[continued from previous message]   
      
   Yes, it's possible to get a glimpse of an author's feelings about a   
   subject from what they right about it. That does not mean, as you seem   
   to think it means, that every thought or feeling expressed in a creative   
   work is a thought or feeling shared by the author. Take the   
   Fountainhead, for instance, since it's a book that we both claim to be   
   familiar with - it's reasonable to think that some of the characters'   
   thoughts and feelings - Roark, Dominique, even Wynand - are expressing   
   Rand's own thoughts and feelings. It is not reasonable to suggest (as   
   you do) that all the characters - everyone from Ellsworth Toohey to   
   Pasquale Orsini - are expressing Rand's own thoughts and feelings.   
      
   >> Your constant misrepresentation of the poem as an autobiography   
   >> (including misquoting me, as we've seen) indicates that you're convinced   
   >> that you just can't see that difference; you've got the idea in your   
   >> head that this is how I'd "interpret" the events of my childhood (not to   
   >> mention my young manhood).   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   "Semi-autobiographical" sounds like a loosey-goosey term that is   
   tautologicaly true; on your account, every piece of writing is   
   "semi-autobiographical". It's useless as a concept; concepts are meant   
   to distinguish between different things, not to blur them all together   
   in one big "semi-autobiographical" stewpot.   
      
   > "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.   
      
   First off, biographers of Dickens do not simply conclude that the events   
   of David Copperfield happened to Dickens simply by doing a   
   "psychoanalysis" of the book - they actually do some work, and research   
   the details of Dickens's own life to find parallels with the events of   
   the novel. Second, I'm not aware of any real or pretend Dickens scholar,   
   besides you, has ever suggested that every character in David   
   Copperfield (from clara to Murdstone to the keeper) is really an   
   "aspect" of Charles Dickens.   
      
   > 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."   
      
   And you also clearly restated that authors can create imaginary,   
   characters using observation and imagination. Make up your mind: is an   
   author restricted to writing about himself, or can he write about people   
   and events that have nothing to do with him?   
      
   > 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.   
      
   That sounds similar to your claim that, the more a real or pretend   
   patient does not agree with a real or pretend "analyst's" opinions, that   
   only proves the analyst's opinions are correct, because it's evidence   
   that the patient is repressing "the truth" and is in "denial." There's   
   no arguing with someone who thinks it's true by definition that their   
   every opinion is "the unvarnished truth", and no point in trying.   
      
      
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   That claim sounds as absurd as your previous claim that I called the   
   poem "autobiographical." I may have used your terms like "Boy George" or   
   "Little George" (in scare quotes) because you were using them. But I   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)