Re: My Father's House / gjd (for new comments)

On Mon, 24 Feb 2025 19:57:31 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:

On Sun, 16 Feb 2025 8:50:21 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Sat, 15 Feb 2025 11:02:16 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Wed, 12 Feb 2025 0:44:06 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Tue, 11 Feb 2025 17:11:19 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 18:28:12 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Sun, 9 Feb 2025 14:12:44 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 20:15:36 +0000, HarryLime wrote:
>

On Fri, 7 Feb 2025 19:31:54 +0000, George J. Dance wrote:
>

On Tue, 4 Feb 2025 11:29:25 +0000, W.Dockery wrote:
>

George J. Dance wrote:

>
My Father's House
>
This is my father's house, although
The man died thirteen years ago.
They said it would be quite all right
To take a drive to see it now.
>
Dad laid those grey foundation blocks
And built the whole thing (from a box),
Toiling after each full day's work.
I helped, though I was only six.
>
Look, here's the back door I would use
And here's where I'd remove my shoes
To enter; there I'd leave my things
And, when allowed, climb up these stairs.
>
In this room I'd wash many a dish,
Gaze out this window, and I'd wish
To be so many other places.
(Wishy-washy? Oh, I guess!)
>
Outside, the garden that he grew
Where I would work the summers through,
While watching my friends run and play
Mysterious games I never knew.
>
That room's all changed; oh, where is it,
The one chair I was let to sit?
(For boys can be such filthy things.)
Which, the corner where boys were put?
>
Oh ... down that hall there is a room
Where I'd be shut (as in a tomb)
After the meal, to make no noise,
To read or play alone, and then
>
Lights out: in bed by nine each night,
Some nights wanting to pee with fright,
Face and pyjama bottoms down
As for my father's belt I'd wait.
>
Oh, if I were a millionaire
I'd buy my father's house, and there
I'd build a bonfire, oh so high
Its flames would light up all the air.
>
~~
George J. Dance
from Logos and other logoi, 2021

>
Here it is, MFH.

>
Thank you for reposting this poem of mine, Will. While it's true that it
has been discussed a lot over the years, it also true that at least one
person wants to discuss it now; and this would be the appropriate place
to move those comments, rather than leaving them scattered all over the
group. So let's start with this one:
>
On Mon, 3 Feb 2025 16:15:27 +0000, Michael Monkey Peabrain (MPP) aka
"HarryLime" wrote:

You wrote a "mostly autobiographical" poem detailing the abuses you
suffered as a child, George.  And you're demonstrating your pathological
obsession with lying in your trio of denials, listed above.

https://www.novabbs.com/arts/article.php?id=15801&group=rec.arts.poems
>
HarryLiar has manufactured yet another fake quote; I have never called
this poem "mostly autobiographical" or autobiographical in many ways. I
have distinctly told him in the past that, while some of the speaker's
memories were based on my own childhood experiences, not all of them
were; I was using them in a work of creative fiction, not an
autobiography of any kind. So he lied and made up a fake quote to
support his lie.

>
I haven't the time to go searching for the exact quote, but you had
initially maintained that it was "mostly autobiographical" or "mostly
based on your childhood," or similar words expressing the same thing.

>
If you don't have time, get your NastyGoon to search for it. In this
case I have to call your bullshit. You claimed the poem was
"autobiographical", and I tried to explain to you the difference between
creative literature and autobiography - repeatedly. You believe it's
autobiographical because you said it was autobiographical, and for no
other reason.

>
George, George, George... no autobiography is 100% accurate.

>
As I've told you before, I don't think the difference between creative
literature and autobiography is merely one of "accuracy." The difference
is that in the latter one is trying to be as accurate and comprehensive
as possible: to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the
truth. Whereas in the former, one is selectively recreating an
experience, using experiences that reinforce the story.

>
Which has little to no bearing on one's reading a poem as as
psychoanalytical analysis of its author.  An autobiography would
invariably be colored by its author's emotional feelings, and
selectively limited by their choices as to what to include, and how to
present it if included.

>
Df course a biographer is going to be selective; who would want to read
a biography that included an account of every dump their subject took in
his life? The difference is that a biographer limits (or should limit)
what they include to what actually happened to the subject, while a
creative work (which has a made-up subject (has no such restraint).

>
You're trying to change the terms, in order to change the meanings,
George.
>
How many times do I have to tell you that high school debate team
tactics are not going to work here?
>
You have stated, repeatedly, that you poem was based for the most part
on your own childhood.  The unnamed narrator may not be George Dance,
but the events he is describing in the flashback portion of the poem are
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).
>
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.
>
>

<snip diversion about Sigmund Freud>
>

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
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
Seek, Tag, Mother May I?, Hopscotch, Simon Says, Blind Man's Bluff,
Catch, Marbles, Kick Ball, Baseball, Touch Football, basketball,
croquet, horseshoes, etc.  And children usually play these games *many*
times throughout the course of their childhood.  It's not as if you were
to miss a game of "Tag," they wouldn't be playing it again a day or two
later.
Not only did Boy George not hang out with the other children, but he
doesn't seem to have even spoken with them.  Had they been speaking, he
could have asked "What was that mysterious game you were playing
yesterday?" and they would have replied "Jacks." And the mystery would
have been solved.
Boy George had a sad and lonely childhood.
And you know what's the saddest part?  He didn't even have an AI bot to
keep him company back then,
--