[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> The only difference is that in an autobiography, the author is   
   >>> (supposedly) attempting to be unbiased, where as in creative literature,   
   >>> the author is allowing his biases to take center stage.   
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)