[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> 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   
   >>>> "Little George" (in scare quotes) because you were using them. But I   
   >>>> never agreed to call the speaker "George" much less "George Dance" as   
   >>>> you've been doing in this thread. The only reason to use those names is   
   >>>> as a linguistic trick, to try to subliminally blur the distinction and   
   >>>> differences between the speaker (Bob) and the author (myself).   
   >>>   
   >>> If you wish your speaker to be named "Bob," I suggest that you rewrite   
   >>> your poem and provide him with that name.   
   >>>   
   >>> 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.   
   >   
   > That's true, Donkey.   
   >   
   > But if Boy George "never knew" what "mysterious" games the other   
   > children were playing, It's safe to conclude that he *never* hung out   
   > with them.   
   >   
   > There are only so many games that children play out doors: Hide and   
   > Seek, Tag, Mother May I?, Hopscotch, Simon Says, Blind Man's Bluff,   
   > Catch, Marbles, Kick Ball, Baseball, Touch Football, basketball,   
   > croquet, horseshoes, etc.  And children usually play these games *many*   
   > times throughout the course of their childhood.  It's not as if you were   
   > to miss a game of "Tag," they wouldn't be playing it again a day or two   
   > later.   
   >   
   > Not only did Boy George not hang out with the other children, but he   
   > doesn't seem to have even spoken with them.  Had they been speaking, he   
   > could have asked "What was that mysterious game you were playing   
   > yesterday?" and they would have replied "Jacks." And the mystery would   
   > have been solved.   
   >   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)