[continued from previous message]   
      
   > And, again, I am not calling your poem "autobiographical," but   
   > "semi-autobiographical."  Of course the latter is an offshoot of the   
   > former, so it would be permissible to refer to it as "autobiographical"   
   > in passing; but technically, it is a "semi-autobiographical" work.   
   >   
   > For analytical purposes, I have chosen to approach the poem as if it   
   > were a work of its author's subconscious (much like a dreamwork).  Since   
   > its author is named "George," I am referring to its narrator by that   
   > name.  This is fitting, as by examining the narrator, I am examining the   
   > author.  "Boy George" (which you find offensive) and "Little George"   
   > (which you find less so) are used to distinguish the child from the   
   > "flashback" stanzas from the adult narrator.   
   >   
   > There is no "linguistic trick, to try to subliminally blur" anything,   
   > paranoid George.   
   >   
   > I was psychoanalyzing your poem, and couched it in precisely the same   
   > terminology as I would have used if I had been psychoanalyzing one of   
   > your dreams.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> It's telling how you remember the humorous use of "Boy George," but fail   
   >>> to recollect our resolution to your objections.   
   >>   
   >> One thing I keep reminding you, "Dr." Peabrain, is that I do not   
   >> "recollect" things that never happened. That is different from our   
   >> constantly failing to remember events that did happen, so please get out   
   >> of your habit of thinking that they're in any way similar.   
   >   
   > There are numerous instances in the archives where *you* referred to the   
   > character as "Little George."  That in itself entails your participation   
   > in the use of that name.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> It's even more telling   
   >>> that you are "going to start calling him 'Bob'" as if in retaliation for   
   >>> what you perceive to be an ongoing attack.   
   >>   
   >> I'm calling him "Bob" simply so that you cannot confuse anyone into   
   >> thinking that I am Bob. Whereas if we call him "George Dance" that is   
   >> confusing, since I am George Dance.   
   >   
   > You can call him whatever you like.  However, I am psychoanalyzing   
   > George Dance -- not "Bob."  And, to keep that point clear, I shall   
   > continue to use your name.   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> I am   
   >>>>> guessing that you'd originally written the garden stanza to come first   
   >>>>> within the body of the narrative, but had later switched it with the   
   >>>>> kitchen stanza based on the severity of the (potentially perceived)   
   >>>>> abuses.   
   >>>>   
   >>>> No, you guessed wrong again; the stanzas were not switched. The poem   
   >>>> switches from the kitchen to the garden because the speaker is looking   
   >>>> out the window, and in the floor plan of the house (which I've told you)   
   >>>> the kitchen window overlook s the garden at the back of it.   
   >>>   
   >>> That's structurally poor, and even more poorly expressed.  You should   
   >>> start with the garden and work your way into the house.  That's just a   
   >>> little constructive criticism, and not a personal attack.   
   >>   
   >> Noted, and dismissed. Bob is in the kitchen, looking out the window, and   
   >> seeing the garden. The poem clearly says that he's looking out the   
   >> window and then that he's seeing the garden. There's no reason that has   
   >> to be spelled out further, even for the dumbest reader.   
   >   
   > No reason except that it reads better to start the tour with the outside   
   > of the house, and move in (increasing the intimacy room by room), ending   
   > with the most intimate room of all (Little George's bedroom).   
   >   
   >   
   >>>>> In this stanza, Little George is forced to spend his summers   
   >>>>> working in the garden -- while enviously watching the neighborhood   
   >>>>> children.  Because Little George describes their games as "mis   
   >>>>   
   >>>> You seem to have "frozen up", HarryLiar. That's not a big deal, of   
   >>>> course; I realize that responding to a long post takes time: one often   
   >>>> gets interrupted, even in mid-sentence. I mentioned it only because you   
   >>>> and "Dr." NastyGoon have pointed to it, when I did it, as evidence that   
   >>>> I suffered from not just psychological but various neurological   
   >>>> diseases.   
   >>>   
   >>> In this case it's a problem related to my having to access NovaBBS on my   
   >>> laptop.   
   >>   
   >> No one cares what really happened to you "in this case"; which is why I   
   >> don't waste the reader's time with such explanations when I'm   
   >> interrupted when writing something. I don't because those are just   
   >> diversions (or deflections, as we call them here) that clutter up a   
   >> discussion, not add to it. So let's snip that, too:   
   >   
   > If you don't care about something, you should refrain from bringing it   
   > up.   
   >   
   >   
   >>> I was drawing attention to Little George's description of the games as   
   >>> "mysterious" and his admission that he "never knew" what these mysteries   
   >>> were.  Since the games forever remained cloaked in mystery, it is   
   >>> obvious that Little George was employed in chores all day long.  He had   
   >>> no free time to play with the other children (in which case their games   
   >>> would no longer be mysteries to him).   
   >>   
   >> Sure, Bob "never knew" some games my neighbor children played; but   
   >> that's no reason to think he never played with the other children. He   
   >> clearly calls them his "friends" - why would he think of them as friends   
   >> if he never even spent any time with them?   
   >   
   > I don't know, George.  Why would he?   
      
   People can be friends without actually hanging out together all the   
   time.   
      
   HTH and HAND.   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)