Reading Rock Lyrics:

According to Wolfgang Iser's theory of the implied reader, every text is full of gaps, blanks or indeterminacies which are left up to the reader to fill in. The text itself merely provides the blanks and some guidelines for their filling, and the actual meaning of the text comes to reside not in the text, and not in the reader, but as an image created by the processing of the one by the other. [11] Consider a carpenter carving a fine wooden figurine from a block of beautifully grained and structured wood. He works with the structure and pattern in the wood as he carves, finally bringing out the image which he saw the potential for. In the same way, readers of a text observe the patterns laid down in the text and interpret them in their own way, but guided by what they see in the text, forming a mental image of its meaning. This is presumably why Iser prefers the term `aesthetics` to `criticism` when he describes his own theories; the meaning of a text is a work of art in itself.

`Harborcoat` is a text riddled with original and thus unfamiliar symbolism, making it hard to grasp on a first reading, or even a tenth one. Indeed, the members of R.E.M. themselves do not have a clear idea of what the text means, as Peter Buck admitted in 1988, five years after the song was written: `I never understood what "Harborcoat" was about.` [12] A surface reading, trying to treat `Harborcoat' as a straight narrative or a piece of realist fiction, makes no sense, implying that a good many of the words and phrases should be interpreted to mean something other than their most obvious connotations; they are signs or metaphors, but lacking any immediately obvious significations. Therefore, in trying to make sense out of this poem despite its difficulties, the reader must first fill in the gaps left by the indeterminate nature of the verbal signs. Exactly how these gaps are filled in, and consequently what the signs come to represent, will vary with different readers, and the results may or may not be tightly correlated to each other. Once this has been done, whatever the results, the reader can proceed to connect the images to one another in the pattern of the text. Finally, by viewing those interactions between the elements present, as understood by this particular reader, a mental picture of the text`s meaning should emerge. Now, this can normally only be done either in very general terms, trying to define the implied reader, or in a very specific manner, by inspecting the responses made by specific readers.

What are the characteristics of the implied reader structure in `Harborcoat?' Towards what methods of interpretation is the actual reader guided by the text? An instant recognition of symbolic statements, or indeterminacies, and a method for resolving their significance seem essential. The actual reader has to determine what a harbourcoat is and what it signifies, as well as the harbour ghosts and the statues, and who is meant by the personal pronouns `they,` `you,` `we,` `she` and `I.` The outcome of these decisions will be largely responsible for the meaning that will eventually be arrived upon. Real readers will have to solidify these indeterminacies, guided by the implied reader patterns, provided by the text, that indicate the ideal solidification or at least discourage choices that are altogether unsuitable. A variety of knowledge, skills and/or strategies can be used for following up on these patterns, none of which should be regarded as the way of making sense of the text. Indeed, a large and varied stock of general knowledge, also known as life experience, and the skill to apply it intelligently to what is read may be the best weapons for attacking `Harborcoat`. No matter which method is used at this stage, the aim is to make enough of the symbols signify, so that they may be strung together in a meaningful pattern or sequence. [13]

Therefore, the next skill demanded by the implied reader structure is the ability to correlate these significations to each other in a meaningful way. This cannot be done without looking at the text as a whole and the patterns in it. Any attempt to formulate a set strategy for doing so would inevitably fail, as each text lays out its own unique pattern and needs its own unique mode of interpretation to realise the full potential of meaning from the seemingly disjointed and unconnected symbols. If the symbols should, by any chance, form an obvious pattern, there will still be a demand for ways to follow that pattern. Not only will the strategy vary with the text, but also with the results of stage one, that is, the significance of the various symbols. From this follows that the strategy will necessarily have to vary with every new reader. Therefore, it is almost impossible to make any authoritative statement on what steps should be taken, even if there is a clearly defined specimen of text already chosen; the only valid statement that can be made has to emanate from studies of particular readers, or groups of readers. The concept of the implied reader can only be taken to a certain limit, and then it is necessary to go beyond that virtual reader and seek out real ones.

The textual guides that constitute the implied reader in `Harborcoat,' then, demand from the reader a broad range of general knowledge from which the necessary pieces of information needed to make sense out of the symbols can be picked. Then, a way to connect them to each other in meaningful ways is called for. In other words, that is what is needed for a reader to assume the position which the text implies to be ideal for its understanding. Practicing what I preach, and turning from the general to the specific, I will now show how one reader, a psychology student named Maribel Cuyun, reacted to the text, and how she was guided by the implied reader structure in making her responses to the indeterminacies she was presented with.

Her first strategy was to read the text for its face value. Because of the nature and prominence of the indeterminacies in the text, this did not work very well, and so she was forced to give this approach up and look for a better one. She turned her eye to find emotionally charged words and phrases, and this attempt to pinpoint the gaps was immediately rewarded with success. Using this angle of attack obviously coloured her interpretation in two ways: first by placing the emphasis on the emotive aspect of the words rather than on their semantic aspect, and second by foregrounding the parts of the text which carry the heaviest emotional load. When asked, Maribel explained that this is her standard strategy in the reading of any text, and that it sometimes even overtakes the reading for face value. She feels that by doing this, she can experience the same emotions that the writer was experiencing when he composed the text; this is her main approach to reading literature, poetry and prose alike. Given her background in psychology, this attitude should not surprise us; Maribel`s approach may be a result of her academic studies, or it may have been bred from the same beginnings as her interest in psychology. The connection is clear; the exact nature of it is irrelevant.

The aforementioned success of Maribel`s method consists of a rich vein of emotional metaphors. She started out by concentrating on what seemed the most important word, by its repetition, its strategic placement and the fact that it is also the title of the poem: harbourcoat. She looked at the context in which it always appeared (the refrain), then at what the word itself could mean, and then found a common denominator for the two parts: the desperate need, pleading, and obsession with finding the coat, plus the safety and warmth represented by a harbour (where ships come home after the storm) and a coat (which acts as a shield against bad weather), resemble love. The narrator is desperately looking for love (the coat), because he needs the safety it brings. With this as her starting point and basic assumption, Maribel went on to look for support for and elaborations of this simple concept in the rest of the text.

The security theme, originating in the coat, haunts the entire text when seen from this perspective: the handshake becomes reassuring, the statues become paragons of stability; the dance brings people closer together, and it does drive the menace out. But the safety is threatened: the statues are shifted in order to harbour ghosts, knives are pushed through the narrator`s back, and there is a splinter in his eye which tells him to react. What is this menace, and what is hurting the narrator so? An answer to these questions is suggested by the line: `I finally got a letter that said she was dead.` The narrator has loved and lost, and the pain he feels comes from this loss; the search for the coat may be a quixotic quest to revive his love from the dead, or a mellowly pathetic search for memorabilia of her (the coat - a piece of clothing - was hers), or an attempt to lose his sorrows in the arms of another, or all of the above. The fact that most of the lines are repeated seems to support the idea of an obsessive denial of his loss. The ghosts are memories of her, and of their time together; mellow, bitter, sweet, happy or sad - they keep her alive in his mind. The narrator is of two minds as to whether these memories are of a good or a bad nature: he should `watch those harbor ghosts` and `they might be real,` a warning that the memories may overwhelm him, but he also thinks of them as `friendly harbor ghosts` which still `might be real;` his memories may well be all that he needs, and reality is only as real as he admits it to be.

It is interesting to note how Maribel`s reading corresponds to Riffaterre`s method for reading poems. Allow me to quote a summary of this process from A Reader`s Guide To Contemporary Literary Theory:
 

1. Try to read for ordinary `meaning';

2. Highlight those elements which appear ungrammatical and which obstruct an ordinary mimetic interpretation;

3. Discover the `hypograms' (or commonplaces) which receive expanded or unfamiliar expression in the text;

4. Derive the `matrix' from the `hypograms'; that is, find a single statement or word capable of generating the `hypograms' and the text. [14]

In my group of subjects - my entire English class of over twenty people - there was a fairly united impression of the mood of the entire text as grey, gloomy and oppressive. Many readers felt this mood and nothing more; the lyrics being so open, it was hard to pin down any interpretation that made sense. The group proceeded to attempt an application of structuralist narratology to this text, but this produced no tangible results either, since it was hard to assign the vital role of object to any one element in the text; 'Harborcoat' proved very hard to categorise as a narrative of any kind. However, the group was not devoid of ideas, and two ideas in particular showed some promise, although we did not have the time to follow up on either one properly.

The first idea was the observation that the text contains several hidden or modified proverbs or colloquial sayings, especially in the lead voice lines. The most obvious one is the Biblical reference in the fourth line: `There`s a splinter in your eye . . .` which is a close paraphrase of Luke 6:41 and Matthew 7:3: `Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother`s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?` Others include `. . . with their noses worn off,` which is to take the concept of `putting your nose to the grindstone,` i.e. working very hard, to its extreme; `Reddened their necks, collared their clothes` first alludes to Rednecks, and then to the blue collar/white collar workers dualism and thereby to divisions of social class; `Metal shivs on wood push through our back` - betrayal is often referred to as backstabbing. Recognising these semi-secret sayings does not in itself attain any goal, but seeing them for what they are and following up on them in the context of a thorough discussion of the whole text can prove to be a powerful tool. Semiotics in particular would benefit from preparatory work like this.

The second of the most valuable thoughts offered by the class concerned the thematisation of mobility/stagnation. We barely touched upon the subject in the group - in truth, the idea was barely mentioned and discussed only in the most cursory of manners - but allow me to go a few steps further here; this dynamic binary opposition should not be taken only at face value, representing only actual physical relocation or immobility, but also as applying to more abstract concepts, such as politics or the state of mind of the narrator, to name a couple. I do not have the space available for a complete examination of each approach, but I shall consider at least viewing `Harborcoat` as a study in political mobility/stagnation.

Through these Marxist tinted lenses, it is plain to see that there is obviously a power struggle going on. The first verse describes the beginnings of a revolution, when the common people, whose trusty handshakes are their foremost group identifier, `[gather] up to Lenin`, ready to backstab their leaders; the time has come to react and do something about the stagnant society they live in. In the second verse, the revolution is a fact, shifting the statues, ousting the menace of the old order, and gathering the corners of the nation under a new flag. However, power corrupts, and the new government finds itself mostly wanting to protect its own position of power. The wielding of the power has been moved from one group to another, but the common people - the ones who instigated the revolution to begin with - after the initial idealism of the new leaders has worn off realise that their situation has not changed in reality. Consequently, in the next verse, a counter-revolution starts and is eventually completed - presumably leading to another stagnant situation, and another revolution. In this version, `Harborcoat` is a cyclic poem, which ends where it began and folds in upon itself endlessly, showing the rhythmic pulse of social change, and the necessity of ongoing changes in order to break up stagnant social models and prevent society as a whole from going completely stale and self-destructive.

Other readings, similar to the above one in form but inherently different in method and results, can be done by replacing the politics with psychology, with physical movement (which is habitually used by authors to signify inner development of a character - a basis for further exploration), or with any theme the interpreter sees fit to invoke. The choice of theme will be determined by the implied reader structure as modified by each interpreter`s personal knowledge, preferences and social background, as well as by the spur of the moment. The same is true for how that theme is subsequently treated; in the end, if done by a sufficient number of interpreters of sufficiently varied dispositions and backgrounds, a range of possible interpretations could be laid down and be regarded as a guide to the song. I say guide instead of explanation, because there will always be just one more dimension to investigate, one more angle from which to attack a certain passage, or one more way of clarifying that last indeterminacy that has eluded us. No interpretation, or set of interpretations, of a text open enough to avoid boring the reader can ever hope to be complete and final.

`Harborcoat`, unlike `World Leader Pretend`, is a very open text from the start. The structure of `World Leader Pretend` assumes that the reader will read the text in a certain way, namely as a metaphor for the narrator`s inner struggle to break free from his self-imposed social defences before they smother him completely; other readings can be done, as I have shown, but they are not actively encouraged. `World Leader Pretend` is a fairly readerly, or closed, text in that sense, intended to leave little for the reader to fill in. `Harborcoat`, on the other hand, assumes next to nothing and demands almost everything from the reader; no interpretation is obvious, and any attempt to understand the poem is by actively fighting to reach the desired understanding; nothing is given up for free, and when one approach seems to have established the significance of a certain textual element, another reading, just barely different, is likely to throw that certainty into heavy doubt. For example, in Maribel`s reading, the repetitious nature of `Harborcoat` signifies the narrator`s obsession with regaining what was lost, but in the political reading, that same repetition instead signifies a natural cycle of social events leading up to and culminating in repeated revolutions. Another example: Maribel saw the coat as a symbol of many things, notably safety, the lost love, and an object of obsessive desire, whereas in a political context, the coat became a symbol of stagnation, conservatism and self-protection. Other readings will come up with further definitions of what the harbourcoat and the repetitive structure `are.` `Harborcoat`, then, is very much an open or writerly text, forcing the reader to interact with it in a very different way than `World Leader Pretend` does.
 

Does anything said in this essay make `World Leader Pretend` and `Harborcoat` good songs, or good poems? No; it says nothing about their quality. My experience is that the concept of good or bad literature is totally subjective, and any qualitative statement will necessarily have to be founded in evaluative criteria, the selection of which can never be objective. If I want to show that both lyrics are of inferior literary quality, I could say that `World Leader Pretend` is too limited in its interpretative possibilities, and `Harborcoat` is so open it gets confusing. Or, I could argue that `World Leader Pretend` is overly didactic, shoving its message in our faces, and `Harborcoat` fails to convey whatever message it is trying to get across. On the other hand, I could say that `World Leader Pretend` is a good poem because it has a unified message which is easy to understand, and the metaphors in it are successful in the sense that they are appropriate to their subject matter as well as vividly evocative; `Harborcoat` is good because it allows the reader free rein in interpreting it, exercising the mind and encouraging independent thought, along with the fact that it is a rewarding experience to be faced with a difficult text and still manage to decrypt it to one`s own satisfaction. Several schools of criticism, most notably New Criticism, have tried to establish methods for objective evaluation of the literary value of texts, but have always failed or been proven wrong by later theories. The only thing that cannot be satisfactorily dismissed is reading enjoyment, the sheer pleasure of reading something that is to one`s liking. The problem here is that no work will be liked by everyone, though I could conceive of a work which elicits only negative responses. In any case, evaluating my sample texts on aesthetic grounds would be another essay, and it is not my place to judge them by their enjoyment potential here.

As for the applicability of literary criticism to these texts, the essay should speak for itself. I have successfully applied reader response ideas, deconstruction, semiotics and Marxism. If space so permitted, I would also have been able to show how feminism, structuralist narratology, other reader response approaches, and a slightly fuller version of deconstruction all work very well with R.E.M. lyrics, but it is not possible to do so within the scope of this essay. Other critical tools should work equally well, though I am not competent in their use. New dimensions have been added to the texts with each reading; these dimensions may consist of additional layers of meaning, of social significance, or simply of pure intricacy of construction - whatever their nature, they all appear when a skilled hand uses various critical tools to examine the lyrics as if they were poems. In conclusion, I believe that I have managed to raise a host of arguments in favour of treating the lyrics of R.E.M. as serious literature, worthy of serious study, and encountered no serious obstructions to my cause. I consider my point made; R.E.M.'s lyrics should indeed be taken seriously, the way works by accepted poets and authors are, and the results of doing so are as valid and useful for understanding our own time as the works of any quality author - poet or novelist, historic or contemporary alike.