[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> Which is not a good simile, as I said, because "read newspapers" do not   
   >>>>> normally stack up that way.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Technically, newspapers don't stack up stack up any way by themselves;   
   >>>> they are stacked up by others.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's a stupid quibble; of course stacks of newspapers are made by   
   >>> people. Normally, people do not stack up the newspapers they've already   
   >>> read.   
   >>   
   >> It is neither stupid, nor quibbling, George. I was demonstrating how one   
   >> can change the meaning of a sentence by examining it out of context   
   >> (something which you do in practically every post).   
   >   
   >> According to your   
   >> sentence, the newspapers have taken on a life of their own and are   
   >> capable of movement (piling themselves in stacks).   
   >   
   > No, that's simply your interpretation of the sentence. It actually says   
   > nothing about the newspapers taking on a life of their own and moving   
   > anywhere.   
      
   Wrong again, George.  Taken out of context that's exactly what it says.   
      
      
   >> If you don't like it, don't do it.   
   >   
   >>>> But we are discussing a line of poetry, a literary form that deals in   
   >>>> simile, symbol, and metaphor -- so why should it matter how you think   
   >>>> they stack themselves in real life?   
   >>>   
   >>> If in a poem you're trying to use a simile to show how the [d]ays "pile   
   >>> up" or stack up, you should try to use a vehicle that does normally   
   >>> "pile up" (like Creeley's "unread newspapers", not one that does not   
   >>> normally "stack up" (like "read newspapers"). That should be clear   
   >>> enough to anyone who isn't just   
   >>> trying to play the peabrain.   
   >>   
   >> See my comments below.  While "unread newspapers" get stacked up because   
   >> the subscriber hasn't had time to read them, "read newspapers" get   
   >> stacked up when the subscriber is suffering from clinical depression --   
   >> which is what NancyGene's poem is about.   
   >   
   >>>>>- once they're read, they're thrown away.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> Under normal circumstances, yes.   
   >>>   
   >>> So a reader's first thought would be that the line makes no sense.   
   >>>   
   >>>> However, when someone is suffering from clinical depression, they often   
   >>>> do not bother taking out their trash.  As previously noted, my Great   
   >>>> Aunt who suffered from depression stacked all of her read newspapers and   
   >>>> magazines on her front porch. The stacks reached up to the ceiling, and   
   >>>> covered the entire porch, barely allowing passage to her door.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you saying that a perceptive reader would conclude that NastyGoon's   
   >>> speaker is suffering from "clinical depression"? Are you saying that's   
   >>> what you concluded on the basis of one line? I did not.   
   >>   
   >> I can't remember if I picked that up from the first line, or further   
   >> into the poem.  I certainly recognized it as the theme *during* my   
   >> initial reading.   
   >   
   > That's nice, but don't you remember what your mentor PJ Ross used to   
   > tell us an "esperienced reader" would do if he found a first line in a   
   > poem by a complete unknown that didn't make sense to him? Why expect   
   > anyone to do it for NG's poem?   
      
   I found NancyGene's line to make perfect sense.  It clearly shows   
   memories as piling up on the speaker and weighing them down.   
      
   I said that my awareness that the speaker was suffering from clinical   
   depression occurred at some point in the poem (it may have been during   
   the opening line, or it may not have been).  I suppose it came the   
   moment I paused to reflect upon what I had just read.   
      
   > (Note that I haven't refused to read the rest of the poem. You and your   
   > "colleague" have refused to post it.)   
   >   
   >>>>> If   
   >>>>> NastyGoon wanted to compare oppressive memories stacking up to something   
   >>>>> else, they should have compared that to something that is read and not   
   >>>>> thrown away; anything from magazines, to books, to downloaded files on a   
   >>>>> hard drive. But comparing them to newspapers doesn't make sense.   
   >>>   
   >>> "Old clothes would be another good vehicle; those stack up in closets,   
   >>> whether they've been worn or not. That makes four better choices than   
   >>> NastyGoon's.   
   >>   
   >> Because old clothes don't represent memories.   
   >   
   > All righty, then. I gave you only three better choices.   
      
   All righty, books, magazines, and electronic files do not represent the   
   *events or experiences* of one's day.  Memories are stored in the mind   
   just as current events are recorded and stored in daily newspapers.   
   Even if the papers are eventually thrown out, their content is archived   
   in various libraries (and websites).  Books, magazines, and electronic   
   files simply don't correspond to memories anywhere near so well as   
   newspapers do.   
      
   >   
   >> A daily newspaper (specifically a daily newspaper that has been *read*)   
   >> is the perfect metaphor for one's memories, which comprises the events   
   >> one experiences each day.   
   >   
   > No, "memories" does not comprise "the events   
   >> one experiences each day." There are plenty of events that I experience   
   >> each day that I don't remember.   
      
   I'm sorry for what may be mistaken for an apparent lapse in civility,   
   but that statement is beyond ignorant.   
      
   Our minds remember *everything* that we do and that happens to us.  We   
   simply store them in different ways depending on their perceived   
   relevance.  Under hypnosis one can recall *everything* that happened to   
   them on a given day twenty years ago from washing their hands, to   
   scratching their cheek, brushing away an annoying fly -- and they can   
   recall exactly what they were thinking and feeling at that time.   
      
   >>>> Again, it not only makes perfect sense, but it perfectly mirrors the   
   >>>> practices of my Great Aunt.   
   >>>   
   >>> Are you saying that, because you had a Great Aunt who suffered from   
   >>> clinical depression and didn't throw away newspapers she'd read, you   
   >>> were able to grasp from one line that NastyGoon's speaker suffered from   
   >>> the exact same clinical depression?   
   >>   
   >> I wouldn't say that it was the "exact same" one.  Depression varies with   
   >> the individual.  I'm saying that the *symptoms* of clinical depression   
   >> often involve shutting oneself off from the world, not wanting to leave   
   >> their house or even getting out of bed, not caring about their   
   >> appearance, not taking out their trash, etc.   
   >>   
   >>> My only response has to be that most readers don't have a Great Aunt   
   >>> like that; so they'd simply see it as a bad simile: trying to show how   
   >>> "yesterdays" stack up by comparing it to something that doesn't normall   
   >>> "stack up".   
   >>   
   >> I can't speak for most readers anymore than you can, George.   
   >   
   > Yet you have no trouble telling others what "readers" think of their   
   > poems.   
      
   I have never said that, George.   
      
   The only time I tell others what "readers" must think of their poem is   
   in specific instances where their line of poetry means something quite   
   different from what they'd intended.   
      
   Words have meanings.  Earlier in this post, we discussed how your   
   sentence when examined out of context, stated that the newspapers were   
   jumping on top of one another to form a pile.   
      
   Since a reader cannot know what a poet was thinking, they have to rely   
   on the words the poet has chosen to understand what the poem means.   
   When the poet fails to use language correctly, they end up expressing   
   something that runs counter to their intent.   
      
   >> I can say that most people have experienced feelings of depression, and   
   >> can readily understand feeling oppressed or suffocated by their   
   >> memories.   
   >>   
   >> Regardless of whether they've known someone suffering from clinical   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)