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