Ok, while we’re on the subject, I’d like to thank the internet for teaching me that the most mysterious line in pop song history - yes, the one in “Blinded By the Light” - is a Bruce Springsteen populist homage to homespun auto racing: “Blinded by the light / Revved up like a deuce (car) / Another runner in the night (racing car).” Now who in blazes was supposed to figure that out??
Having flubbed my Springsteen, I accept your Kate Bush.
About lyrics of a song, i had a similar experience. I was listening to the song "Enemy" by Imagine Dragons and JID (Imagine Dragons is one of my fave artists i listen to frequently). There was a line of it i hadn't been able to understand, then when i looked at its lyrics, it became clear to me. I'm not usually like this, though.
And about revenge, i can say that if i ever wanted to do so, i wouldn't be able to do it because i'm a kind of person who usually chooses love over hatred, unless sth happens that makes me hate sb completely.
You know, at times like these, I play the Stanley Fish reader-response Ace 0' Spades trump card and declare: "Declining Academic, you've never been wrong about that Kate Bush lyric, even if you've never been right, either. Carry on, brother, because meaning is in the mind of the listener." A friend of mine once did me the great honor of using one of my poems as a possible subject for a final exam-paper in one of his classes. And then he sent me the responses of those students who'd chosen my poem for their final paper. The response I still remember, some 30+ years later, was from some tortured undergraduate whose family life was clearly in the toilet and swirling fast. That is, the explication of my poem was used by this young man as a way to process his response to a rapidly deteriorating family drama and his distress at being a freshman at a large state university, far, far away from everything familiar. That this required a heroic over- and mis-reading of my poem would be to indulge in the grossest of understatements: I barely recognized the source material of this young man's essay, and I'd written it! At first, I found his reading amusing: "Aren't teenage students so predictable in their solipsistic approaches. My, my, my. <snicker>" But then I thought, "But can I really claim that his reading is *wrong* simply because it doesn't seem to refer to the original text at all? Simply because, I, the author, disagree with his reading? Simply because no other reader in the universe would agree with his reading?" And I came to the conclusion that, no, I couldn't claim he was wrong, because when he wrote that paper, when he presented his reading of "my" text, he believed every single word he wrote. He was convinced that his interpretation was what my poem meant. And, for him, that's exactly what it meant. And because of that belief, he (I hope) gained a modicum of solace upon discovering a text that expressed his pain in a way that helped him navigate the tough times in which he'd found himself. Would it not be the height of arrogance for me to push back and say, "Jeezus, dude, what were you smoking when you read my poem? You obviously didn't understand a line!" Rather, shouldn't I be complimented by the fact that a reader was so affected by my work? Even if that affect might seem to me (and likely others) to have come completely from left field? (Or even left of Saturn and headed towards the North Star?) So, I say, Let readings thrive. All readings. Even the "mis"-readings. Maybe even, especially the mis-readings.
Remarkable! In the earlier part of your article, I was becoming frustrated because my perception of your words was that you were somehow promoting 'revenge', fortunately, before I could turn away you let me know that you weren't.
In similar vein, I've misheard several song lines or single words, even if my most admired artists, such as Bob Dylan, only eventually to read the lyric and listen again, then realising my mistake. I've never though, done other than feel stupid, always having felt a little uncomfortable with my own mis-hearing, (not realising that it was such), and wondering why Bob or whoever, had sung what they hadn't. I guess I either never came across such an almighty misreading, (excuse the pun please), or else I simply haven't analysed to the extent you have done. It doesn't matter.
It particularly doesn't matter because I really enjoyed this piece of trivia which so reflect everyday humanity and how easy it is to misunderstand or misinterpret. Given the particular content matter referred to here, perhaps this is one of the reasons for the vast number of differing interpretations of 'sacred' texts - almost always having been recorded or translated by other than the orginal author, often many times over by different others.
I'll shut up. Really enjoyed the piece. Thanks for sharing.
Ok, while we’re on the subject, I’d like to thank the internet for teaching me that the most mysterious line in pop song history - yes, the one in “Blinded By the Light” - is a Bruce Springsteen populist homage to homespun auto racing: “Blinded by the light / Revved up like a deuce (car) / Another runner in the night (racing car).” Now who in blazes was supposed to figure that out??
Having flubbed my Springsteen, I accept your Kate Bush.
Another hill song:
"When illusion spin her net,
I'm never where I wanna be,
And liberty, she pirouette,
When I think that I am free."
An all-timer
About lyrics of a song, i had a similar experience. I was listening to the song "Enemy" by Imagine Dragons and JID (Imagine Dragons is one of my fave artists i listen to frequently). There was a line of it i hadn't been able to understand, then when i looked at its lyrics, it became clear to me. I'm not usually like this, though.
And about revenge, i can say that if i ever wanted to do so, i wouldn't be able to do it because i'm a kind of person who usually chooses love over hatred, unless sth happens that makes me hate sb completely.
You know, at times like these, I play the Stanley Fish reader-response Ace 0' Spades trump card and declare: "Declining Academic, you've never been wrong about that Kate Bush lyric, even if you've never been right, either. Carry on, brother, because meaning is in the mind of the listener." A friend of mine once did me the great honor of using one of my poems as a possible subject for a final exam-paper in one of his classes. And then he sent me the responses of those students who'd chosen my poem for their final paper. The response I still remember, some 30+ years later, was from some tortured undergraduate whose family life was clearly in the toilet and swirling fast. That is, the explication of my poem was used by this young man as a way to process his response to a rapidly deteriorating family drama and his distress at being a freshman at a large state university, far, far away from everything familiar. That this required a heroic over- and mis-reading of my poem would be to indulge in the grossest of understatements: I barely recognized the source material of this young man's essay, and I'd written it! At first, I found his reading amusing: "Aren't teenage students so predictable in their solipsistic approaches. My, my, my. <snicker>" But then I thought, "But can I really claim that his reading is *wrong* simply because it doesn't seem to refer to the original text at all? Simply because, I, the author, disagree with his reading? Simply because no other reader in the universe would agree with his reading?" And I came to the conclusion that, no, I couldn't claim he was wrong, because when he wrote that paper, when he presented his reading of "my" text, he believed every single word he wrote. He was convinced that his interpretation was what my poem meant. And, for him, that's exactly what it meant. And because of that belief, he (I hope) gained a modicum of solace upon discovering a text that expressed his pain in a way that helped him navigate the tough times in which he'd found himself. Would it not be the height of arrogance for me to push back and say, "Jeezus, dude, what were you smoking when you read my poem? You obviously didn't understand a line!" Rather, shouldn't I be complimented by the fact that a reader was so affected by my work? Even if that affect might seem to me (and likely others) to have come completely from left field? (Or even left of Saturn and headed towards the North Star?) So, I say, Let readings thrive. All readings. Even the "mis"-readings. Maybe even, especially the mis-readings.
I like your version better too.
Remarkable! In the earlier part of your article, I was becoming frustrated because my perception of your words was that you were somehow promoting 'revenge', fortunately, before I could turn away you let me know that you weren't.
In similar vein, I've misheard several song lines or single words, even if my most admired artists, such as Bob Dylan, only eventually to read the lyric and listen again, then realising my mistake. I've never though, done other than feel stupid, always having felt a little uncomfortable with my own mis-hearing, (not realising that it was such), and wondering why Bob or whoever, had sung what they hadn't. I guess I either never came across such an almighty misreading, (excuse the pun please), or else I simply haven't analysed to the extent you have done. It doesn't matter.
It particularly doesn't matter because I really enjoyed this piece of trivia which so reflect everyday humanity and how easy it is to misunderstand or misinterpret. Given the particular content matter referred to here, perhaps this is one of the reasons for the vast number of differing interpretations of 'sacred' texts - almost always having been recorded or translated by other than the orginal author, often many times over by different others.
I'll shut up. Really enjoyed the piece. Thanks for sharing.
Take care. Stay safe.
☮️