[continued from previous message]   
      
   > 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.   
   >   
   > And, since that last line of yours was what your "analysis" was meant to   
   > establish, and your only reason for your undertaking it in the first   
   > place, it's a good place to conclude this post.   
   >   
   > snip   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)