Everything You Wanted to Know About Michael Stipe’s Lyrics, but Were Too Afraid to Ask

While I’m logged in to WordPress, I wanted to pass on that Matthew Perpetua’s wonderful Pop Songs 07-08 project experienced its completion and rebirth this week.  Matthew finished writing about all of R.E.M.’s pre-Accelerate songs with an excellent reading of (appropriately) “It’s the End of the World as We Know It (and I Feel Fine.”  Just as his readers started to ponder life without his periodic posts, Matthew announced that Michael Stipe would be answering reader submitted questions about lyrics and intentions on the Pop Songs blog!  Before I could come back to Earth long enough to think of a question (I’m leaning towards one about the “laquered thirty” line on “Little America”), Stipe already answered two batches of questions about songs new and old.  Head over to Pop Songs to check it out.

So far, two answers stuck out to me.  The first for its inherent comedy:

[Q:] In Rolling Stone you and Mike made oblique references to New Adventures in Hi-Fi having a theme of alien abduction – especially “Electrolite” – can you say anything more about that or themes on that album?

[Stipe:] any reference on record, like “new adventures is about alien abduction”, or “it sounds like two oranges being nailed together” probably means the interviewer or situation was somewhere between not good to wretched…and we were having a laugh as ricky gervais the extra would say. There is no alien abduction theme on new adventures, to answer your question.

And the second for the questions it raises:

[Q:] Which fan song interpretation has surprised you the most compared to the song’s original meaning?

[Stipe:] sweetness follows, the one I love, why not smile

Certainly, the tongue in cheek nature of “The One I Love” has been discussed before (seriously, look at the lyrics and try to tell me what kind of couple wants to hug over being “a simple prop to occupy my time”) but both “Sweetness Follows” and “Why Not Smile” seem fairly straightforward.  I wonder if he’ll clarify.

Of course, this makes me think of intentional fallacy, one of my favorite literature professor’s (himself an author) central beliefs about literature – namely, that interpretation lies in the text rather than in what the author has to say about it.  Stipe acknowledges this himself in one of his responses:

i’m fine with any and all interpretations that arent manifested in real life as harmful, hateful or violent.

So while I’m incredibly fascinated to see Stipe answer these questions (and the responses often are quite interesting), I’m also hoping that he doesn’t accidentally crush one of my favorite songs by introducing an idea I haven’t considered prior.