[continued from previous message]   
      
   >> home, etc.), but it is much more grounded in reality than your   
   >> description of "creative fiction," which "has a made-up subject" and "no   
   >> such restraint (as having to limit itself to what really happened to its   
   >> subject).   
   >>   
   >>   
   >>>> 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'   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)