[continued from previous message]   
      
   > S9 - the speaker wishes he could burn the house down.   
   >   
   > None of those events happened to me, as I've told you repeatedly.   
      
   You're playing semantic games again, George.  The only reason that your   
   claiming that none of them happened, is because your poem isn't   
   technically describing the actual events, but the memories of a man who   
   is *walking through his childhood home" -- and, since you have never   
   returned to your childhood home, nothing that happens in the narrative   
   applies to your life.  IOW: Even though the speaker's childhood memories   
   may be similar to (or, in most instances identical to) your own, they   
   are not happening in the poem.  The only thing that is happening in the   
   poem is that the speaker is walking through the rooms of his childhood   
   home -- which is something that you have never done.   
      
   Why you seem embarrassed to admit that events which the speaker   
   remembers are similar/identical to your own can only stem from your   
   resistance to accepting the critical examinations/psychoanalyses of Dr.   
   NancyGene and myself.   
      
      
   >>> The poem is meant to be a dramatic monologue, in the style of Browning   
   >>> (His "My Last Duchess" is a good example), meant to get inside the   
   >>> psychology of a  speaker or persona.   
   >>   
   >> You are defaming Mr. Browning, sirrah!   
   >   
   > Not at all. Calling "My Last Duchess" an autobiographical poem would   
   > have defamed him; if you did that, you'd be accusing him of murdering   
   > his wife. (Do you think "My Last Duchess" was autobiographical?)   
      
   You said that you'd written it "in the style of [Mr.] Browning.  Your   
   have written your poem in a singsong fashion similar to that of a   
   children's book (and not a particularly good one).  "My Last Duchess"   
   was written specifically to draw the reader's attention *away from* the   
   poem's rhymed/metered format.  I.e., your poem's style is the direct   
   *opposite* Mr. Browning's.   
      
   >>> The speaker may have experienced   
   >>> his childhood as "abuse" - HarryLiar calls it that but the speaker   
   >>> doesn't. The memories of it, though, have stayed on his mind, and he   
   >>> wants to get rid of those memories (symbolized by burning down the house   
   >>> at the end).   
   >>   
   >> If the speaker (who we both know is George Dance)   
   >   
   > No; we both know that's a claim you (in your "Pendragon" sock) made   
   > about the poem; and precisely what we're discussing. You actually   
   > claimed that I broke into this house and tried to burn it down. Since I   
   > don't "know" things that aren't true, I don't "know" that; only you   
   > "know" it, simply because you said it previously.   
      
   I have never claimed that you broke into, or attempted to burn down, any   
   house, George.  I might have said that you harbor fantasies of doing so   
   -- and if I haven't, I'm saying it now.  But I have never accused you of   
   breaking and entering and attempted arson.   
      
   >> doesn't consider it   
   >> abuse, he should take the opportunity to explain why.   
   >   
   > Why should he? The speaker of the poem is not writing his   
   > "autobiography" either; he's just remembering things, and sticking to   
   > the facts.   
      
   In order to present the narrative in such a way that the readers are   
   left to make their own call as to whether the speaker had been subjected   
   to childhood abuse.  You did say (immediately below) that "(I)t's   
   deliberately left to the reader to decide if the speaker had actually   
   been abused by his father or not."   
      
   Since the flashback portion of the narrative is made up of   
   "abusive-seeming experiences," the reader isn't presented with any   
   alternative options.   
      
   Further, since the speaker expresses a desire to burn his father's house   
   to the ground, he has *not* "just remembering things, and sticking to   
   the facts."  He is also revealing his pent up feelings of anger   
   regarding said events which tells us in no uncertain terms that he feels   
   as if he had been abused.   
      
   And last, but not least, the fact that he refers to it as his Father's   
   house (as opposed to his house, or his childhood home), shows an   
   uncommon (to the point of morbidity) detachment from both his home and   
   the events of his past on his part.   
      
   In short, you have not left it up to the reader to decide in any way.   
   You have presented it in such a fashion as to blame the speaker's adult   
   psychological problems (and possible institutionalization) on the abuses   
   he'd suffered as a boy.   
      
      
   >>> It's deliberately left to the reader to decide if the speaker actually   
   >>> had been abused by his father or not. I did structure it, for effect,   
   >>> from the least to the most abusive-seeming experiences; from having to   
   >>> use a back door and remove his shoes to enter the house, to doing   
   >>> household chores, to doing garden work in the summertime, to not being   
   >>> allowed to use some of the furniture, to having to stay inside alone at   
   >>> night and be in bed early, to being subjected to corporal punishment.   
   >>   
   >> JFC! George.  There's no question that any of the above were forms of   
   >> abuse.   
   >   
   > No, HarryLiar: having to use a back door, and remove one's shoes; having   
   > to wash dishes and do garden work; not being allowed on all the   
   > furniture; having an early bedtime; and receiving corporal punishment   
   > from one's father; are not all unquestionably abusive.   
      
   That is a matter of opinion.  IMHO, the only one that is not abusive, is   
   having a 9 o'clock bedtime.   
      
   Having to use the back door is emotionally abusive.  Traditionally, one   
   makes one's servants enter and exit in this manner (reserving the front   
   door for themselves and their guests).  By making Little George enter by   
   the back door, his parents are relegating him to the position of a   
   menial (which, based on other events in the narrative, he is).  This   
   negatively impacts on Little George's sense of self worth.  His parents   
   don't treat him as an equal, as a family member, or even as a guest.   
   They treat him as they would the hired help.   
      
   Not only does Little George have to remove his shoes at the back door,   
   but he has to present himself for inspection, remove any other garnets   
   ("things") deemed too filthy to bring inside, and receive permission to   
   enter.  Again, the psychological damage that this does to one's   
   self-worth inestimable.  No wonder Little George refers to it as "My   
   Father's House."  He doesn't have permission to enter it as he pleases.   
   How can a child feel that it is *his* house, when he is subjected to   
   such conditions before entering.   
      
   As to his chores of doing dishes and working in the garden (as well as   
   any others that have not been mentioned), it is clear from the poem that   
   Little George is performing both against his will.  In the kitchen, he   
   is wishing that he was somewhere else; while in the garden he is   
   bemoaning the fact that he cannot play with the other children.  Forcing   
   a child to perform chores is a form of abuse.   
      
   Not being allowed on the furniture is another for of   
   emotional/psychological abuse in the same vein as forcing him to enter   
   (upon permission) by the back door.  Little George is being forced to   
   view the furniture as being too good for him (but good enough for his   
   parents and their guests).  Once again, Little George is being treated   
   as a second class citizen (or, more specifically, as a menial) in his   
   Father's house.   
      
   His being sent directly to his room after dinner (or did he clean the   
   dinner dishes as well?) can only give Little George the message that his   
   parents do not want him around.  He is to be unseen and unheard --   
   basically removed entirely from their evenings.  This too, is in keeping   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)