[continued from previous message]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Despite your claims of taking the reader through Little George's home
>>>>>>>>> (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
[continued in next message]
--- SoupGate-DOS v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
