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