[continued from previous message]   
      
   your father used a belt, it was a whipping.  I am not implying that he   
   used a cat o'nine tails -- although Little George would probably have   
   seen it that way.   
      
      
   >> So, pretty much the entire "flashback" portion of the poem was based on   
   >> real events from George Dance's childhood.  Some of the events may have   
   >> been slightly exaggerated, or enhanced, for dramatic purposes, and one   
   >> item was interpolated from another boy's stories about his own   
   >> childhood.   
   >   
   > No, I did not say I got the expression "boys can be such filthy things"   
   > from another boy's account to me. IIRC, it was just something I read   
   > somewhere. I did a lot of reading as a child and as a young adult, and a   
   > lot of the speakers' "memories" and other thoughts use what I've read   
   > (and simply imagined) as well as what I directly experienced.   
      
   Unimportant.  Either way the expression wasn't used about you in real   
   life, and would have had no bearing on your psychological growth.   
      
      
   >> This leaves the "modern" portions of the narrative which   
   >> frame the flashback portion.   
   >   
   > I don't think you can separate the poem like that. Bob's actions, and   
   > Bob's memories, are fully integrated - you cannot separate the memories   
   > from the fact that Bob's remembering them.   
      
   They are necessarily separated: the framing sections represent Little   
   George in his present day state (under psychiatric care, suffering from   
   pent up rage, wishing to obliterate all recollection of his childhood).   
   The flashback portion may be told (and colored) by Grownup George in his   
   present state, but the events still happened to Little George.   
      
   I don't believe the narrator is making the various memories up.  He is   
   only presenting them in a negative light.   
      
      
   >> In the modern portion, it is strongly   
   >> implied (by George Dance's own explanation) that the speaker is   
   >> receiving some form of psychiatric care, and is probably residing in a   
   >> mental hospital.   
   >   
   > I thought that was an interesting touch from the beginning, though (as I   
   > made it clear in previous explanations) there is no reason to think,   
   > from the fact that Bob was in the house with permission, that he was in   
   > a mental hospital or that he was under psychiatric care. His mental   
   > state is obviously disturbed - as noted, he has difficulty staying on   
   > one subject and drawing conclusions - but I think those could follow   
   > from the situation (he's experiencing childhood memories that he'd   
   > rather not) rather than his own mental state.   
      
   Little George says that "they" told him it would be okay to visit the   
   house he grew up in.  This could imply either his doctors or the family   
   living there.  My own interpretation is that he broke in to the house   
   while the family was out -- but it's possible that he was being   
   conducted on a tour of the house by its present occupant/s.   
      
   Again, his incomplete thoughts just come across as bad writing.  This   
   sort of thing works much better in a short story, where you can contrast   
   an omniscient narrator's voice with Adult George's monologues about each   
   room in the house.   
      
   Come to think of it, the entire piece would work better as a short   
   story, where the ambiguity regarding the severity of the punishments   
   could be more fully explored, and where you would not have the necessity   
   to rhyme about a serious and disturbing subject.   
      
   >> He has permission to leave the grounds during the day,   
   >> and (unrealistically) to visit his childhood home that is now occupied   
   >> by another family.   
   >   
   > Yes, the idea that someone confined to a mental hospital would be given   
   > a day pass to go off on a road trip by himself is very "unrealistic" and   
   > (while I liked it being as possibility) it's not a very logical   
   > possibility. I believe you went for it because you wanted to and went on   
   > to claim that Bob broke into the house, and you had to get rid of the   
   > idea that he had permission to be there.   
      
   I believe that in my initial reading I overlooked the "they said" line's   
   significance altogether, and that you had to point it out.  I did think   
   that he had broken into the house.   
      
   > "Grownup George" ends the poem by expressing his   
   >> wish that he would like to burn his father's house to the ground.   
   >   
   > So Bob does. It's a very dramatic ending, which could make a reader   
   > think that he was a psycho -- iff the reader had already decided he was   
   > a psycho. Which is why I had Bob daydream about being able to buy the   
   > house and burn it, rather than simply start looking for matches and   
   > gasoline. As I said, I wanted to balance things and let the reader draw   
   > her own conclusions.   
      
   The ending would have been far more powerful if it didn't have to   
   overcome the children's book style rhyme, and if Little George simply   
   struck a match to light up a cigarette and wondered about burning the   
   house down -- leaving it open-ended as to whether or not he does.   
      
   That's more constructive criticism, and not an attack on your work.   
      
      
   >> The framing story, is obviously fictional insofar as real life George   
   >> Dance is not living in a mental institution, and is not (to the best of   
   >> my knowledge) undergoing psychiatric care.   
   >   
   > As I say, it's impossible to separate the two. The Bob who's walking   
   > through the house, and looking out the window, is the same Bob who's   
   > 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.   
      
   You seem to be saying that it's impossible to separate the fictional   
   George from his real life counterpart.  I don't think this is what you   
   mean, but in context of the sentence you're responding to, that would be   
   the only way to read it.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I see that is being terribly wrong.  It is *your* home.  And, as such,   
   it is *your* house -- as your house is the physical structure where   
   you've made your home.  My childhood home was either "My house" or "Our   
   house."  There is no hint of rivalry or resentment there.  The house   
   represents family, togetherness, equality among family members, and the   
   like.  OTOH, "My Father's house" represents both detachment and   
   resentment, and the child wants to have no part of it.   
      
      
   >> 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.   
      
   I had to scroll up to find it.   
      
   I just don't find it memorable... probably because I don't find it   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)