[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> 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.   
   >   
   > Then I suggest that you read a little more.  Clara and Murdstone were   
   > based upon people from Dickens' life (Clara was based on his   
   > housekeeper, and Dickens' stepfather was named George Murdstone).  His   
   > depictions of them represent his feelings toward the individuals they   
   > are based on.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> 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?   
   >   
   > It isn't an either-or situation, George.  Reality is more complicated   
   > than that.   
   >   
   > Perhaps this will help you to understand:  It has been pointed out that   
   > no purely fantastical creatures, places, or things have ever been   
   > depicted in fiction (or in dreams, etc.).  It has further been posited   
   > that purely fantastic beings are *beyond the capability* of the human   
   > mind.   
   >   
   > For instance, a unicorn is a cross between a horse (or a goat) and an   
   > antelope.  A hobbit is pretty much a short human with hairy feet.   
   > Chitty-chitty-bang-bang is an anthropomorphic car that can fly.  Every   
   > fantastic or supernatural thing humans have ever imagined is simply a   
   > cross between two or more already existing things.   
   >   
   > So, yes.  I writer can use his imagination to create a fictional   
   > character or plot -- but everything about the character and plot are   
   > going to be drawn from things that the writer has already experienced   
   > (or read about).   
   >   
   > As a horror writer, some of my characters do some pretty terrible   
   > things.  These are things that I have never done, and have no plans of   
   > ever doing.  Some are fantasies of things that *a part of me* would like   
   > to do; others are things that I find absolutely appalling.  Both are   
   > glimpses into my psyche (I fantasize about A, I deplore B).   
   >   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > I have never said such a thing, George. A patient can certainly be in   
   > denial, but that doesn't mean that *every* point of disagreement with   
   > his psychologist is an example of denial.  You are trying to make   
   > another black and white absolute out of the extremely complex science of   
   > psychology.   
   >   
   >   
   >>    
   >>   
   >>>>> 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   
   >> never agreed to call the speaker "George" much less "George Dance" as   
   >> you've been doing in this thread. The only reason to use those names is   
   >> as a linguistic trick, to try to subliminally blur the distinction and   
   >> differences between the speaker (Bob) and the author (myself).   
   >   
   > If you wish your speaker to be named "Bob," I suggest that you rewrite   
   > your poem and provide him with that name.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)