[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> to claim that Bob broke into the house, and you had to get rid of the   
   >> idea that he had permission to be there.   
   >>   
   >> "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 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.   
   >>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > Childish name calling noted ^^^   
      
   Those are *adjectives,* Donkey.  Not *names.*   
      
   Nor are they adjectives that a typical child would use (or even   
   understand the meaning of).   
      
   Since George was comparing me to "Big Brother," I believe that the   
   adjectives in question were applicable.   
      
   --   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)