[continued from previous message]   
      
   > No, that's not a difference. Biographies (including autobiographies) can   
   > reflect their author's prejudices; one wouldn't expect a biography of   
   > Hitler or Amin to be "unbiased" or try for equal balance. The   
   > difference, to repeat, is that a biographer is (or should be) limited to   
   > real, verifiable events - it's an account of what really happened -   
   > whereas a work of creative literature has no such restraint.   
      
   But I am not calling your poem autobiographical, George.  I am calling   
   it "semi-autobiographical."  There is a difference between the two, as   
   well.  An autobiographical poem would have to be based entirely on fact.   
    A semi-autobiographical poem would only have to be partially based on   
   fact.  Since your poem is partially based on fact, it is a   
   semi-autobiographical work.   
      
   >> Both provide   
   >> glimpses into the author as a person; and some would argue that creative   
   >> literature provides a deeper glimpse as it is allowing the reader to   
   >> share in the author's emotional responses to their experiences (whereas   
   >> the former is merely relating said experiences, with the cold, clinical   
   >> detachment of a reporter).   
   >   
   > Sure, every literary work provides some glimpse into the author. That   
   > does not mean that every literary work is a "biography" of someone.   
      
   I haven't even so much as hinted that it would.   
      
   I'm saying that any fictional work is going to be partially   
   *autobiographical.*  "The Simple Man" is a fictional story that I wrote   
   that is based on a dream that I had.  Since I had the dream, the story   
   provides the reader with a glimpse into my subconscious.  "Beyond the   
   Veil" is also partially autobiographical, in that the speaker's   
   drug-induced hallucinations are based upon my own.  Both stories are   
   also highly fictional, and are about fictional characters... but both   
   stories also contain autobiographical elements.   
      
   >> Any good psychologist will tell you that it's not so much the events   
   >> that happened to you, but your feelings about those events, that are   
   >> important.   
   >   
   > 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.   
      
   I notice you have a tendency to take *every* statement that a say and   
   twist it into an absolute.  This is another tactic from High School   
   Debate Team 101.   
      
   I have never said that *every* thought or feeling expressed in a   
   creative work is a thought or feeling shared by its author.  I said that   
   *some* of them are.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
   And, again, I have never made any such absolute claim.   
      
   I should also like to point out that Rand's book was written to express   
   her philosophy of Objectivism.  As such, it would necessarily contain   
   characters whose personal philosophies contrast with her own.   
      
   When Rand creates a character like Toohey, he is meant to be the   
   embodiment of everything that she hates about Communism.  She is using   
   him to pit Communism against Objectivism.  Toohey isn't a character in   
   this regard, but a counter argument to her philosophy (a Straw Man   
   argument, as he is presented in a negative light).   
      
   However, one could argue that Rand's decision to use such a repulsive   
   character as Toohey to represent Communism shows how thoroughly she   
   detested that social philosophy and all those who supported it.  In that   
   sense, even Toohey can tell us something about Rand.   
      
   Rand has said that Dominique Francon is based partially on herself ("in   
   a bad mood").  Any psychological examination of "The Fountainhead" would   
   have to focus on Dominique and her relationships with the various male   
   characters.   
      
   But a book of philosophical fiction is hardly the best example for one   
   to use.  Philosophy is an intellectual art (a product of the ego),   
   whereas creative fiction stems at least partially from the subconscious.   
      
   >>> 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.   
      
   "Semi-autobiographical" means partially based on the author's life.  It   
   is not "loosey-goosey" in any way.  It is either partially based on   
   their life, or it is not.  "My Father's House" is partially based on   
   your childhood.  "The Hobbit" is not based on Tolkien's (although there   
   may be semi-autobiographical elements within the narrative, the book   
   itself is not semi-autobiographical).   
      
   I hope that isn't too complicated for you to grasp (as you seem unable   
   to grasp any concept that doesn't limit itself to black and white,   
   either/or terms).   
      
   "Semi-autobiographic" means partially based on the author's life.   
   A fictional book is not based on the author's life, but could contain   
   semi-autobiographic elements.   
      
      
   >> "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.   
      
   That's right, George.  I never implied it was otherwise.   
      
      
   > 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.   
      
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)