[continued from previous message]   
      
   As previously noted, I don't believe I've ever called it   
   "autobiographical" unless I was using it as shorthand for   
   "semi-autobiographical" -- which I would have specified in the same   
   post.  I realize that you don't understand the importance of context,   
   but there's really nothing I can do about that.   
      
   I call your poem "semi-autobiographical" or note that (as per your own   
   statement) it was mostly based on your childhood.  If you want to draw a   
   distinction between "semi-autobiographical" and "creative literature   
   based on events from your childhood," go right ahead.  But the   
   differences between the two are minimal.   
      
   "David Copperfield" is a highly fictionalized account of Charles   
   Dickens' childhood and young manhood.  And his biographers, rightly,   
   refer to it when describing parallel incidents from his life.  It is   
   *because* "David Copperfield" is a fictionalized account of Dickens'   
   early life as seen through *his* eyes, to present *his* perception of   
   himself that it is so valuable a tool for discovering who Dickens really   
   was.   
      
   IOW: The more you've chosen to fictionalize, color, or otherwise alter   
   the event of your childhood, the more valuable your poem becomes as a   
   tool for psychoanalysis.   
      
   >> This is why your perception of Dr. NancyGene's and my analyses of your   
   >> poem strike you as personal attacks, whereas from my perspective the   
   >> *only* way to examine a semi-autobiographical poem on child abuse is   
   >> consider the speaker and the poet as being essentially the same   
   >> individual.   
   >   
   > Well, no, HarryLiar, I "interpret" your comments on the poem, and "Dr."   
   > NastyGoon's as personal attacks because you use them for personal   
   > attacks.   
      
   And you wonder why we have diagnosed you as suffering from a persecution   
   complex!   
      
   > A good example is your opening paragraph that I quoted, where   
   > you use your account of the poem, plus your misinterpretation of   
   > something else I'd said, to call me a "pathological liar".   
      
   No, George.  I call you a pathological liar because you have shown   
   yourself to be one time and time again.  "Pathological liar" is a   
   personality characteristic that one accepts as a "given" when opening   
   any psychoanalytical discussion on you.   
      
      
   > The more you   
   > try to pretend comments like that that are not personal attacks, but   
   > just comments on a poem, the harder it is to believe anything you say.   
      
   I can't make you believe it, George.  Most patients experience an   
   initial sense of distrust regarding their analyst; coupled with a sense   
   of resistance and denial.  Unfortunately, it is extremely difficult to   
   gain a patient's trust in an online forum -- especially when the patient   
   is suffering from a persecution complex with accompanying feelings of   
   paranoia.   
      
   >> In fact, Karla's oft-quoted adage aside, one can *never* fully separate   
   >> the two.   
   >> For instance, all of the characters in any author's fictional novel are   
   >> going to represent some aspect of the author.  Every poem stems from its   
   >> author's imagination... regardless of what external persons and/or   
   >> events might have inspired it.   
   >   
   > That sounds like another contradiction to me. Previously you said that   
   > "every" character in a novel represents an aspect of the author, and now   
   > you admit that at least some are actually inspired by other people.   
      
   I've admitted no such thing.  I clearly restated my opinion that "all of   
   the characters in any author's fictional novel are going to represent   
   some aspect of the author."   
      
   > Of   
   > course they're filtered through the author's imagination, but that's the   
   > precisely the point I'm trying to make to you: that the poem is a work   
   > of imagination, not simply a recitation of facts. The poem uses my   
   > memories, but it's not based on my memories; it's based on my speakker's   
   > memories as I imagined them to be.   
      
   And again, I can only repeat that the more a poem utilizes creative   
   imagination in its retelling of past events from your life, the more   
   valuable it becomes as a tool for understanding your psyche.   
      
   >> Every literary work is similar to a   
   >> dream construct in that regard; and like a dream construct, can be   
   >> analyzed by a psychologist, a literary critic, or even the average   
   >> reader.  Since "My Father's House" was based to a large extent on your   
   >> own childhood experiences, it literally begs for a psychoanalytical   
   >> reading.   
   >   
   > Forgive me if I use the term "psychobabble" again, but that's precisely   
   > what your mention of "analyzing" dream constructs put into my head. It   
   > reminded me of how your Dr. Freud came up with his theory of the Oedipus   
   > Complex (which you and the other "doctor" claimed I suffered from) by   
   > "analyzing" a child's dream about two giraffes.   
      
   Actually, your statement is a textbook example of "psychobabble."  First   
   off, I'm going to define "psychobabble" as the nonsensical statements   
   made by people who use psychoanalytical and psychiatric terminology   
   without fully understanding what they mean.  In this instance, you've   
   chosen to cite a story about Sigmund Freud which you do not really   
   understand.   
      
   Freud did *NOT* "come up with his theory of the Oedipus Complex... by   
   'analyzing' a child's dream about two giraffes."  Freud used the dream   
   of "Little Hans" to *SUPPORT* his already existent theory of the Oedipus   
   Complex.  The difference is extremely significant, as your false   
   recantation implies that a complex theory was based upon something as   
   trivial as *one* interpretation of *one* dream experienced by *one*   
   individual boy.   
      
   Such was not the case.  Freud's theory had been formulated from a   
   lifetime treating mental illnesses in hundreds of patients.  Little   
   Hans' dream merely served as a means of explaining (and supporting) his   
   theory.   
      
   >> Despite your claims of taking the reader through Little George's home   
   >> (with the same floor plan as its real life counterpart) on a   
   >> room-by-room basis, you jump from the kitchen to the garden.   
   >   
   > Your insistence on calling the speaker "George" is annoying (although it   
   > is preferable to the "Boy George" nickname you previously borrowed for   
   > him him and then insisted on calling me). I think you're just playing   
   > with words to blur the very distinction between speaker and writer that   
   > I'm trying to make with you. So I'm going to start calling him "Bob"   
   > instead.   
      
   In our previous sessions, we had agreed on referring to the speaker as   
   "George" when referring to him in his capacity as narrator (and   
   including the framing stanzas), and as "Little George" when referring to   
   the 6-year old whose story his is recalling.   
      
   It's telling how you remember the humorous use of "Boy George," but fail   
   to recollect our resolution to your objections.  It's even more telling   
   that you are "going to start calling him 'Bob'" as if in retaliation for   
   what you perceive to be an ongoing attack.   
      
   >> I am   
   >> guessing that you'd originally written the garden stanza to come first   
   >> within the body of the narrative, but had later switched it with the   
   >> kitchen stanza based on the severity of the (potentially perceived)   
   >> abuses.   
   >   
   > No, you guessed wrong again; the stanzas were not switched. The poem   
   > switches from the kitchen to the garden because the speaker is looking   
   > out the window, and in the floor plan of the house (which I've told you)   
   > the kitchen window overlook s the garden at the back of it.   
      
   That's structurally poor, and even more poorly expressed.  You should   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)