Quote:
|
Originally Posted by David
ROFL!!! That's one of your favorite songs on that album, isn't it? I forgot!
I suppose I could sum up my views thus, Chili: The track has orchestral strengths, undoubtedly. It's just that the textuality presupposes a certain static yet pre-lingual obsession with naive sexual guilt & hegemonic discrimination. It turns in on itself in an endless dismantling of its craving for origins: truth & presence. But outside this metaphysics of presence, the song seems too encased in its receding aporia, & I can't help thinking that Lindsey is fixated on the epoch of the full speech, suspended from the metal strings of his Turner Model 1 between a free reflection on the origin of writing-qua-writing & the subsuming of that fixated transcendence.
So, as you can see, I really had to vote it out.
|
Your assessement is certainly eloquently phrased, yet I think there is a elemental flaw in it. What you regard as the song's textual presupposition is a problematic supposition in itself. The psychological implications you derive from the text are hardly clear-cut - this song appears far from naive to me. Yes, sexual guilt is apparent, but it is that of the world-weary cynic who's been around the block enough times to identify his destructive behavior even if he seems unable or unwilling to put an end to it (at least at that point). I think your metaphysical leanings have made you create your own metatext that is not necessarily true to authorial intent. If your poor opinion is the result of an arguable misreading of Lindsey's psyche, that would be a pity - but certainly, such a judgment is your right.