work (to IED's knowledge), it seems highly unlikely that he "profits" by his father's reputation. Beyond that, however, IED must ask you once more to explain why it is so imperative to you that Peter Reich should have to take some definite position on the issue. Why does everything have to be so black-and-white to you, XYZ?
>XYZ thinks that A Book of Dreams must have been one the least surprising titles in any bookstore, much less an occult one (XYZ will not pursue the question of what she was doing in such a store - its a free country). (Gardner calls the book a `touching biography of his father'.) But this is of no real importance.
A Book of Dreams was never a popular seller, XYZ. It only went through three rather small pressings before going out of print for good. Its appearance even in an occult bookshop was not something one could have counted on even in 1974, let alone in a general bookstore. Nowadays, a used copy is a real rarity.
If Gardner really called A Book of Dreams a "biography of his father", then IED suggests you put down Gardner's book right away and read Peter's book. It is not a "biography". Gardner sounds as though he hasn't even read the book. It contains virtually none of the kind of specific factual information which one would expect to find in a biography. The book is concerned mainly, even exclusively, with Peter's own experiences, both as a child and as a young adult, and all the references to his father's life are described from the decidedly unbiographical point of view of a small boy.
>Peter, of course, thinks they were trumped up charges!
Where do you get this stuff from, XYZ? How do you know what Peter Reich thinks of the charges against his father? He didn't make his adult position on the Reich case explicit anywhere in the book that IED could see. Anyway, what difference does it make to the beauty of Peter's childhood memoir whether he now accepts Wilhelm Reich's side of the case or not? It's irrelevant.
> However the song is not about the boy's introspective attitudes towards having grown up with a crazy father. It concerns cloudbusting which rests on the `value in Reich Sr.'s theories'. Without an outlook the lyrics are pointless (in the strict sense of the word).
Perhaps that's just your problem, XYZ: you're always trying to preserve the "strictest sense of the word". The fact is that Peter's book is about the child's attitudes toward the experience of growing up with his "crazy father". It concerns cloudbusting only insofar as cloudbusting was a part of that child's experience. The "outlook" of the child toward cloudbusting changes subtly from one of relatively unthinking belief to one of slightly defensive faith. But it is the faith of a child in both cases. Kate is true to the book in that respect, and her "outlook" is an emotional, rather than an intellectual, one.
> (BTW, XYZ has not had an opportunity to see any Kate videos.)
Oh, great. So you're really arguing from a position of strength! You haven't seen the video, you haven't read any of Wilhelm Reich's own work, and you haven't read Peter Reich's memoirs. Some scientist!
>If she cannot identify cloudbusting as a sham after talking to Peter for ten minutes then ....
When did you talk to Peter, XYZ? If you haven't talked to Peter, or read his book, or read his father's books, or seen Kate's video, how do you know whether Peter is convincing or not, or whether he defends cloudbusting or not, or whether he has ever tried to argue that cloudbusting actually works? And this is the kind of case you make against IED's openmindedness!
>Reich's work is not harmless; perhaps XYZ was too circumspect when he said it was worthless - it is dangerous to people's health and their pocketbooks.He repeatedly recommended orgone energy(used in conjunction with various accumulators) be used to cure illnesses, such as cancer. It is dangerous the same as laetrile. XYZ's comments only came from trying to `make sense' of the lyrics. XYZ never questioned the artistic value of the music; IED knows this but he cannot resist a predictable and sweeping argument for dismissal.
IED is overwhelmed. XYZ, your latest posting is so ill-conceived, poorly written and sloppily considered that IED really doesn't feel energetic enough to reply in the detail that he would like.
The main conclusion that IED must draw from your latest mass of jumbled verbiage is that you have an axe to grind. You despise all aspects of metaphysics, and it's clear that your position of angry disbelief is utterly unshakeable. There are dozens of indications of this dogmatic attitude in your posting, but the baldest of these is your suggestion that Kate's decision to visit an occult bookstore is somehow allowable because "its <sic> a free country"! How is one to argue rationally with someone who has the great questions of life and death so tidily solved for himself that there can be no intellectual justification for even visiting an occult bookstore?
Another of your statements which IED must react to concerns the contention that there was a contradiction in IED's supposition regarding Kate's "belief in" or disbelief in Reich's orgone work. IED's point--clearly and concisely presented--was that Kate retains an open mind on questions for which neither science nor art have satisfying answers. Obviously this is not true of XYZ. He apparently has found all the answers he needs in science. IED has not. There's really not much else that can be said on this subject.
Another point arises. There is no evidence that any of Reich's patients was ever harmed in any way through their involvement with orgone research and practises. If you believe otherwise, you have simply been misinformed. For an exhaustive and eminently dispassionate account of the F.D.A. case in all its permutations, read Jerome Greenfield's Wilhelm Reich vs. the U.S.A., published in 1974. There is also a very readable little book called Some Sense about Wilhelm Reich, by Lee Raditsa, which might help you out. And again, XYZ, you are advised to read Reich's own work itself, rather than relying (as you evidently continue to do) on the opinions of third parties.
Finally, XYZ, please try to remember that Kate's song was inspired and based on the memoir of Reich's son's childhood. Rather than taking your guru, Gardner's, word for it that A Book of Dreams is "moving", why don't you read the book for yourself, XYZ? There is no reason why Kate Bush should have to take some kind of ideological position on the scientific reliability of the cloudbuster. Kate was trying to evoke in musical terms the emotions which she felt were communicated in Peter's book. That's all. Since Peter, as a small boy, actually believed that the cloudbuster could make it rain, Kate's song makes the same assumption. It is quite clear, however, from both the song and the video, that this belief is that of a small boy. What Kate herself believes is quite irrelevant.
Please, XYZ, try to show a little tolerance of others' ideas and attitudes toward life. It's not all science, you know. Last time IED checked, life, like Kate, was still a great mystery.
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Tue, 3 Jan 89 01:20:42 PST
From: email@example.com (Tim Maroney)
Subject: Re: Cover of "The Whole Story"
TIM would further like it known that his middle name is John, which begins with J, a Western stylization of the Roman letter I in the initial position, and therefore his initials may rightly be given as TIM. He would further mention that reference to oneself in the third person is a common feature of crackpottery (cf. Martin Gardner, FADS AND FALLACIES IN THE NAME OF SCIENCE).
From: firstname.lastname@example.org (Dana S. Richards)
Date: 3 Jan 89 19:29:50 GMT
Subject: Re: XYZ and cloudbusting
> IED is overwhelmed. XYZ, your latest posting is so ill-conceived, poorly written and sloppily considered that IED really doesn't feel energetic enough to reply in the detail that he would like.
I am sorry to hear this. My posting was carefully-conceived; it was composed over an 8-hour period after much research, editing and re-editing. Every word was carefully chosen to avoid any misconception. Some phrases were meant to be provocative, but IED exceeded my expectations in rising to the bait. It was not written in an emotional state -- in spite of this I have described as wildly `emotional' and `venomous'.
I will not rehash his rejoinder. It suffices to say that, almost without exception, every response IED made to each of my points was a non-sequitar, or a gross distortion of my position, or read things into my discussion that were simply not there. I do not know were the problem lies (my writing, or the electonic medium, or IED's need to read things emotionally) but true communication seems impossible.
> Oh, great. So you're really arguing from a position of strength! You haven't seen the video, you haven't read any of Wilhelm Reich's own work, and you haven't read Peter Reich's memoirs. Some scientist!
First, since the lyrics alone were being discussed, the video is at best an appendix to the discussion.
Second, it is not clear how reading these would make me more `scientific' since you have already granted that they have `no scientific validity'.
Third, this is an old and effective argument for dismissal, that really does not hold water. Essentially it says I cannot consider anything worthless that I have not rigorously and exhaustively studied. But that is not how science works; everyone relies on expert opinion to guide one's way through the dense forest of conflicting claims. (Of course, when someone finally decides to become an `expert' on a subject, then one should be more exhaustive.)
I have played this game with other people before (e.g., Velikovsky, creationism, homeopathy) and they always claim this is an unjust approach. But if you read some of their literature, to appease them, then you are told you read the wrong parts, and if you read it all then you are told that you did not understand (or worse you refuse to understand). It is a no-win situation that recurs all too often.
I remain steadfast that there is too much junk not there to not rely on trusted expert opinion.
(IED, and everyone else, does it but claim not to when it convenient. For example, if IED lived in California last May, he surely would not leave the state because of a Nostradamus `prediction'. He would not say the only scientific thing to do is read the original predictions. Of course not, he would rely on a) the fact it is nonsense, and 2) the fact that expert opinion lends no support to the theory.)
(Incidentally Gardner is not my `guru', but he is a close friend of mine; I have discussed these matters many times at his home. If Gardner says the book is a `touching biography' of his father you may take it that:
a) he has read the book (as well as all of Reich Sr.'s works on orgonomy), and
b) he regards the book as supplying a portrait of his father.)
>> Incidentally, your statement that the real Cloudbuster was the same as Kate's is also false.
>> The rest of this paragraph then seeks to show that, in fact, the statement is true. XYZ does know what it looks like. Sheesh!] XYZ conveniently fails to reproduce "the rest of this paragraph"!
>How could anyone possibly come to the conclusion that the original cloudbuster and Kate's video cloudbuster are "the same"? It's absurd. They have only the most basic qualities in common. It is clear that XYZ does not know what the two models look like, or he would not continue to embarass himself on the point.
I never said is was `the same'; I said it was an `ornate version', which you conveniently fail to reproduce. If I say I know what a cloudbuster looks like, you can take it that I do.
I said I would not respond point by point, so let me stop here. The following paragraph, which is essentially repeated several times, deserves comment.
> The main conclusion that IED must draw from your latest mass of jumbled verbiage is that you have an axe to grind. You despise all aspects of metaphysics, and it's clear that your position of angry disbelief is utterly unshakeable.
I do not `despise' metaphysics; I do not `despise' anything, except, perhaps, having words put in my mouth.
It is true that I `believe in' science. There are many wonderful and mysterious things science has not explained. I ascribe these to ignorance and not to mystical (not `metaphysical') causes. All the evidence of history is my favor; I would be surprised if really thought you had any evidence that you thought would change my mind.
I would hate that think that I would have to have a mystic outlook in order to approach Kate's music.
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 89 04:14:08 PST
From: email@example.com (Tim Maroney)
Subject: Re: Wilhelm Reich
> Dana clearly sees book-burning as a very minor thing, of no real import as long as the books being burned are the right ones. I find this mindset so incomprehensible that no possibility remains for real debate. He would no doubt find better company in Jerry Falwell's Liberty College than here.
Dana Richards said:
> I seem to be defending myself against things I never said. (I confess it is a good debating tactic: paraphrase in so an outrageous way as to leave the impression you are dealing with an idiot. Falwell would be proud.)
An even better debating tactic, at least as far as scoring points with an inattentive audience is concerned, is to deny that you supported a position which can easily be subjected to a reductio ad absurdum. The fact is that you said Reich was treated as he should have been, and therefore since his books were burned, you supported the burning of his books.
As for making it appear that you are an idiot, I need not lift a finger to accomplish that which you have so effortlessly achieved. Surely more people that IED and myself were given the opportunity to snicker when you claimed that your incoherent, ranting message against IED, utterly devoid of points, was composed and extensively revised over the course of eight hours.
>I never advocated book-burning, or any form of censorship. I merely said medical fraud is a crime. I am sorry if you think that is controversial.
You supported book burning. You did not say "I support book burning", but you said very explicitly that a situation in which books were burned was handled well. They are equivalent statements.
>>I can only repeat that any reading of the lyrics to "Cloudbusting" shows that it concerns primarily Reich's arrest by federal agents, not orgonomy.
>No doubt this is meant to leave the impression the two things are unrelated. They are not.
How kind of you to close with a non sequitur. It makes things so much easier for me.
Date: Fri, 06 Jan 89 20:48 PST
Subject: Mailbag: Kate-echism XVIII.1.vi
> Right on, dude. That was absolutely beautiful! Definitely the best shot against Marvick that I've ever read.
-- Mike Schmelzer
IED was genuinely unaware that his correspondents in Love-Hounds think of themselves as being "against Marvick". He honestly doesn't think of himself as being "against" them! His only intention in contributing to this group is to spread as much accurate information about the work of Kate Bush as possible, and to provide defense of that work when he feels that a defense may be beneficial to the readers. That has always been his only intention. As his acknowledgement of his recent error concerning the lyrics in The Ninth Wave shows, he is (and always has been) willing to admit personal failings whenever they are shown to him to exist--especially when those failings confuse a Kate-related issue.
In the case of the recent argument over Wilhelm Reich and Kate Bush, IED has so far made no such errors, and therefore will not retract a word. He is sorry if Mike Schmelzer and XYZ/dana/Dana are offended as a result of IED's commentary on the subject, but he can do nothing about that. When a Love-Hound makes false, misinformed or unfair remarks about Kate or her work, IED will say so, whether feelings get hurt or not.
>My posting was carefully-conceived; it was composed over an 8-hour period after much research, editing and re-editing. Every word was carefully chosen to avoid any misconception. Some phrases were meant to be provocative, but IED exceeded my expectations in rising to the bait.
It makes no difference whether you spent eight hours or one minute composing your posting about Cloudbusting, XYZ--all that matters is the result: a messy, unsupported message leveling unwarranted criticism at Kate Bush. IED is sorry if your posting, the weakness of which IED felt it important to expose in Love-Hounds, was the product of so much careful labour on your part. Nevertheless, the errors and distortions exist in it, and they are a matter of record.
>First, since the lyrics alone were being discussed, the video is at best an appendix to the discussion.
Your premise is false. IED responded to your criticism that Kate was somehow culpable for failing to condemn the work of Wilhelm Reich. IED pointed out several aspects of the subject which you had been unaware of--among these were a number of details included in the video. Whether you had seen that video or not has no bearing whatever on the relevance of Kate's video to the subject of Kate's attitude toward Reich. The fact is, you passed a harsh and hasty judgement on Kate about this subject, before you had bothered to find out all that Kate had actually said about the subject. That's the danger of mouthing off half-cocked: you're liable to suffer a backfire.
>Second, it is not clear how reading these would make me more `scientific' since you have already granted that they have `no scientific validity'.
You're confused again, XYZ. IED was pointing out the lack of logical, step-by-step thinking in your comments. IED has never denied that there is a lack of scientific support for Reich's ideas. But he finds it odd that someone like yourself, who apparently values such qualities as scientific verifiability very highly, is so careless with the facts himself. IED was being ironic in saying of you, "Some scientist!" Get it?
>Essentially it says I cannot consider anything worthless that I have not rigorously and exhaustively studied. But that is not how science works; everyone relies on expert opinion to guide one's way through the dense forest of conflicting claims. (Of course, when someone finally decides to become an `expert' on a subject, then one should be more exhaustive.) I have played this game with other people before (e.g., Velikovsky, creationism, homeopathy) and they always claim this is an unjust approach. But if you read some of their literature, to appease them, then you are told you read the wrong parts, and if you read it all then you are told that you did not understand (or worse you refuse to understand). It is a no-win situation that recurs all too often.
This is a specious argument. As IED has already said several times in this increasingly silly discussion, he agrees that one can't be expected to learn everything about a subject before deciding that it holds nothing for him. But this is quite different from noisily announcing that a vast body of work (like Reich's) is entirely without value either as science or art; criticizing another artist's work on moral grounds for failing to make the same kind of rash condemnation which you have made; and then blithely admitting that you have made no firsthand study of the subject whatsoever!
Here is IED's point: Certainly it's true that one must be selective about what information one invests time in acquiring. IED would never deny, either, that it is acceptable to rely on one's general life experience for the formation of opinions and personal taste. But it is also true that one should not base all of one's conclusions on nothing except second- and thirdhand information, general experiences and wildly emotional personal biases! In other words, XYZ, it's all relative. So, for example, IED would never have made the slightest objection (nor, probably, would he have even bothered to respond) had you announced in Love-Hounds that you personally didn't enjoy the lyrics of Kate's Cloudbusting, and that you had such deep feelings about the immorality of Reich's later career that it spoiled the atmosphere of the song for you.
But instead of that, you came out shouting (in very angry language, whether you wish to remember it as such or not) that not only was all of Reich's work utterly without value of any kind--either as science or as art--; but also that because this was somehow a "fact" which any respectable person should agree with you about, it was somehow reprehensible of Kate to dare to write a song about Reich without making explicit not only the subject, but the immorality (as you see it) of the subject as well. When in fact, you hadn't bothered to find out even the most rudimentary facts that 1.) Reich's early work is quite different in nature to his later work; 2.) Reich's own original writing--as opposed to the carefully pre-digested and myopic synopses of Gardner--is actually quite remarkable as literature; and 3.) Kate's song wasn't even about Reich Sr., but about his son's deeply personal account of his childhood!
Now, relying on general knowledge of the world and personal taste is one thing. Blaring long series of silly, unsupported and misinformed statements about a subject you evidently know nothing about is quite another!
>I would hate that think that I would have to have a mystic outlook in order to approach Kate's music.
Well of course not, XYZ (or dana, or Dana, or whatever you choose!). Nor has IED ever even implied any such thing, as you surely know! IED thinks it's safe to say that Kate would have no problem with a skeptic enjoying and even appreciating her work--possibly better than many "mystics", even. Why not?
It would help you a little, perhaps, however (in IED's opinion) if, instead of assuming that what hasn't yet been proved is necessarily impossible, you entertained the notion that what hasn't yet been proved might simply be beyond human science's present capacity to recognize. You know, science didn't even admit the possibility that the Earth was round until quite recently in human history. Wouldn't you at least concede that there's still a lot we don't yet know?
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Sat, 07 Jan 89 20:08 PST
Subject: IED does JCB as IOU to TIM, XYZ and ALL L-Hs.
Subject: i tell 'em what they want to hear. they think i'm up to something weird, and up pops the head of fear in me. so now when they ring i get IED to let them in.
IED is indeed overly defensive, esp. in this group. Thanks for the explanation, TIM; IED had not caught on to the note of humor--he's pretty slow about that angle of the Love-Hounds Experience.
The reasons for IED's excessively defensive tone are 1.) that he takes Kate far too seriously for his own good, and 2.) that he has periodically provoked genuinely hostile reactions from readers in this group for that very seriousness. IED will try to discipline himself better to stick to the subject and avoid the personals. But at least now all the newer Love-Hounds have had a good look at IED's reaction to unfair and abusive criticism of Kate Bush. They follow in Dana's footsteps forewarned!
Date: Wed, 11 Jan 89 15:55 PST
>> Could IED do all of us Love-Hounds a favor and package up his transcriptions in a large file available through anonymous FTP? I have been following each of the interviews posted by IED, but I haven't archived them. I would much prefer to grab them all in one big package.
A couple of problems with that idea. First, IED doesn't know what the fuck (pardon his French) an "FTP" is, nor does he particularly want to find out. He is a stubborn computer-illiterate. Second and more importantly, all of his Kate files are stored in laser-printer format only. He does not have the time to re-format any of that stuff for easier L-Hs re-reading. If, therefore, someone can give IED a very repeat very brief lesson in how to send this stuff to you--using a simple repeat simple, and reliable, e-mail address, and not requiring that he spend an hour or more breaking the 30,000 lines+ of material into more convenient little blocks--and if you don't mind figuring out how to re-format it all yourself--then IED will try to oblige.
But why oh why didn't these people save the texts when they were originally posted??? The texts that IED keeps transcribing are for life-long study, you know, not a few moments' fleeting entertainment!
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: 26 Apr 89 10:22:00 EDT
From: "V70NL::ROSSI" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: Time has certainly flown..
Finally, a question for IED.. Aren't you about finished with your degree yet?
Date: Wed, 24 May 89 09:13 PDT
Subject: Was Freud ever right about dreams being wish-fulfillment fantasies!
IED is further gone than he realized. The last two mornings he was awakened much earlier than is normal for him--thereby apparently having his REM sleep interrupted. Normally IED doesn't retain any memory of his dreams, but these special circumstances opened his eyes (ha).
On the first morning he had been dreaming of a magical library. IED asked the reference librarian if they carried any of the works of Kate Bush, and lo and behold, she led me to a whole shelf of file-boxes. In these boxes were dozens of records, CDs and photographs, and among the records were a large number of Kate's early home-recordings.
Then IED woke up. The day was a total loss.
Then this morning he dreamt that he was at a record swapmeet. Just as he was about to leave he saw another visitor with a new Kate bootleg compact disk in his hand. It looked almost like the bootleg-CD of the Hammersmith concert, but on closer examination its cover-photo was different. IED asked if he could inspect it, and the visitor grudgingly obliged. Lo and behold, what should the CD's track-listing include, but at least twenty hitherto-unknown early demo-recordings by Kate--including one entry marked "Songs (recorded between ages 5 and 8)".
Then IED woke up. The day is going to be a total loss.
-- Andrew Marvick
Date: Tue, 06 Jun 89 01:12 PDT
Subject: Kate-echism XXI.6.iv
> WHY did Andrew Marvick choose IED0DXM as a LOGIN NAME????? To annoy his PhD supervisor?
The ID "IED" is not fraught with profound secret meaning, although he does not discourage anyone from wracking his/her brains in a vain search to discover one.
And Andrew Marvick's dissertation is a presentation and analysis of evidence of eclecticism in the paintings of the British artist John William Water-house (1849-1917) and several of his younger contemporaries, including Arthur Hacker, Herbert James Draper, Thomas Gotch and Solomon Joseph Solomon. Privately, however, he nurses a steadily increasing resentment that Columbia University lacks a graduate program in Kate Bushology.
Date: Wed, 07 Jun 89 13:43 PDT
Anyway, IED was joking when he said it was a reason for worship and reverence. Since it apparently needs to be spelled out for this crowd, IED is not serious when he describes Kate Bush as God.
Date: Thu, 08 Jun 89 11:15 PDT
Subject: retraKTion; and admoniKTion
ANNOUNCEMENT OF POLICY CHANGE:
IED is going to have to set a new policy, and not only because it's too much work to go on the way he has been. From now on, when some new (or inattentive) Love-Hound asks a question that IED (along with perhaps many others) has answered in L-Hs before, IED will probably not be forthcoming with an answer. It's just getting to be ridiculous. This month alone there were renewed questions about whether there were computer images (and if so how to access them), whether someone had the address of the sheet-music company, whether there was an address for Intergalactic Garage, whether there was an address for Homeground, whether the lyrics were on file, whether there were lyrics on the U.S. re-issue CD of TD, whether that was Donald Sutherland in Cloudbusting or not, whether there were bootleg records of Kate live, whether those records had good sound, whether there had been a first obsKuriTies tape, whether it was still available, why not, whether postage was required for the new tape project, etc., etc., etc.
All of those questions have been answered at least twice, and in some cases many more times, in Love-Hounds before. There's supposed to be a Love-Hounds Archives for just this sort of thing. IED has become very frustrated at the almost incredible lack of retention on the part of many Love-Hounds. If you've got such curiosity about Kate, you should access the archives and read about her. And in cases where the answer has actually been asked and answered already within a matter of a few weeks, you should be able to access your own Love-Hounds files. Some of you people would seem to be dumping each L-Hs transmission right after reading it, and then a week later you figure you want to know something so you ask all over again. Nuts. It's all in Archives. So it takes a while to weed out stuff you don't need.
If you're really a seriously interested fan of Kate's work that shouldn't deter you. If you're only casually curious, then IED is going to let someone else worry about filling you in from now on. There's just no satisfaction anymore in telling Love-Hounds the basic facts over and over, only to have someone else (sometimes the same people) ask the questions again a week later.
Anyway, IED has begun to question the very premise of Love-Hounds. Just exactly why is it such a great idea to make information about Kate Bush's work so easy to obtain? A very large part of Kate's own aesthetic has to do with aspects of secrecy, and the concealment of the message. That being so, shouldn't IED be encouraging these newer Love-Hounds to dig up the information on their own? Isn't it fundamentally contrary to Kate's own designs and plans for IED to be exposing all the hidden information all the time? Yes, it really is. It's about time IED re-considered his role in this group, and whether his long-held policy of unlimited free access to pre-digested information about KT is a wise one.
And no, IED will not be making the first obsKuriTies tape available again! There are 130+ people who have copies out there. Find one and get a copy that way. And don't ask IED to post the list of the other recipients again for your convenience. Dig it up for yourselves!
-- Andrew Marvick, who is obviously (but not apologetically) in a foul mood
Date: Sat, 10 Jun 89 00:45:53 EDT
From: jsd%UMASS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu (Jonathan S. Drukman)
Subject: re: ied's secrecy
Hey, IED! Wake up and smell the coffee! If I hadn't found out about "The Ninth Wave"'s intricate plot and construction thru Love-Hounds I would've figured it was just a bunch of random noise thrown together and never listened to it. It is not easy for a person who doesn't know what he or she is looking for to find out about Kate, particularly if he or she is an American. I am well aware that the story associated with "The Ninth Wave" was published in a zillion places, but none of those zillion places crossed my path, until I hooked up with Love-Hounds (which I was duped into reading on the rather spurious claim that it was an alternative music discussion list>!! Nobody ever mentioned Kate Bush...)
SO anyways... You can keep quiet if you want, but information must never be guarded! We live in the information era, and it must be readily available to any and all seekers.
Date: Thu, 27 Jul 89 11:17 PDT
Jon Drukman and Joe Turner both seem to share a sad, adolescent fear of direct expression of softer emotions in art. The Sensual World : "Ack barf" (even though it's plainly one of the greatest album titles in the history of music); "The sheets are soaked by your tiny fish": "Ack barf" (even though it's clearly a line of pure genius, especially as sung--two different ways--in the song); the "visuals" in Hammer-smith : "laughably inane" (even though there can really be no question whatever that Kate's performance is beyond any legitimate aesthetic criticism of any kind ); the lyrics of In the Warm Room : "Ack barf": (even though they are among the only lyrics in the history of music to have dealt with such a subject from such a perspective, and with amazing lyrical success--and this is of course quite beyond any question); etc., etc.
IED recommends that Jon and Joe take off a few weeks to "get in touch with their feminine sides," or something. Because their criticism has begun to say far more about their own hangups than about the work they attempt to criticize (which, of course, is completely uncriticizable).
-- Andrew Marvick
From: email@example.com (Jon Drukman)
Date: 27 Jul 89 23:42:48 GMT
Subject: Re: Mailbag
> Jon Drukman and Joe Turner both seem to share a sad, adolescent >fear of direct expression of softer emotions in art.
You bet. Art is not the place for songs about posies and red roses and soft sunlight diffusing like a million optic fibers through your auburn tresses while a string quartet plays a brilliant little piece off to the left behind that gorgeous sequoia. Art is about beer cans being smashed into foreheads. Art is about not being able to have your orgasm on the Playboy Channel because of horrible noise interference. Art is about the reconciling of fundamentally irreconcilable objects. Hence "Waking The Witch" - brilliant piece of work. ART in the highest sense. Everything else is just decent pop music, which ain't art. But I don't want to get into this, because I'm being really facetious and flip and off the cuff here. This is because all through high school my teachers constantly told me that I was a good writer but didn't take things seriously enough. So here's my rebellion, a few years too late.
Anyway, I seem to have lost the main thread here. Oh yeah, Andrew, wake up and smell the coffee. I ain't gettin' in touch with my "female side." It sounds suspiciously illegal at the least, amoral at the best, and completely disgusting. How can I maintain my intensely macho image otherwise?
For those interested in seeing more of my "female side," address your correspondence in a plain brown wrapper.
BTW, me and my less female side will be making a smashing debut at the East Coast Katemas party with a version of "Running Up That Hill" that I've been working on that guarantees to send all purists Running For The Hills. Bring your audio and/or video recorders and don't miss out on this once in a lifetime performance art spectacular. It promises to be more than I can handle. Joe Turner is helping out with this, although he just found out about it by reading this sentence. The audience is requested to bring oil drums, coke bottles and anything else that would make a large percussive crash.
Date: Wed, 02 Aug 89 13:27 PDT
Subject: Important reminder
"She really is...She really is."
On to IED, Pt. 3
written by Love-Hounds
compiled and edited
Sept 1995 June 1996