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