[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>> 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.   
   >>   
   >> 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   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)