[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   >> 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.   
   >   
   >>> 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 poor little boy had a bleak, loveless, existence filled with   
   >> verbal, emotional, and physical abuses.   
   >   
   > He may think he does, though that's not what he says. He's just relating   
   > the facts as he remembers them. (Since he doesn't exist outside the   
   > poem, there's no point in quibble over what he thinks; that's why I left   
   > all that to the reader).   
   >   
   >>> Adding them together like that, it's easy enough to conclude that the   
   >>> father had been abusive; but I'll point out that all of those events   
   >>> were things children commonly experienced 50-60 years ago, and that none   
   >>> of them were commonly considered abusive.   
   >>   
   >> Um... I was a child 50-60 years ago, and my father was physically   
   >> abusive (for a two year period after my mother's death) -- and I find   
   >> your story to be horrifying.   
   >   
   >> Normal children may occasionally have been physically punished for   
   >> tracking dirt into the house, and such, but look at your poem... the   
   >> other children are outside playing while Little George is stuck inside   
   >> the house doing chores.   
   >   
   > I'm sure many "normal children" had to do chores when they'd rather be   
   > playing with their friends. That wasn't only my experience, but that of   
   > most of my friends, and they all seemed "normal" enough to me.   
      
   Well put.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)