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