[continued from previous message]   
      
   remembering these things; and the fact that Bob's having those memories,   
   is the same fact as that he's remembering them. If you decided, from s1,   
   that he's escaped from a mental institution (which is what you meant by   
   claiming it's "unrealistic" for him to have got permission to visit the   
   house), then you'd go on to look for confirming evidence in s2-s8, which   
   is what it sounds like you did.   
      
   > It is, however, reasonable   
   > to conclude that the author thinks of his childhood home as *his   
   > father's house*   
      
   Yes, of course it was *his father's house*, just as the home I grew up   
   in was my own father's house. He built it with his own hands; but even   
   if he'd just bought it or even rented it, it would still be his, the   
   place he provided for his family to live. I'd consider a child's refusal   
   to acknowledge that fact to be a sign of rivalry and resentment, a   
   refusal to give one's father due credit.   
      
   > and that he still harbors some anger toward his father   
   > (even though his father is presumed to be deceased).   
      
   Bob certainly has unresolved issues with his father, but "anger" (much   
   less the desire for revenge "De." NastyGoon attributed to him) is a   
   matter of interpretation. OTOH, whether Bob's father is dead or not is   
   not a matter of interpretation; it's clearly stated in the poem.   
      
   > In short, the bulk of the narrative is based on real life memories from   
   > its author's childhood.   
      
   All my poetry is "based" on my memories, but (as I've told you) my   
   memories include much more than direct experience). In this case, I   
   mainly used my own memories of my childhood because they worked. I   
   certainly had issues with my father as a teenager when I lived there,   
   and for a small time after I ceased to do so, and I wanted to make Bob's   
   issues no different from mine.   
      
   > Why then all the fuss about my having called it "autobiographical"?   
      
   Because you not only repeatedly insist that it's "autobiographical" when   
   you've been told it wasn't, you try to draw conclusions about me from   
   it. (One particularly funny example of that, which I have to mention, is   
   a claim you made that I call you and "Dr." NastyGoon malicious trolls,   
   not because I perceive the two of you as malicious trolls, but because I   
   perceive you as "parent figures" and I'm calling you both trolls just to   
   somehow get revenge on my real parents. "Psychobabble", as I've said.)   
      
   > It's a typical Straw Man argument intended to divert the discussion from   
   > examining the psychological aspects of the narrative, and to falsely   
   > represent an attempt to provide an in-depth analysis of the poem as a   
   > personal attack upon himself.   
      
   Not at all. Seeing the poem as "autobiographical" allows you to present   
   your so-called analysis of Bob as an analysis of me, and try to justify   
   your own "attacks" on me. As you often do, want to label the poem   
   "autobiographical"  (just as you want to call Bob "George") as if, a la   
   Orwell, the words you use somehow prove your arguments.   
      
   > Good old paranoid, perpetually persecuted George.   
      
   And, since that last line of yours was what your "analysis" was meant to   
   establish, and your only reason for your undertaking it in the first   
   place, it's a good place to conclude this post.   
      
   snip   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)