[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>> A semi-autobiographical poem can still contain purely fictional elements   
   >>> (such as the narrator's psychiatric care, his revisiting his childhood   
   >>> 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.   
   >>>   
   >>>   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)