[continued from previous message]   
      
   >>>>> similar to your own childhood experiences.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> Your poem is, therefore, at least semi-autobiographical.   
   >>>>>   
   >>>>> 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).   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-DOS v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)