* * DREAMING * *

A 'Best of' Love-Hounds Collection

LH History


Pt. 3

Back to LH History main page

Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 02:21 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: long overdue mailbag (long!? it's praKTically interminable!)

This is not confirmed, however, and in fact IED is not at all certain that he ever actually read this anywhere. It could have been a dream. (See, as many of you will not be surprised to learn, IED tends to have Kate Bushological dream experiences at any and all times of the day and night. It's very distressing sometimes.)


Date: Fri, 18 Aug 89 02:21 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: long overdue mailbag (long!? it's praKTically interminable!)

>...some not subtle at all. I think the fact that Kate has refered to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow" should speak for itself on where Kate thinks your mind should be!

Douglas has made this sickening claim at least once before in this forum, and once again IED challenges Doug to provide proof that Kate actually said this. IED doesn't believe it. Not that it isn't possible that she might conceivably say something like that. It's just that one ought to have absolute proof that she did say it before one goes making assumptions about her sexual humour in any general sense. IED will gladly apologize for doubting Doug about this citation if and when Doug offers real tangible proof (page and line number) that it is legitimate.


From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Wed, 23 Aug 89 21:13:37 EDT
Subject: You bet your life!

> From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu

> Look, for the fiftieth time, IED doesn't claim that such interpretations are necessarily "wrong". He doesn't care whether they're wrong or right. The point is, if Kate Bush tells us "No, that's wrong," then whether it makes sense in and of itself becomes irrelevant. IED used the term "invalid" as well, and that may have been a misuse of the word. But what he meant was and is clear: IED will entertain any notion about Kate's work that anyone wants to share with him, but if Kate Bush tells me it's wrong, IED will bloody well take her word for it.

Look, for the fiftieth time you have ignored the fact that not everyone shares your opinion about what is "relevent" and what isn't. So what if you think discussion ends with what Kate says? I don't agree, and you haven't given a single shred of argument to make me think that I should agree. Discussion of what Kate intended may indeed end with what Kate says, but discussion of what something "means" may very well not. Meaning is not determined solely by what the originator of a communication intends, but also by what the receiver of that communication interprets. If the the intended meaning is different from the received meaning (and neither the sender nor the receiver are making mistakes) there is NO one true meaning to the communication -- there is only the "intended meaning" and the "understood meaning". If we were going to insist that there be a "one true meaning" (which I don't think is a good idea) to any communication, we would want to attribute it to the interpretation that makes the most sense -- not the intended meaning. The intended meaning in most cases is most likely to be the one that makes the most sense, but this is not always true.

Since you seem to like to quote John Carder Bush at me, IED, how about if I do the same to you. He seems to think that interpretations unintended by Kate are fine and wonderful things. This is what he said to me about it (and you know it because I've already told you):

"Entendres are, indeed, interesting things. Over the years I have evolved a sort of personal understanding of this planet / God / life in terms of rhyme. If you can see the Supreme Being as merely a harmonizing force, then coincidence, synchronicity are easily explained; as the poet makes his rhymes, the pattern of life makes its rhymes. And in double, tripple, or whatever, entendres, the poet exercises a god-like technique.

"Keeping this in mind, I feel that for someone working in an artistic medium, and thence becoming "godlike", by imitation, there must come a series of levels of progress, each level preceded by intense periods of obsession and worry with the creation -- late nights, wrong food, ill health, etc. -- and at each level something crystallises, and an energy vortex with a consciousness of its own starts going.

"Once it is able to generate its own creative direction, it needs to be fed and looked after like any machine, but it can be relied on to offer up an image, a line, in which the levels are all there, up and down, and can be understood depending on the level of the receiver. Sufi strories, Zen stories, Greek myths all have this spiralling mult-interpretation power, as do all the great written works of religion. You can keep coming back to them and finding the next level confirmed as you grow.

"So I am sure you are right when you find these meanings in Kate's music, but whether it was conscious or unconscious is not important if you accept that she is a vehicle for the Great Rhymer. Kate's subject matter for her lyrics has always been extraordinary, which I think comes from an ability to empathise with life forms that is unusually sensitive."

So the short of it is, Andy, you may not want to talk about meanings of art not intended by the author, but who the f*** are you to tell me that I and others shouldn't -- especially when I explicitly say that the interpretation I am discussing was not intended by the author?

>> ...some not subtle at all. I think the fact that Kate has refered to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow" should speak for itself on where Kate thinks your mind should be!

> Douglas has made this sickening claim at least once before in this forum, and once again IED challenges Doug to provide proof that Kate actually said this. IED doesn't believe it.

Andy, you never challenged me the first time I made this claim. I'll tell you what, though. I'll again bet you a round trip plane ticket to London for the next time Kate tours that I can produce the magazine and page number within a month. Just keep in mind that it was a good idea that you didn't take me up on this offer with repect to Gaffer's tape. I don't make up things like this, Andy, and you do nothing to increase your credibility by constantly challenging me on issues like this and losing.

Now, I can't guarantee that the pun wasn't introduced by the interviewer or by the editorial staff of the magazine, but I can guarantee that I have an interview where, as it appears in print, Kate refers to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow". And it's in a major British periodical, not some fly-by-night rag. If you don't wish to place the bet, however, I have better things to do that wade through an entire filing cabinet full of articles on Kate, searching for one line, just because you don't believe me.

>> Then again, Kate spelled Orgonon wrong by mistake....

> IED is even more predisposed to mistrust Doug's citation re "Nice to Swallow" in light of his false claim immediately above. The fact is that John Carder Bush was once asked point blank about this very "mis"-spelling. IED quotes his eminently Bushian reply: "It may have been intentional..." Furthermore, Doug knows this, since IED has posted the information at least once before. And it may very well be a pun.

Well, I asked Kate, *HERSELF*, and she said that the misspelling was NOT intentional. By your very own reasoning, Mr. Marvick, the discussion is over. QED, IED.



Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 13:04 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: More of the same

Finally, regarding this "Nice to Swallow" business. IED expressed skepticism about the accuracy of your attribution of these words to Kate, and he asked you to substantiate it. IED didn't expect that his request for substantiation was not to be had unless he put up collateral ! The statement which you ascribe to Kate is so unlike her, is so extraordinarily uncharacteristic, that IED doesn't feel it to be unreasonable of him to ask you to support or withdraw the citation. He doesn't see why he should have to make a bet out of it. When IED quotes Kate he nearly always offers the source voluntarily, and when he doesn't, he is always ready to search for the source on request. And when he can't, he admits that it is only a vague memory which he cannot place. He thinks you ought to be willing to make the same commitment to your quotations of Kate that IED makes.

However, if you can come up with the actual quotation, and it sticks to Kate unequivocally and to IED's satisfaction, IED will publicly state that ":>oug Alan knows more about Kate than IED does or ever will, so help IED God." How's that? You'd have to admit that would be quite a coup to score over IED. But airline tickets? Come on, be reasonable.

IED would just like to add that he doesn't think it unreasonable of him to doubt your attribution of this phrase to Kate in light of the fact that your idea of a proper source for substantiation of Russian-language idioms is a Certs commercial.

IED stands in awe of your ability to remember previously unmentioned statements Kate made to you which just happen to contradict the current position IED has taken against you, :>oug. However, he will accept your word that Kate actually said "No, I just made a mistake and spelled it wrong." Of course, she was saying "No" to just about every suggestion you made that day...

-- Andrew Marvick


From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 24 Aug 89 23:18:27 EDT
Subject: Even more of the same

Furthermore, I never have nor do I now believe that received meaning has "greater credibility" than the intended one. At the time I interviewed Kate, what I believed, for some of the answers Kate gave, was not that my interpretations had any more validity than what Kate intended, but rather that Kate *really* did intend my interpretations and that she just wouldn't admit it because she was trying to be difficult and mysterious.

For years, however, I have not believed this peculiar delusion, even though it *is* quite evident that at times Kate is purposely difficult. Take, as example, her avoiding of the issue when I asked her how she does her interesting backwards-forwards vocals. All she would say is that it is a lot of work, despite me asking several times. When Kate wants to be difficult, however, she has a way of expertly avoiding the issue and never really answering the question. I truly doubt if she ever just straight-out lies, though.

>> Well, I asked Kate, *HERSELF*, and she said that the misspelling was NOT intentional. By your very own reasoning, Mr. Marvick, the discussion is over. QED, IED.

> IED stands in awe of your ability to remember previously unmentioned statements Kate made to you which just happen to contradict the current position IED has taken against you, :>oug. However, he will accept your word that Kate actually said "No, I just made a mistake and spelled it wrong." Of course, she was saying "No" to just about every suggestion you made that day...

Mr. Marvick, you are really starting to get on my nerves. I have mentioned the above statement in the past in this very forum, and I am sure the archives will prove it. It is obvious that your memory is beginning to fail you. And such a shame at such a young age. I did not ask Kate about the spelling of "Organon" *that day*, but rather I asked her the next day when she appeared at Tower Records. It was the only question I asked her as I handed her my Japanese import of *The Dreaming* to be autographed, so I remember the question and her answer quite well:

DOUG: You might not remember me... but I interviewed you yesterday.

[Boy, I was pathetic back then, wasn't I, eh?]

KATE: Of course I remember you.

DOUG: Can I ask you another question?

KATE: Yes.

DOUG: Is there any particular reason why you spelled "Organon" differently on your liner notes than Reich spelled it?

Kate smiles in a way that gently says, "Where do you come up with all these silly questions?"

KATE: It wasn't intentional.

DOUG: It wasn't?


I hand Kate my record and Kate goes to autograph it...

KATE: I'm sorry... I've forgotten your name...

DOUG: It's "Doug".

Kate signs the record and hands it back to me. It says "To Doug, Love Kate Bush".

DOUG: Thank you.

I walk away and curse myself for again making myself a fool in front of Kate.

But I spot John Carder Bush and am able to talk to him somewhat intelligently about *Brazil* and about how Kate does her two way messages (which Kate herself would say nothing about).

"You're all alone on the stage tonight..."



Date: Sun, 10 Sep 89 14:04 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: K A T E B U S H I S G O D

She really is!

-- Andrew Marvick


From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Fri, 22 Sep 89 17:04:02 EDT
Subject: Nice to Swallow

I got inspired last night and pulled down all my boxes of Kate Bush paraphilnalia (I hurt my back doing it too!) and searched through all my magazines, meticulously searching for the interview where Kate refers to "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow". I searched most intensely where I thought I'd find it, but it was to no avail. Just as I was about to give up, I spotted another magazine that was vaguely similar in size, color, and shape to the magazine I had expected to find it in, so I looked in there, and there it was!

So, here is the quote that IED stubbornly refused to believe existed. I hope that IED will give me the *HUGE* apology that he promised. It is from *Sounds Fan Library No. 9: Lady Killers*. Pat Benetar is on the cover. Inside there is an interview with Kate (among lots of other junk), and on page 35, Kate comments on all of her albums. These are the comments on *The Dreaming*:

Again I'm very fond of this because it's my latest and because it represents *total* control, owing to the fact that I produced it by myself. It's the hardest thing I've ever done -- it was even harder than touring! The whole experience was very worrying, very frightening but at the same time very rewarding.

It took a long time to do but I think there are some very intense songs and the ones I like best of all are 'Nice To Swallow', 'Houdini', and 'Get Out'. All in all, I was very proud of this record.

I am NEVER going to this much trouble again to counter IED's disbelief of my perfect knowledge. Twice is enough.



Date: Sun, 24 Sep 89 13:10:28 -0500
From: Michael Mendelson <mendel@cs.uiuc.edu>
Subject: Nice Night to of the Swallow/s

> " It took a long time to do but I think there are some very intense songs and the ones I like best of all are 'Nice To Swallow', 'Houdini', and 'Get Out'. All in all, I was very proud of this record."

Undoubtedly IED will mention this, but just in case he doesn't, I can't help but get the impression that perhaps the person who wrote the above "quote" in that magazine misheard Kate. If the person transcribing the interview was not all that familiar with Kate's work (which it seems they often are not), and did not take the time to check what he thought he heard with the titles on the album, then the Nice to Swallow reading might easily have come about. A Freudian slip, perhaps? Indicative of what the interviewer might have been thinking about while interviewing Kate? Nawwww...


From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Mon, 25 Sep 89 18:11:11 EDT
Subject: Re: Nice Night to of the Swallow/s

Well, if I remember correctly, the section on Kate's albums had a little picture of each album and a full track listing. Also, they didn't get any of the other song titles wrong, so I see no reason to assume that this is a misprint. I can't imagine anyone hearing "Night of the Swallow" as "Nice to Swallow" -- the people who do these interviews *do* use tape recorders, you know, and can check to make sure they transcribed properly. Furthermore, Kate has a pecluliar sense of humor, and this pun is exactly the kind I'd expect to hear from Kate. I can't for the life of me understand why anyone would think Kate wouldn't say this. Are you all so prudish?



Date: Tue, 26 Sep 89 19:19:53 -0700
From: stewarte@ucscc.UCSC.EDU (The Man Who Invented Himself)
Subject: Re: Nice Night to of the Swallow/s

Prudish? Katefans? Surely you jest. This group probably has one of the most amazing collective prurient imaginations...but I digress. What really makes me suspect it was a mistake, rather than a pun, is simply the fact that there was no comment made about it. If the interviewer knew enough to recognize that Kate was punning, don't you think they would have made mention of it? Or do you think the interviewer was subtle and Kately enough to let us figure it out for ourselves? Even IED should like that idea...

-- Stewart


Date: Wed, 27 Sep 89 09:37:58 EDT
From: Jon Drukman <jsd@GAFFA.MIT.EDU>
Subject: Re: Nice Night to of the Swallow/s

You people are completely sickening. Lighten up already, will ya? The bet was for |>earest |>ougie-poo to |>ig up the quotation, and he has done so. Whether or not you with your tiny little minds don't think it's genuine is of no import! He has fulfilled his end of the bargain (much to my surprise - I thought he was off his rocker, to be brutally honest) and he deserves our congrats. Besides, after being harangued about it for an hour on the phone by the |>ougly one himself, I have come to realize that it's very much in character for Kate to make that comment. After all, she did once nail some interviewer to the wall after he asked her about the famous "pink leotard" photos by saying something like "Why are they exploitative? Just cos you can see my tits?" C'mon, live in the real world, gang! (Or better yet, live in the sensual world...)


From: Doug Alan <nessus@athena.mit.edu>
Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 11:51:51 EDT
Subject: More on "Nice to Swallow"

I went back and reread the entire interview where the "Nice to Swallow" quote appears. The interviewer is clearly a fan of Kate's. In it he says that he has always liked Kate's music a lot, but when *The Dreaming* first came out, he didn't like it. After repeated listenings, however, he came to the conclusion that it was Kate's most inspired album yet. In light of this, it is clear that if the "Nice to Swallow" quote was an error, it was NOT introduced by the interviewer. This leaves only the typesetters. It is possible that the typesetters could make such an error, but it seems quite unlikely that they would make an error that turned out to be such a provocative pun.



Date: Thu, 28 Sep 89 10:55 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Kate-echisminimism; and Phone message news

Jon Drukman, you don't know what the f*ck you're talking about. Doug did indeed state--as a fact--that Kate had made that statement about Nice to Swallow herself, in jest. When he said that, IED denied that she had said that. It was then that Doug qualified his statement with the equivocating remark he re-posted as "proof" of his intellectual caution yesterday. IED, unfortunately, does not keep records going that far back, so no doubt Doug will choose to disbelieve me (since IED has disbelieved Doug many times in the past, this may well be poetic justice), but there is no doubt in IED's mind that Doug's original reference to the "Nice to Swallow" nonsense was that "Kate once said" this.

It is true that Doug deserves some credit for finding the "quote". However, IED has now followed suit and checked the same source himself. What did he discover? Well, mainly that, contrary to Doug's say-so, the magazine in question is typically loaded with errors of English! (This should not come as a surprise to readers of Doug's own postings.) It is therefore not the least bit improbable that a similar error was made by the editors of the magazine in this case. More likely still is that the interviewer simply misheard Kate saying " Night of the Swallow " and wrote it out as " Nice to Swallow ". Since the editing on that rag was not very good, and the chances in any event of anyone on the editorial staff noticing that a Bush title had been misrepresented were slim, it is extremely likely on the face of it that the words were simply one of many errors that slipped through.

But we have far more than that to support that hypothesis! IED is sick and tired of idiotic claims to the effect that such a "joke" is "in character" with other remarks Kate Bush has made. IT IS NOT! No one has ever implied, Doug and Jon, that Kate is a prude. Obviously, she is not! The point is not whether she is afraid of using so-called "censorable language" or sexual imagery. The point is whether she would make a crude, vulgar, self -denigrating joke of her own serious work! And the answer is, so far as we can tell from the millions of words on file from her to date, NO SHE WOULDN'T. She never has !

Douglas and Jon, however, have already long since shown to this group that their own crude and vulgar sense of humour renders them utterly incapable of distinguishing a straightforward, descriptive use of language (as in "Because you can see my tits") from a powerfully poetic, imagistic use of language (as in "The sheets are soaked by your tiny fish") from a crude, gratuitous and utterly uncharacteristic bathroom joke like "Nice to Swallow". Thankfully, most of the rest of Love-Hounds can see the differences, so with luck we can go on to another subject now.

-- Andrew Marvick


Date: Sat, 30 Sep 89 20:30 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: In thE nAme of liTeracy and WORthy kate bushological stuDieS...

One could safely hope, were one dealing with a less pathetically stubborn opponent than |>oug, that he would now be willing to concede the extreme likelihood that the interviewer in Lady-Killers mistook Kate's words " Night of the Swallow " for the absurd and completely uncharacteristic "Nice to Swallow" just as |>oug himself mistook Kate's word "audially" for the glaringly improbable and uncharacteristic (not to say nonsensical and far less grammatically sound) word "ordurely".

The fact is that people do mishear words. Some of them will take the trouble to question their hearing when they register what seems to be nonsense. Others--such as |>ouglas and his equals, the editors of Lady- Killers --will not bother. What more graphic evidence is needed than |>oug's gross above-cited editorial error--and the wildly false, scatalogical and altogether inappropriate conclusions he reaches on its unsound basis--to prove IED's point that the ascription of "Nice to Swallow" to Kate by the Lady-Killers staff is, to a virtual certainty, a similar mistake by unthinking, careless people? But knowing |>oug too well--as we all do--to expect him to admit his error graciously, IED will have to present more evidence--and so he shall now.

Contrary to |>oug's recent claim that his tawdry source for the false "Nice to Swallow" quotation--the magazine Lady-Killers --is relatively free of mistakes, it is, in fact, swamped in a veritable sea of them! In fact, even within the short excerpt relevant to this discussion no fewer than six misspelled song-titles can be found, as well as at least one other misspelled word! Among the errors are "Don't Push Your Foot on the Hearbreak", "james And The Cold Gun", "Favourtie tracks", and "Symphoney in Blue". Mind you, this is within a span of fewer than 500 words, in a section specifically devoted to and primarily consisting of a listing of Kate's songs!

Two conclusions must be drawn. The first is that given the amazingly poor copy-editing in the magazine (IED has chosen to list only a few errors, and only from among those that are found in one isolated passage--literally dozens and dozens of other errors, some far more obvious, are strewn throughout the rest of the publication's text), it is not the least bit unlikely that an oversight by the inept and careless copy-editors allowed the retention of the mistaken reference to Night of the Swallow as "Nice to Swallow".

The second conclusion is that |>oug Alan begins to look more and more like the worst and most harmful type of illiterate: the type whose status as a student in a good school has led him to consider that he is not the illiterate he is, and who, buoyed by that false, unmerited self-confidence, feels free to spout off his mouth on subjects which might very well do undeserved damage to the reputations of worthier people than himself--in this case, Kate Bush. What he needs is a good high-school-level English course, so that he can acquire at least a minimal degree of language skills (not to mention some much-needed humility) before he should again be tempted to tell others how unimportant the rules are and to cite as legitimate authorities for bogus Kate Bush quotes (and as the foundation for more of his bathroom-oriented theories about Kate's works and statements) sources as sloppy and linguistically ignorant as himself.

-- Andrew Marvick, who looks happily up at the big sky, never down at the ground, missing


Date: Tue, 05 Dec 89 13:00 PST
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Mailbag


> To declare that anything Kate does is perfect by definition is the true foolishness.

It's true: IED does declare such a thing. He does not expect you or your peers to agree with him. IED Knows. You do not. It's as simple as that. As for this Knowledge being proof of "foolishness"--that depends on who Knows, what he Knows, how he Knows it and who is determining what is "foolishness". In this case, IED can rest easy.

-- Andrew Marvick


Date: Wed, 06 Dec 89 08:51:18 EST
From: JONES%RPIECS.BITNET@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Thanks, Larry Spence

Hello there Larry and other fellow Love-Hounds--

After reading Larry's recent letter to IED, in which IED more or less got flamed for flaming others, I'd like to say this:

IED, I gotta agree with Larry on this one. I mean, don't get me wrong, you are certainly one of the most knowledgable Love-Hounds when it comes to KT (and I know you have personally helped me with some needed info), but PLEASE don't say that others are ignorant and wrong if they don't happen to share your opinions. As much as I love Kate's music, she ISN'T perfect... she's just a very talented HUMAN BEING, not a goddess.

And I DO find most of the discussions that go on in Love-Hounds to be interesting and all that... but I get damn sick and tired of hearing people quibble endlessly by saying "No, Kate means this in these lyrics" and "NO, shes means THIS..." To tell you the truth, I ain't gonna believe NOTHIN' about her lyrics one way or the other until I hear the lady explain them herself. Only SHE of ANYONE will be able to explain "what she means here in these lyrics", and not any of us. All we are here to do is love Kate's music and her beauty and her talent, and not to judge others.

PLEASE try not to take this personally. I just think we should find other, more constructive ways of filling the Love-Hounds Digest.

I've said m'piece...

All the best...to EVERYONE,

Deb Wentorf

P.S. Remember....December WILL be magic again. Here's hoping all of YOU have a magical month. :)


Date: Fri, 08 Dec 89 13:58 PST
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Are temperatures finally descending? Not so fast...

Thanks to Julian for his formula. It seems to IED to be an excellent means to an end: the end being the development of a capacity in various trigger-happy Love-Hounds like Drukman to support their criticisms with examples of how the flaws which they claim exist in Kate's work could be fixed. It's an excellent idea, Julian. (IED also agrees with you about 2001.)

IED didn't, Julian is right in pointing out, succeed in explaining his idea of "perfection" in Kate's work, or in art in general. That's because he doesn't really know how. What he was trying to get at was that "perfection" in art may not actually be definable as a parallel to "perfection" in other aspects of reality. IED meant to say that there may indeed be "flaws" of a technical or even of an expressive kind in some of Kate's work; but he questions not only whether their removal or "correction" would "improve" the work, but also whether those "flaws" are evidence of imperfection at all. Perhaps they--like the evil which religious people cannot explain, but which through their faith in God's omniscience they assume must have a purpose--are aspects of the Perfect Work which we mere listeners cannot understand.

This religion analogy is dangerously misleading, however, because IED does not --he wants to emphasize again--consider Kate herself to be any kind of Godlike figure at all. IED does suspect, however, that there is in Kate's work --as perhaps in all parts of our universe--an element of some kind of indefinable, eternal perfection. IED doesn't see this aspect of existence in many things, nor does he experience it often, but he does believe that it exists in all of Kate's work. To draw a prosaic parallel, so (in IED's view) does it exist in all of Mozart's or Beethoven's works--their minor, even awkward early pieces and potboilers included. Wherever the hand of the supernatural touches the hand of an artist (or the hand of any creator or any object of nature), perhaps there is a spark of perfection which the "flaws" obtained through transcription to our mundane plane cannot extinguish.

So IED is offering a somewhat different definition of "perfection" than Julian's, therefore: cannot perfection in a work of art exist with "flaws" in its final presentation? Is not the property of "perfection" in a work of art real in spite of the human imperfections which that work will inevitably acquire in the process of transcription from the spark to the page? For does the kernel of a great work of art lie in its pigments and brushstrokes, in its DX-7 and Ampex-master? Or does it hide in some richer, deeper, more ephemeral and less definable region?

Nevertheless, one can still request that those who see faults in a work of art point to specific properties that they find wanting in it, and to explain how those might have been improved upon by the artist. Otherwise, how can the critics expect to convince their listener of the acuity of their judgement?

IED realizes that he still hasn't defined perfection itself--whether it be found in the work's final form or contained in its conception only. Even in the latter case Julian's formula may apply, but if so, IED would have no way of testing it, given his inexperience with divine phenomena and consequent inability to analyze them.

-- Andrew Marvick


Date: Mon, 11 Dec 89 12:51 PST
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: A note from Andy about IED: please skip if the issue bores you

I'm breaking out of my IED mode for a moment to explain something about what's been going on here in Love-Hounds. A number (I hope a pretty small number) of readers have decided that IED is behaving like a total jerk nowadays, and there have even been several calls to boot him out of the group. I want to apologize for some of his words, and also to explain a couple things which some Love-Hounds readers may not be aware of.

First, IED is basically a bastard. He always has been and always will be. But neither I (Andy) nor he (IED) has ever denied that. It may be true that IED didn't seem particularly unpleasant until recent months, but that's because there wasn't much going on to bring out the worst in him.

Why the third person? Why the alter-ego? It was originally just a joke (that was more than four years ago). Just about the first discussion that went on in L-Hs after I joined the group was about Wilhelm Reich. I was a little offended that several contributors were trashing Reich's work--and even Kate's song--because they said he was just a charlatan, etc. I defended Reich with such enthusiasm that I found myself taking on Reich's own pedantic, heavy-handed style. (Anyone who is wondering can read some of Reich's late papers on orgone energy to discover exactly the style IED tries to imitate.) The big picture is: Reich was really crazy ; so is IED! See? IED is crazy? Nutso. A fruitcake. His character is modeled on my own (limited) understanding of Reich's own form of paranoid psychotic delusional personality.

My main argument (as IED) in defense of Reich was that while yes, he was certainly bonkers when he wrote about deadly orgone radiation, etc., his delusions were, in their own way, beautiful, and their expression had artistic merit. I also argued that Reich's premises, while obviously insane, were backed up by at least an internal logic which could not be assailed. In other words, while there might have been madness in his method, there was method in his madness, too. I concluded that this made Reich's work worth looking into and respecting on its own terms, and not something to be dismissed out of hand as pseudo-science.

I think it's worth mentioning that, at the time, no one else in the group had ever bothered to read any of Reich's late papers, or at least no one ever acknowledged having done so. All of the critics of Reich in Love-Hounds then--as most of the critics of the new KT album now --based their opinions on (in my opinion) quick judgements and unfair comparisons of the work to other works, instead of on a consideration of the work's own internal logic and beauty. (I think Neil Calton's latest posting makes exactly the same point, though of course in more reasonable language than IED has been making it. My thanks to you, Neil.)

From that whole early experience with Love-Hounds, I learned that, partly by the nature of the computer-forum and partly because of the background and character of the people who led its discussions, IED was probably never going to be able to convince anyone of the internal validity of his own personal viewpoint. Eventually I also learned that there would probably never be a reader in this group who would be able to see Kate's work from quite the same perspective that IED did, and that all the verbal arguments in the world would fail to convince anyone of IED's viewpoint. (As it happens, I was wrong about that: there seems to be at least one Lion-Heart who shares some of IED's convictions.)

This put me more than ever in a position of empathy toward Reich himself. He too held a view of the world and nature which virtually no one cared to understand, and which is now generally ridiculed for its craziness, rather than appreciated for its beauty.

I also came to admire in Reich his steadfast attitude, his loyalty to his ideas, and his stubborn refusal to be dragged down to the level of the disbelievers (as he saw them). At this stage I decided that I should keep IED around, and give him a place to live, so to speak, through the agency of this computer forum.

I expected then, as I do now, that IED would not be liked very much. I also expected that he would be made fun of, and patronized as overly obsessive and closed-minded. And I also could see that IED's zealous belief would probably get out of hand at times, and that he could make enemies through his propensity to attack--sometimes more fiercely than was called for.

I also knew that IED wouldn't see it that way, but that IED would usually make a sincere effort to explain his opinions and to give real evidence for his positions whenever possible. Should I have silenced him completely because of his occasional accesses of vitriol? I didn't think so then, and I still don't now.

Naturally, there were a lot of objections to the very notion of an "IED" in Love-Hounds. For a while there was a pretty fierce campaign to force me to stop hiding behind the IED facade. Naturally this made IED all the more adamant about sticking around--and I can't say I blame him!

I think, generally speaking, I've made IED a pretty useful character in this group over the last four years. I've put him to work time and again transcribing interviews and reporting news whenever he had some, simply for the benefit of Love-Hounds' readers. I don't claim any special credit for this service, because obviously I've enjoyed giving it--it hasn't been a heavy responsibility for me, but a sincere pleasure, and one which many recent contributors obviously know themselves. It's nice to belong to a group, and to help broaden people's knowledge of a commonly appreciated subject of interest, and IED likes that experience as much as you all do.

In exchange (aside from the more or less recent side-benefit of finding more and more new contributors to this group who provide really interesting and helpful information for the readers--a renewed thanks to Ed, Neil and Tippi, for example), though, I think it's only fair that I be allowed to keep IED alive and to allow him his say about Kate, from his own, er...unusual perspective.

Yes, as IED I can be annoying, overbearing and pompous. And yes, IED's raison-d'etre (that everything Kate does is absolutely beyond criticism and perfect) is over-the-top, even just plain nuts. But I think he has represented and continues to communicate a very important and under-represented point of view in this forum. And with all the critics of Kate who like to contribute their opinions to Love-Hounds nowadays, I can't really believe that IED's lone voice of angry dissent is too much for them to bear.

So yeah, IED is a pain in the ass. I apologize for him if his opinions have become a bit "personal" recently, though the way IED sees it, he was only replying in kind, and in response to an unusually high degree of criticism of Kate--the rebuttal of which is his be-all and end-all. But unless a majority of the readers of Love-Hounds agree that the group should get rid of him, IED will remain for the time being. Perhaps you should take a poll or something.

-- Andy Marvick

("I can't hide you from the government...")


Date: Tue, 12 Dec 89 13:17 PST
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Kruel irony: ied shoT down by own pop idol

As though she had been listening in on the recent argument in Love-Hounds, Kate Bush said in the new VH-1 interview: " Nature is perfect. Anything we human beings do can never really be perfect." Hmm...IED will need a little time to find a way out of this mess...

-- Andrew Marvick


Date: Mon, 18 Dec 89 13:43:40 PST
From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi)
Subject: MisK

Due to lack of funds Andrew Marvick has been forced to sell some of his Kate collection. His ad appears in the current Goldmine (Dec. 29), on page 115. Do him a favor and buy something.

Ed (Edward Suranyi)


From: ed@das.llnl.gov (Edward Suranyi)
Date: 11 Apr 90 05:20:20 GMT
Subject: Re: General reminder tO all reaDers

>> She really is.

>>-- Andrew Marvick


I guess you're not a long-time Love-Hound. The full text of the above motto is:

"Kate Bush is God, she really is."

It's just a fun thing to say when you're around Kate fans.



Date: Sat, 02 Jun 90 15:31 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Mailbags, and bags, and bags...

IED apologizes for his long silence in the group. He was visiting his "other half" in the Bay area (IED thus joins the many Love-Hounds who seem compelled to announce their romantic attachments lately) for a week or so, and was consequently out of touch.


Date: Mon, 18 Jun 90 07:44:25 PDT
From: Douglas MacGowan <MACGOWAN@NIC.DDN.MIL>
Subject: Taking a stand.

> Also, one more thing that's been bothering me. What *does* IED stand for????

IED stands for Truth, Beauty, and the prompt return of library books.

- Douglas


Date: Sat, 25 Aug 90 01:06 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Goldmine (Ed's posting)

For whoever it might interest, IED's human representative, Andrew Marvick, will be forsaking Los Angeles for New York City at the start of September, in further desperate and pathetic pursuit of a Ph.D. at his school, Columbia University. Further particulars will, with any luck, appear shortly after Andrew's migration.

-- Andrew Marvick

"New York exciting? Yeah. Like being in an accident's exciting."


Date: Mon, 03 Sep 90 16:00 PDT
From: IED0DXM%OAC.UCLA.EDU@mitvma.mit.edu
Subject: Announcement on a personal matter

Dear Love-Hounds.

Effective immediately, IED will no longer be receiving Love-Hounds Digests, or any other form of this discussion-group. IED has already asked Doug Alan, our Pseudo-Moderator, to remove IED. This is not a permanent situation, but it may last for several weeks, perhaps a month or even longer. IED is going back to New York City tomorrow, and until/unless he can wangle a school account he will be inKommunicado for some time. In the meanwhile, he will not say adieu, but only au revoir. With fondest regards and best wishes to all of you and Kate, IED remains your

Andrew Marvick

"It is this that brings us together..."


Date: Tue, 25 Sep 90 16:23:56 EDT
From: Andrew B Marvick <abm4@cunixd.cc.columbia.edu>
Subject: IED returns to the group

Hello, Love-Hounds! It's good to be back among the Kate fans of the world!

IED is back, complete with his annoying use of the third person and all those other obnoxious personality traits that you've grown to know and deplore over the years!

Note: Though IED's e-mail address has changed, his ID will remain IED for tradition's sake.

On to IED, Pt. 4

written by Love-Hounds
compiled and edited
Wieland Willker
Sept 1995 June 1996