On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 12:37:55 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 9:41:15 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Tuesday, January 3, 2023 at 8:15:32 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:00:29 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:01:14 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:54 AM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > My Father's Legacy
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Though the pants down beltings
> > > > > > > > > > belong in the past and your house
> > > > > > > > > > still holds a son's anguish, I do understand
> > > > > > > > > > punishment is meant to teach a lesson
> > > > > > > > > > but perhaps a belt didn't do the job --
> > > > > > > > > > where a length of oak, could have --
> > > > > > > > > > you see I'm still a fuck-up.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Perhaps a softer approach would have produced
> > > > > > > > > > success.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Anonymous
> > > > > > > > > This is an interesting addition to your "Father" series, and is archived along with the others.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Question: If the beatings are 'in the past', why would the house still 'hold a son's anguish'? Why wouldn't the anguish go 'in[to] the past' along with the reason for it?
> > > > > > > > Because the son still wishes to burn down the house.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That sounds like a reversal of cause and effect. Wanting to burn the house down because he felt anguished sounds reasonable enough; but feeling anguished because he wants to burn the house down does not. Is the idea
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > The poem doesn't say that, George.
> > > > > No, the poem doesn't say anything about that. That was you.
> > > > >
> > > > > > ... and neither did I.
> > > > >
> > > > > Actually, that is exactly what you said:
> > > > > <Quote> > > > > Question: If the beatings are 'in the past', why would the house still 'hold a son's anguish'? Why wouldn't the anguish go 'in[to] the past' along with the reason for it?"
> > > > > "> > > Because the son still wishes to burn down the house.</q>
> > > > >
> > > > > Now, if that's not what you *meant* to say, try taking another stab at the question..
> > > > That is exactly what I meant to say. Perhaps you should take another stab at learning how to read.
> > > Great. All you have to do is explain what you meant by it.
> > You really need to read through the entire post before responding to it, George.
> > > > Allow me to explain:
> > >
> > > The only one preventing you from explaining your comment so far has been yourself.
> > You do realize that "Allow me to explain:" implies that an explanation will follow, don't you?
> At some point, one can hope. I'm trying to get to to stop deflecting with insults and attempted ridicule, and get on with it.

There's nothing to get on with, George.

If you're unable to grasp the meaning of my words, you have no business calling yourself a writer.

> > > > You asked: "If the beatings are 'in the past', why would the house still 'hold a son's anguish'? Why wouldn't the anguish go 'in[to] the past' along with the reason for it?"
> > > >
> > > > I replied that since the son still wishes to burn down the house, his anguish is necessarily still very much alive, and very much connected to the house.
> > > >
> > > > That isn't an answer to your question, so much as it is an explanation of the invalidity of your question.
> > > That is neither an answer nor an explanation. You're just repeating the answer I asked you to explain.
> > I'm sorry, George. Apparently you're every bit as dense as the rumors say you are.
> >
> > If you're incapable of understanding such a clear and concise explanation, I can only suggest that you contact Dr. Schwimmer and ask him to explain it to you.
>
> > > > The anguish cannot have gone "in[to]" the past, because the son still wishes to burn down the house.
> > > >
> > > > If the anguish were gone, the house would not produce such an emotional response in the son.
> > >
> > > > Got it? Or are you going to play at being "George Dense" for another twenty exchanges?
> > > I'm content to wait patiently for your explanation.
>
> > To paraphrase Nietzsche: He who dances with Donkeys too long becomes a donkey himself.
> That's nice; but, as I said, I was kind of hoping for more from you than insults and attempted ridicule.

That's a valid observation, George.

If you want to have an intelligent discussion about your poem, you need to stop playing dense, and address the points that have already been made.

> > > > > It's reasonable to think the son is feeling "anguish" in the days when he's being beaten. But why would he still feeling anguished years later, when he is not being beaten?
> > > > > > What does it profit a man to paint himself as a dunce so often, that others come to identify him as one?
> > > > > > Seriously, George. What do you think you gain from presenting yourself as an idiot?
> > > > > Seriously, do you really think that throwing around your monkey-poo is going to take the attention off either your answer or your lie about it? You just claimed that Jim's boy is still feeling "anguished" because he "still wants to burn down the house" -- that he's subconsciously creating the "anguish" himself to try and justify his destructive impulses. That's not a bad explanation, and we can discuss that if you're willing to try being reasonable. Or, if that' i not what you meant, you can try explaining what you did mean, and we can discuss that.
> > > > >
> > > > First off, "Jim's boy" is the same as George's boy -- as Jim's poem is a take off on your poem.
> > > No, his series of 8 poems (and counting) is not "simply" a "take off" of my one. It's more like fanfic than anything else.
>
> > George Dance: too pompous an ass to realize that he's the butt of a joke.
> I thought you were going to give me an answer rather than a "joke". Let's try again. Let me try rephrasing my question:
>
> Jim's boy felt 'anguish' when he had to get a spanking. That's reasonable enough; as I said, those are old-brain, animal reactions; stimulus provokes response. But he's still feeling the same 'anguish' 50 years later, in response to no stimulus. So why is that?
>

I have already answered your question, George.

Here is what I said:

Boy George's anguish is caused by his impotence. It is his recognition from an early age that he is a coward who is willing to compromise himself... who is willing to obediently subject himself to unjust and abusive punishment... out of fear that he might receive additional punishment as a result.

His anguish stems from his ideal image of himself (Howard Roark) and the reality of what he is (a sniveling coward).

His anguish stems from his frustration -- both with himself and with a past situation that he is as impotent to change now as when he was a boy.

> > > > Secondly, I did not say that he was creating the anguish to justify his destructive impulses. That's purely your own invention.
> > > So you're arguing that not being able to burn down the house is causing him real anguish?
> > No, George. I'm not.
> Then what do you think is causing Jim's boy's anguish? It's a simple fucking question, which neither NastyGoon or you seem capable of answering.

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago..

I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
> Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.

That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.

> We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.

I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).

As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."

> Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.

Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.

> Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.

The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."

On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:01:14 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:54 AM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > George can't admit to it, as he sees it as a sign of weakness.
> We see a certain lack of emotional maturity in both individuals.

Really? Then why were you using Prince Harry as an example of PTSD? There's more to PTSD than "lack of emotional maturity," you know; people who are suffering from it do not simply need to "grow up."

> Sort of like Tom Cruise in the "Top Gun" movies? Sometimes a person has to grow up and not blame his failures on his: parents, upbringing, poverty, city, lack of a toilet, reading habits, friends, or jealousy.

If you're talking about "Boy George" (Michael Monkey's name for the speaker in my poem, there's no sign that he's had "failures" or that he's "blaming" anything on his parents. In fact, except for the last two lines, there's no indication of how the events have affected him. It sounds like you, too, are reading "subtexts" into the poem.

Which, BTW, is completely different from Little Jim (my name for the speaker in Jim's poem). All he does is talk about "pants-down beltings", wishing that he'd been paddled instead (presumably so he could have kept his pants up), and complaining that having to pull them down turned him into a "fuck-up". A completely different speaker, from a completely different poem.
> > But a would-be Übermensch cannot accept the fact that he was once the helpless victim of a bigger, stronger, more powerful man than himself. The Nietzschean ideal of the Übermensch does not correspond to the image of a bare-assed little boy impotently awaiting his father's belt.
> He should have killed that little boy, along with the Belt-swinging Father and invented a new, strong, powerful Big Boy.

EARTH TO NG: Telling children to kill their fathers, because they spanked them, does not sound like sound psychological advice. I think the only worse advice would be telling them to kill themselves. If you were a real psychologist giving out such advice to children, I would have your license revoked, and you barred from any kind of counselling role in the future.

> > George can only address it in his poem by adding a disclaimer wherein the boy becomes a composite of himself and several boys he's known.
> Hidden in plain sight.
> > > We think also that the son feels guilty for either not fighting back or for not running from the beating instead of waiting there, pants down, for the arrival of the father and the belt.
> > Definitely. Howard Roark would not have obediently submitted himself to it.
> Maybe the Little Boy never read Ayn Rand?

Which "Little Boy" are you talking about now? If you mean me, no, not at that age. Nor had I read any Nietzsche, FTM. "Dr." MMP's theories about a Little Boy seeing himself as a "would-be Übermensch" seem to be based on data about an entirely different Little Boy.
> > Young George was scared. He was too scared to fight back -- or to risk further punishment for running.
> The boys we know did and would have run. Or hidden the belt. Or locked the bedroom door.

You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:

> At some point, the Ideal Boy fights back.

Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.

> Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.

I had to look that up:
"He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71

There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> >
> > George wishes to burn down the house because it reminds him that he is not the Übermensch of his philosophical fantasies, but a cowardly man who will knuckle under to authority whenever it raises its ugly head (or takes off its belt).
> There is a lot of building up in the George Dance autobiography but we suspect that much of the details are embellished. The truth may be too painful for him to admit. House in a box? How many of those were in the neighborhood? Was he bullied about that? Did the house fall down like a house of cards? Maybe it blew off of its foundation at the first Canadian wind? He didn't finish college. He wasn't chosen by voters. He is mostly disliked and ridiculed on newsgroups. Why is that? Can we trace it back to the beatings that he stoically took as a child? Sometimes children retreat into a fantasy life and develop their imaginations. That doesn't seem to have happened with George Dance.

I think I already addressed this paragraph.
> > Any ideas on why George wants to present himself as being inconceivably dense?
>
> It may be his Muse breaking through, exposing his true self. The confessions are already written and just need to be revealed.

MMP appears to be calling me "dense" (as well as "in denial," and a whole host of other things) because of my failure to acknowledge the psychological trauma of a preteen "would-be Übermensch" being spanked on the bare bottom by a parent. But there is a far simpler explanation (which, by Occam's Razor, would be the preferable explanation). I was never, or at least never considered myself to be, a preteen "would-be Übermensch". I was a child being punished by a parent, and that was it.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>

Trauma occurs in many forms.

Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

> > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
> That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>

An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.

As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

> > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
> I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>

You're right about Oedipus (the play), however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

> As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>

Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

> > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
> Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>

No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

> I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.

"Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth. To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

> > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
> The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."

You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:01:14 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:54 AM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > George can't admit to it, as he sees it as a sign of weakness.
> > We see a certain lack of emotional maturity in both individuals.
> Really? Then why were you using Prince Harry as an example of PTSD? There's more to PTSD than "lack of emotional maturity," you know; people who are suffering from it do not simply need to "grow up."

No one was saying that they did, George. Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.

> > Sort of like Tom Cruise in the "Top Gun" movies? Sometimes a person has to grow up and not blame his failures on his: parents, upbringing, poverty, city, lack of a toilet, reading habits, friends, or jealousy.
> If you're talking about "Boy George" (Michael Monkey's name for the speaker in my poem, there's no sign that he's had "failures" or that he's "blaming" anything on his parents. In fact, except for the last two lines, there's no indication of how the events have affected him. It sounds like you, too, are reading "subtexts" into the poem.
>

1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped.
2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).

I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.

> Which, BTW, is completely different from Little Jim (my name for the speaker in Jim's poem). All he does is talk about "pants-down beltings", wishing that he'd been paddled instead (presumably so he could have kept his pants up), and complaining that having to pull them down turned him into a "fuck-up". A completely different speaker, from a completely different poem.
>

Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.

As much as you might understandable wish to deny it, the speaker in Jim's series of "Father" poems is you.

> > > But a would-be Übermensch cannot accept the fact that he was once the helpless victim of a bigger, stronger, more powerful man than himself.. The Nietzschean ideal of the Übermensch does not correspond to the image of a bare-assed little boy impotently awaiting his father's belt.
> > He should have killed that little boy, along with the Belt-swinging Father and invented a new, strong, powerful Big Boy.
> EARTH TO NG: Telling children to kill their fathers, because they spanked them, does not sound like sound psychological advice. I think the only worse advice would be telling them to kill themselves. If you were a real psychologist giving out such advice to children, I would have your license revoked, and you barred from any kind of counselling role in the future.
>

NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.

Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?

Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."

Once again, wit is utterly lost on you.

> > > George can only address it in his poem by adding a disclaimer wherein the boy becomes a composite of himself and several boys he's known.
> > Hidden in plain sight.
> > > > We think also that the son feels guilty for either not fighting back or for not running from the beating instead of waiting there, pants down, for the arrival of the father and the belt.
> > > Definitely. Howard Roark would not have obediently submitted himself to it.
> > Maybe the Little Boy never read Ayn Rand?
> Which "Little Boy" are you talking about now? If you mean me, no, not at that age. Nor had I read any Nietzsche, FTM. "Dr." MMP's theories about a Little Boy seeing himself as a "would-be Übermensch" seem to be based on data about an entirely different Little Boy.
>

There is only one "Little Boy" in question in this discussion (George J. Dance). And one needn't have read Nietzsche or Rand to share in the sentiments that their philosophies express. One can also be retroactively affected after having read them.

> > > Young George was scared. He was too scared to fight back -- or to risk further punishment for running.
> > The boys we know did and would have run. Or hidden the belt. Or locked the bedroom door.
> You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:

She is not advising anything.

She is describing a healthy, normal response.

> > At some point, the Ideal Boy fights back.
> Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
>

Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.

> > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> I had to look that up:
> "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
>
> There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> > >
> > > George wishes to burn down the house because it reminds him that he is not the Übermensch of his philosophical fantasies, but a cowardly man who will knuckle under to authority whenever it raises its ugly head (or takes off its belt).
> > There is a lot of building up in the George Dance autobiography but we suspect that much of the details are embellished. The truth may be too painful for him to admit. House in a box? How many of those were in the neighborhood? Was he bullied about that? Did the house fall down like a house of cards? Maybe it blew off of its foundation at the first Canadian wind? He didn't finish college. He wasn't chosen by voters. He is mostly disliked and ridiculed on newsgroups. Why is that? Can we trace it back to the beatings that he stoically took as a child? Sometimes children retreat into a fantasy life and develop their imaginations. That doesn't seem to have happened with George Dance.
> I think I already addressed this paragraph.

Not in any way that would negate its findings.

> > > Any ideas on why George wants to present himself as being inconceivably dense?
> >
> > It may be his Muse breaking through, exposing his true self. The confessions are already written and just need to be revealed.
> MMP appears to be calling me "dense" (as well as "in denial," and a whole host of other things) because of my failure to acknowledge the psychological trauma of a preteen "would-be Übermensch" being spanked on the bare bottom by a parent. But there is a far simpler explanation (which, by Occam's Razor, would be the preferable explanation). I was never, or at least never considered myself to be, a preteen "would-be Übermensch". I was a child being punished by a parent, and that was it.
>

I was also a preteen child who was physically "punished" by my father. But unlike you, I did not quietly submit myself to it. I ran, I fought back, I shouted threats, I did everything in my power to resist.

Your will to self seems to have been not only broken, but utterly destroyed, at a very early age.

On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 4:26:45 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:38:13 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 7:01:14 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 3:02:30 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sunday, January 1, 2023 at 2:39:27 PM UTC-5, george....@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On Thursday, December 29, 2022 at 9:33:54 AM UTC-5, blackpo...@aol.com wrote:
> > > > > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
> > > > George can't admit to it, as he sees it as a sign of weakness.
> > > We see a certain lack of emotional maturity in both individuals.
> > Really? Then why were you using Prince Harry as an example of PTSD? There's more to PTSD than "lack of emotional maturity," you know; people who are suffering from it do not simply need to "grow up."
> No one was saying that they did, George. Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
Correct. Also, repeatedly mentioning it as a means for publicity/attention does not make it go away. Maybe they both need therapy horses.

> > > Sort of like Tom Cruise in the "Top Gun" movies? Sometimes a person has to grow up and not blame his failures on his: parents, upbringing, poverty, city, lack of a toilet, reading habits, friends, or jealousy.
> > If you're talking about "Boy George" (Michael Monkey's name for the speaker in my poem, there's no sign that he's had "failures" or that he's "blaming" anything on his parents. In fact, except for the last two lines, there's no indication of how the events have affected him. It sounds like you, too, are reading "subtexts" into the poem.

After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?" Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house? Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> >
> 1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped.
> 2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).
>
> I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.
> > Which, BTW, is completely different from Little Jim (my name for the speaker in Jim's poem). All he does is talk about "pants-down beltings", wishing that he'd been paddled instead (presumably so he could have kept his pants up), and complaining that having to pull them down turned him into a "fuck-up". A completely different speaker, from a completely different poem.
> >
> Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.

And the voice is the same.
>
> As much as you might understandable wish to deny it, the speaker in Jim's series of "Father" poems is you.
> > > > But a would-be Übermensch cannot accept the fact that he was once the helpless victim of a bigger, stronger, more powerful man than himself. The Nietzschean ideal of the Übermensch does not correspond to the image of a bare-assed little boy impotently awaiting his father's belt.
> > > He should have killed that little boy, along with the Belt-swinging Father and invented a new, strong, powerful Big Boy.
> > EARTH TO NG: Telling children to kill their fathers, because they spanked them, does not sound like sound psychological advice. I think the only worse advice would be telling them to kill themselves. If you were a real psychologist giving out such advice to children, I would have your license revoked, and you barred from any kind of counselling role in the future.
> >
> NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.

Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
>
> Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
>
> Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."

NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
>
> Once again, wit is utterly lost on you.
Stiff Person Syndrome.

> > > > George can only address it in his poem by adding a disclaimer wherein the boy becomes a composite of himself and several boys he's known.
> > > Hidden in plain sight.
> > > > > We think also that the son feels guilty for either not fighting back or for not running from the beating instead of waiting there, pants down, for the arrival of the father and the belt.
> > > > Definitely. Howard Roark would not have obediently submitted himself to it.
> > > Maybe the Little Boy never read Ayn Rand?
> > Which "Little Boy" are you talking about now? If you mean me, no, not at that age. Nor had I read any Nietzsche, FTM. "Dr." MMP's theories about a Little Boy seeing himself as a "would-be Übermensch" seem to be based on data about an entirely different Little Boy.
> >
> There is only one "Little Boy" in question in this discussion (George J. Dance). And one needn't have read Nietzsche or Rand to share in the sentiments that their philosophies express. One can also be retroactively affected after having read them.
> > > > Young George was scared. He was too scared to fight back -- or to risk further punishment for running.
> > > The boys we know did and would have run. Or hidden the belt. Or locked the bedroom door.
> > You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:
> She is not advising anything.
>
> She is describing a healthy, normal response.
> > > At some point, the Ideal Boy fights back.
We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?

> > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.

A six year old just shot his teacher.
> >
> Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > I had to look that up:
> > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> >
> > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.

George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
> > > >
> > > > George wishes to burn down the house because it reminds him that he is not the Übermensch of his philosophical fantasies, but a cowardly man who will knuckle under to authority whenever it raises its ugly head (or takes off its belt).
> > > There is a lot of building up in the George Dance autobiography but we suspect that much of the details are embellished. The truth may be too painful for him to admit. House in a box? How many of those were in the neighborhood? Was he bullied about that? Did the house fall down like a house of cards? Maybe it blew off of its foundation at the first Canadian wind? He didn't finish college. He wasn't chosen by voters. He is mostly disliked and ridiculed on newsgroups. Why is that? Can we trace it back to the beatings that he stoically took as a child? Sometimes children retreat into a fantasy life and develop their imaginations. That doesn't seem to have happened with George Dance.
> > I think I already addressed this paragraph.
> Not in any way that would negate its findings.
Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.

On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> Correct. Also, repeatedly mentioning it as a means for publicity/attention does not make it go away. Maybe they both need therapy horses.

Tell me, "Doctor"; do you think calling other people on the group immature makes you look like a "Doctor"? Do you think it makes you look "mature"? Do you think it will somehow shut them up? Do you even know what you're trying to accomplish?

> After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"

It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.

> Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?

> Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.

> Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?

That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.

> > 1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped..
> > 2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).
> >
> > I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.

Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
(2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).

> > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.

As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.

> And the voice is the same.

It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
> > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.

I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
> >
> > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> >
> > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.

It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
> Stiff Person Syndrome.

I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?

> > > You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:
> > She is not advising anything.
> >
> > She is describing a healthy, normal response.

Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.

> We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?

"Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.

> > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
> A six year old just shot his teacher.

And you find that "normal and healthy"?

> > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > > I had to look that up:
> > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> > >
> > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
> https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464

While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.

> Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.

I was never imaginative enough to imagine 14 coming between 3 and 6, admittedly.

> > Your will to self seems to have been not only broken, but utterly destroyed, at a very early age.
> We have a break-through!

"Breakthrough." And, no, you really don't.

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > Correct. Also, repeatedly mentioning it as a means for publicity/attention does not make it go away. Maybe they both need therapy horses.
> Tell me, "Doctor"; do you think calling other people on the group immature makes you look like a "Doctor"? Do you think it makes you look "mature"? Do you think it will somehow shut them up? Do you even know what you're trying to accomplish?
>

I believe she's suggesting your looking into the possibility of getting a therapy horse.

HtH & HAND

> > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.

No, they aren't.

There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.

We can, however, rule out the third option, as he still has unresolved issues (i.e., he still wants to take vengeance on his father).

> > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
>

Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.

> > > 1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped.
> > > 2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).
> > >
> > > I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.
> Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).

The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.

It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.

> > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.

That isn't true, George.

When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.

Similarly, George's poem is an obvious parody of your poem. The primary characters can only be interpreted as George J. Dance and his father. Your attempt to make it a poem about Jim (IKYABWAI) would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

> > And the voice is the same.
> It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.

The voice (in this case, the identity of the narrator) is the same. Jim's first person narrator mimics your first person narrator, reusing portions of his original statements when applicable.

> > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
> I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
>

I'd recently paraphrased Nietzsche by writing something along the lines of "He who dances with Donkeys too long becomes a donkey himself."

"Kill the father - fuck the mother" is a popular saying that is used to describe the Oedipus complex (and is closely associated with Jim Morrison's song, "The End").

IIRC, Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch and the Will to Self have also been mentioned, but since you've failed to identify which Nietzsche reference you're talking about, I am unable to explain it to you.

> > >
> > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> > >
> > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
> It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.

This is a textbook example of a patient in a state of denial attempting to dismiss his doctor's opinions as worthless.

> > Stiff Person Syndrome.
>
> I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?

This question can be solved with a visit to your local proctologist.

Once he has removed the invasive stick, you might wish thank Dr. NancyGene for her diagnosis of the same.

> > > > You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:
> > > She is not advising anything.
> > >
> > > She is describing a healthy, normal response.
> Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.

Uh-duh! Children go from being entirely dependent on their parents (infancy), to learning from and obeying their parents (early childhood), to "fighting" their parents as a means of establishing their independence from them (teens).

> > We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?
> "Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.

Except that Little Boy George did not give into these normal responses to fear -- out of an even greater, and overruling fear.

> > > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
> > A six year old just shot his teacher.
> And you find that "normal and healthy"?

Of course, not. That's an extreme example.

> > > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > > > I had to look that up:
> > > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> > George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
> > https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
> While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> No, they aren't.
>
> There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.

You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
> > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> >
> Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.

So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.

> > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.

It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.

> It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.

> > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> That isn't true, George.
>
> When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.

That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
> his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.

> Similarly, George's poem is an obvious parody of your poem. The primary characters can only be interpreted as George J. Dance and his father. Your attempt to make it a poem about Jim (IKYABWAI) would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.

It's the Chimp's poem, based on the Chimp's own imagination. It's s'posed to be about me and my father, of course, but his characters are no more me and my father than, say, the characters in his writing about SCOTUS actually the members of SCOTUS.

> > > And the voice is the same.
> > It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
> The voice (in this case, the identity of the narrator) is the same. Jim's first person narrator mimics your first person narrator, reusing portions of his original statements when applicable.

Not at all. My speaker recites memories, and represses his emotional response (until the end, when he expresses the wish to be free from them.) . The Chimp's speaker, OTOH, does nothing but; he doesn't just give in to his emotions, but wallows in them. He considers himself a loser and a failure, and blames his failures on his father. There's nothing of that in my poem.

> > > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> > > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
> > I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
> >
> I'd recently paraphrased Nietzsche by writing something along the lines of "He who dances with Donkeys too long becomes a donkey himself."
>
> "Kill the father - fuck the mother" is a popular saying that is used to describe the Oedipus complex (and is closely associated with Jim Morrison's song, "The End").
>
> IIRC, Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch and the Will to Self have also been mentioned, but since you've failed to identify which Nietzsche reference you're talking about, I am unable to explain it to you.

While I suspect you're just playing dumb, I'll be happy to refresh your memory.
MMP: NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche
NG: Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man."

Nietzsche never talked about "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." (any more than Sophocles did). NG has obviously confused "Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch" with Freud's "Oedipus complex" theory. I don't blame them for that -- I'd put the blame on your rambling "explanations" -- but I am going to continue to point out that they don't know any of this theory you're talking about, and are simply following your lead.

> > > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> > > >
> > > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> > > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
> > It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
> This is a textbook example of a patient in a state of denial attempting to dismiss his doctor's opinions as worthless.

I suppose it might be, if there were a "patient", a "doctor," or a "textbook". But since there isn't - just you with your theory from a book you read decades ago, and your flunkie who's trying their best to support you but hasn't a clue.

> > > Stiff Person Syndrome.
> >
> > I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?
> This question can be solved with a visit to your local proctologist.
>

On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > Correct. Also, repeatedly mentioning it as a means for publicity/attention does not make it go away. Maybe they both need therapy horses.
> Tell me, "Doctor"; do you think calling other people on the group immature makes you look like a "Doctor"? Do you think it makes you look "mature"? Do you think it will somehow shut them up? Do you even know what you're trying to accomplish?
> > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> > > 1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped.
> > > 2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).
> > >
> > > I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.
> Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> > And the voice is the same.
> It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
> > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
> I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
> > >
> > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> > >
> > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
> It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
> > Stiff Person Syndrome.
>
> I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?
> > > > You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:
> > > She is not advising anything.
> > >
> > > She is describing a healthy, normal response.
> Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.
> > We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?
> "Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.
> > > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
> > A six year old just shot his teacher.
> And you find that "normal and healthy"?
> > > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > > > I had to look that up:
> > > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> > > >
> > > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> > George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
> > https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
> While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.
> > Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.
> I was never imaginative enough to imagine 14 coming between 3 and 6, admittedly.
> > > Your will to self seems to have been not only broken, but utterly destroyed, at a very early age.
> > We have a break-through!
> "Breakthrough." And, no, you really don't.

Hyphens, like apostrophes, matter.

Will Dockery wrote:

> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>>
>> >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
>> > Correct. Also, repeatedly mentioning it as a means for publicity/attention does not make it go away. Maybe they both need therapy horses.
>> Tell me, "Doctor"; do you think calling other people on the group immature makes you look like a "Doctor"? Do you think it makes you look "mature"? Do you think it will somehow shut them up? Do you even know what you're trying to accomplish?
>> > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
>> It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
>> > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
>> > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
>> > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
>> That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
>> > > 1) Boy George is treated like Cinderfella (a family member used as an unloved servant). He is forced to do chores, is called "filthy" and not allowed to sit on most of the furniture, and is severely reprimanded (whipped with a leather belt) for any transgressions. Even Cinderfella wasn't whipped.
>> > > 2) Boy George wishes to burn down his father's house (a symbol of both his childhood memories and his father).
>> > >
>> > > I would hardly call such "subtexts" subtle.
>> Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
>> (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
>> > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
>> As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
>> > And the voice is the same.
>> It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
>> > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
>> > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
>> I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
>> > >
>> > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
>> > >
>> > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
>> > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
>> It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
>> > Stiff Person Syndrome.
>>
>> I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?
>> > > > You're advising preteen children to fight back when their parents spank them? Indeed you are:
>> > > She is not advising anything.
>> > >
>> > > She is describing a healthy, normal response.
>> Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.
>> > We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?
>> "Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.
>> > > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
>> > A six year old just shot his teacher.
>> And you find that "normal and healthy"?
>> > > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
>> > > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
>> > > > I had to look that up:
>> > > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
>> > > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
>> > > >
>> > > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
>> > George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
>> > https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
>> While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.
>> > Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.
>> I was never imaginative enough to imagine 14 coming between 3 and 6, admittedly.
>> > > Your will to self seems to have been not only broken, but utterly destroyed, at a very early age.
>> > We have a break-through!
>> "Breakthrough." And, no, you really don't.

> Hyphens, like apostrophes, matter.

Ha ha...

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> > > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> > No, they aren't.
> >
> > There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.
> You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
> > > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> > > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> > >
> > Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.
> So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.
> > > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> > > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> > The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.
> It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.
> > It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.
>
> > > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> > > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> > That isn't true, George.
> >
> > When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.
> That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
> > his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.
> > Similarly, George's poem is an obvious parody of your poem. The primary characters can only be interpreted as George J. Dance and his father. Your attempt to make it a poem about Jim (IKYABWAI) would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
> It's the Chimp's poem, based on the Chimp's own imagination. It's s'posed to be about me and my father, of course, but his characters are no more me and my father than, say, the characters in his writing about SCOTUS actually the members of SCOTUS.
> > > > And the voice is the same.
> > > It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
> > The voice (in this case, the identity of the narrator) is the same. Jim's first person narrator mimics your first person narrator, reusing portions of his original statements when applicable.
> Not at all. My speaker recites memories, and represses his emotional response (until the end, when he expresses the wish to be free from them.) . The Chimp's speaker, OTOH, does nothing but; he doesn't just give in to his emotions, but wallows in them. He considers himself a loser and a failure, and blames his failures on his father. There's nothing of that in my poem.
> > > > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> > > > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
> > > I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
> > >
> > I'd recently paraphrased Nietzsche by writing something along the lines of "He who dances with Donkeys too long becomes a donkey himself."
> >
> > "Kill the father - fuck the mother" is a popular saying that is used to describe the Oedipus complex (and is closely associated with Jim Morrison's song, "The End").
> >
> > IIRC, Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch and the Will to Self have also been mentioned, but since you've failed to identify which Nietzsche reference you're talking about, I am unable to explain it to you.
> While I suspect you're just playing dumb, I'll be happy to refresh your memory.
> MMP: NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche
> NG: Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man."
>
> Nietzsche never talked about "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." (any more than Sophocles did). NG has obviously confused "Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch" with Freud's "Oedipus complex" theory. I don't blame them for that -- I'd put the blame on your rambling "explanations" -- but I am going to continue to point out that they don't know any of this theory you're talking about, and are simply following your lead.
> > > > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> > > > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
> > > It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
> > This is a textbook example of a patient in a state of denial attempting to dismiss his doctor's opinions as worthless.
> I suppose it might be, if there were a "patient", a "doctor," or a "textbook". But since there isn't - just you with your theory from a book you read decades ago, and your flunkie who's trying their best to support you but hasn't a clue.
> > > > Stiff Person Syndrome.
> > >
> > > I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?
> > This question can be solved with a visit to your local proctologist.
> >
> I doubt a proctologist would have a professional opinion about comment on an NG thread. Their expertise is with a different sort of asshole.
> > > > >
> > > > > She is describing a healthy, normal response.
> > > Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.
> > Uh-duh! Children go from being entirely dependent on their parents (infancy), to learning from and obeying their parents (early childhood), to "fighting" their parents as a means of establishing their independence from them (teens).
> That's true enough, except for your attempt to smuggle in the "fighting" and "symbolic killing". (You may think that, when one of your teenaged children argued with you over a house rule, that the rule was just an excuse or rationalization, and they're were really trying to "symbolically kill" you, but that's just your theory.) But that's not what NG said: they were saying that children subject to corporal punishment -- preteens -- should run away or fight their parents -- not for a rational reason like establishing their independence, but as part of a symbolic murder ritual.
> > > > We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?
> > > "Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.
> > Except that Little Boy George did not give into these normal responses to fear -- out of an even greater, and overruling fear.
> Again, I think you're setting your own thoughts on the poem. While you wouldn't say how you were punished, you told me that you constantly gave in to your fear. So you've got the idea that giving in to fear is normal and healthy, It's so normal and healthy to be give in to fear, to you, that someone who doesn't just obviously has to be giving in to some imagined "greater" fear.
> > > > > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
> > > > A six year old just shot his teacher.
> > > And you find that "normal and healthy"?
> > Of course, not. That's an extreme example.
> > > > > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > > > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > > > > > I had to look that up:
> > > > > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > > > > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> > > > George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
> > > > https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
> > > While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.
> > Nor need it be viewed as such.
> >
> > One progresses from the Phallic stage around the age of 6. If a 14-year old has progressed from the Phallic stage, he would be able to actively challenge his father at the age of 14.
> > > > Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.
> > > I was never imaginative enough to imagine 14 coming between 3 and 6, admittedly.
> > You are obviously "playing" dense again.
> >
> > (See above.)
> Fortunately, we don't have to go down tha rabbit hole again, since it turns out that Bill Clinton is irrelevant anyway (and I think I'll snip all mention of him in the next go-round). As you've told us on another thread (and no one doubts you're paraphrasing Freud accurately):
>
> "An Oedipus complex occurs when a boy fails to mature beyond the Phallic Stage of psychosexual development. To pass from the Phallic Stage, the boy needs to symbolically kill/usurp his *father* (not his mother, nor his uncle, nor his brother, nor his babysitter, nor his grandfather, nor anyone else administering punishment to him). This has nothing to do with the trauma from corporal punishment, nor does it eliminate the trauma. It merely allows the boy to pass to the next stage of psychosexual development."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/dJZIkTm6AQAJ?hl=en
>
> Bill Clinton didn't do anything to kill or usurp his biological father, since his biological father had died before Clinton was born. The example is irrelevant. Your "colleague" has gotten the Oedipus Complex wrong yet again; wrt Sophocles, wrt Nietzsche, and now wrt to Bill Clinton. .

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> > > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> > No, they aren't.
> >
> > There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.
> You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
>

You'll note that I had specifically said there were only three *logical* possibilities, George.

Since your poem doesn't identify who "they" are, as a reader, one only entertains such possibilities as make sense in the context of the poem.

As to your proposed alternatives: he shouldn't require the permission of his family, and certainly not that of his employer.

Dr. NancyGene's suggestion that it could be absentee owners and/or their agents is really too big of a stretch -- nor would absentee owners allow some stranger permission to wander through their house.

Returning to the three logical possibilities, the first two are more likely than the third, which, being an unusual circumstance (Joey Stout notwithstanding), requires additional support from the poem's text.

> > > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> > > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> > >
> > Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.
> So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.
>

No, George; according to me, anal rape would provide a strong motivation for wanting to burn down a house. While the poem's imagery suggests anal rape, it cannot be established to have taken place. We must therefore dismiss it as part of the narrative, but hold onto its implications as a second layer of interpretation.

> > > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> > > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> > The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.
> It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.
>

I have *never* referred to my childhood home as "my father's house." It was either "our house," or "my house," or "the house I grew up in."

You claim that the house symbolizes your narrator's memories, yet he takes no ownership of it (or of his memories which it represents). If so, referring to it as "my father's house" is an example of bad writing, as it negates the symbolism you were trying to establish.

That a child would feel so emotionally distanced from his home as to refer to it only as his father's property, indicates that he felt like he was only being allowed to stay there out of the generosity of his father's heart. You have also hinted at this in your various explanations of the poem. Your child has no reason to believe that house his home, and must toe the line or submit himself to corporal punishment.

> > It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.
>
> > > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> > > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> > That isn't true, George.
> >
> > When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.
> That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
> > his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."

You're attempted to force an absolute statement into a context where it doesn't fit.

I'm sure you're familiar with the adage that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

When interpreting a poem, the reader has to work *within the context* of the poem. If a poem is specifically about Will, Kathy, and Clay, the reader cannot claim that it is about the Three Stooges or the Three Little Pigs. If a poem is set at a taco restaurant, the reader cannot say that it is set at the Super Bowl or on a plane.

Note that I said there are *multiple* ways to interpret a poem -- not "an infinitude of ways."

In the context of your poem, in which a 6-year old boy lying in his bed awaiting physical punishment with his pajama pants dutifully pulled down and his naked bottom exposed, *suggests* anal rape. There is simply no getting around that fact. This doesn't mean that he was anally raped. However, the suggestion would operate on a symbolic level; to wit: the boy *associated* the beatings with anal rape, in the sense that he was powerless, under the control of his father, emasculated, etc.

> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.
>

I did *not* say that a writer's interpretation is the only "right one." I said that *the context* of "Twilight Girl" does not allow the reader to assign any identity to the characters apart from that of Will, Kathy, and Clay -- anymore than a reader could claim that "Paul Revere's Ride" was about anyone other than Paul Revere.

You have stated that you had intentionally left your poem "vague" on certain points. In doing so, you have allowed the reader a greater than usual degree of freedom in interpreting your work. "Twilight Girl" leaves little to the reader's imagination. It is meant as a parody of Will Donkey's poetry (set to the tune of "Twilight Time"). In "Twilight Girl," Will clearly pimps his wife to the Mexican patrons of a taco stand in exchange for money to buy himself tacos. His son, Clay, is curled up in the bed of his pickup truck as this is going on. This is not my interpretation, but a literal reading of the text.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
>> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
>> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
>> > > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
>> > > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
>> > No, they aren't.
>> >
>> > There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.
>> You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
>>

> You'll note that I had specifically said there were only three *logical* possibilities, George.

> Since your poem doesn't identify who "they" are, as a reader, one only entertains such possibilities as make sense in the context of the poem.

> As to your proposed alternatives: he shouldn't require the permission of his family, and certainly not that of his employer.

> Dr. NancyGene's suggestion that it could be absentee owners and/or their agents is really too big of a stretch -- nor would absentee owners allow some stranger permission to wander through their house.

> Returning to the three logical possibilities, the first two are more likely than the third, which, being an unusual circumstance (Joey Stout notwithstanding), requires additional support from the poem's text.

>> > > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
>> > > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
>> > > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
>> > > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
>> > >
>> > Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.
>> So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.
>>

> No, George; according to me, anal rape would provide a strong motivation for wanting to burn down a house. While the poem's imagery suggests anal rape, it cannot be established to have taken place. We must therefore dismiss it as part of the narrative, but hold onto its implications as a second layer of interpretation.

>> > > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
>> > > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
>> > The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.
>> It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.
>>

> I have *never* referred to my childhood home as "my father's house." It was either "our house," or "my house," or "the house I grew up in."

> You claim that the house symbolizes your narrator's memories, yet he takes no ownership of it (or of his memories which it represents). If so, referring to it as "my father's house" is an example of bad writing, as it negates the symbolism you were trying to establish.

> That a child would feel so emotionally distanced from his home as to refer to it only as his father's property, indicates that he felt like he was only being allowed to stay there out of the generosity of his father's heart. You have also hinted at this in your various explanations of the poem. Your child has no reason to believe that house his home, and must toe the line or submit himself to corporal punishment.

>> > It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.
>>
>> > > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
>> > > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
>> > That isn't true, George.
>> >
>> > When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.
>> That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
>> > his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."

> You're attempted to force an absolute statement into a context where it doesn't fit.

> I'm sure you're familiar with the adage that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

> When interpreting a poem, the reader has to work *within the context* of the poem. If a poem is specifically about Will, Kathy, and Clay, the reader cannot claim that it is about the Three Stooges or the Three Little Pigs. If a poem is set at a taco restaurant, the reader cannot say that it is set at the Super Bowl or on a plane.

> Note that I said there are *multiple* ways to interpret a poem -- not "an infinitude of ways."

> In the context of your poem, in which a 6-year old boy lying in his bed awaiting physical punishment with his pajama pants dutifully pulled down and his naked bottom exposed, *suggests* anal rape. There is simply no getting around that fact. This doesn't mean that he was anally raped. However, the suggestion would operate on a symbolic level; to wit: the boy *associated* the beatings with anal rape, in the sense that he was powerless, under the control of his father, emasculated, etc.

>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>
>> You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.
>>

> I did *not* say that a writer's interpretation is the only "right one." I said that *the context* of "Twilight Girl" does not allow the reader to assign any identity to the characters apart from that of Will, Kathy, and Clay -- anymore than a reader could claim that "Paul Revere's Ride" was about anyone other than Paul Revere.

> You have stated that you had intentionally left your poem "vague" on certain points. In doing so, you have allowed the reader a greater than usual degree of freedom in interpreting your work. "Twilight Girl" leaves little to the reader's imagination. It is meant as a parody of Will Donkey's poetry (set to the tune of "Twilight Time"). In "Twilight Girl," Will clearly pimps his wife to the Mexican patrons of a taco stand in exchange for money to buy himself tacos. His son, Clay, is curled up in the bed of his pickup truck as this is going on. This is not my interpretation, but a literal reading of the text.

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 12:50:17 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
>
> > On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> >> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> >> > > On Sunday, January 8, 2023 at 2:08:09 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 10:20:44 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > > > On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 9:28:55 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo..ca wrote:
> >> > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 5:23:14 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> >> > > > > > > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 9:33:07 PM UTC, michaelmalef....@gmail.com wrote:
> >> > > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> >> > > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> >> > > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> >> > No, they aren't.
> >> >
> >> > There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.
> >> You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
> >>
>
> > You'll note that I had specifically said there were only three *logical* possibilities, George.
>
> > Since your poem doesn't identify who "they" are, as a reader, one only entertains such possibilities as make sense in the context of the poem.
>
> > As to your proposed alternatives: he shouldn't require the permission of his family, and certainly not that of his employer.
>
> > Dr. NancyGene's suggestion that it could be absentee owners and/or their agents is really too big of a stretch -- nor would absentee owners allow some stranger permission to wander through their house.
>
> > Returning to the three logical possibilities, the first two are more likely than the third, which, being an unusual circumstance (Joey Stout notwithstanding), requires additional support from the poem's text.
>
> >> > > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> >> > > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> >> > > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> >> > > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> >> > >
> >> > Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.
> >> So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.
> >>
>
> > No, George; according to me, anal rape would provide a strong motivation for wanting to burn down a house. While the poem's imagery suggests anal rape, it cannot be established to have taken place. We must therefore dismiss it as part of the narrative, but hold onto its implications as a second layer of interpretation.
>
> >> > > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> >> > > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> >> > The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.
> >> It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.
> >>
>
> > I have *never* referred to my childhood home as "my father's house." It was either "our house," or "my house," or "the house I grew up in."
>
> > You claim that the house symbolizes your narrator's memories, yet he takes no ownership of it (or of his memories which it represents). If so, referring to it as "my father's house" is an example of bad writing, as it negates the symbolism you were trying to establish.
>
> > That a child would feel so emotionally distanced from his home as to refer to it only as his father's property, indicates that he felt like he was only being allowed to stay there out of the generosity of his father's heart. You have also hinted at this in your various explanations of the poem. Your child has no reason to believe that house his home, and must toe the line or submit himself to corporal punishment.
>
> >> > It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.
> >>
> >> > > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> >> > > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> >> > That isn't true, George.
> >> >
> >> > When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.
> >> That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
> >> > his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."
>
> > You're attempted to force an absolute statement into a context where it doesn't fit.
>
> > I'm sure you're familiar with the adage that the only absolute is that there are no absolutes.
>
> > When interpreting a poem, the reader has to work *within the context* of the poem. If a poem is specifically about Will, Kathy, and Clay, the reader cannot claim that it is about the Three Stooges or the Three Little Pigs.. If a poem is set at a taco restaurant, the reader cannot say that it is set at the Super Bowl or on a plane.
>
> > Note that I said there are *multiple* ways to interpret a poem -- not "an infinitude of ways."
>
> > In the context of your poem, in which a 6-year old boy lying in his bed awaiting physical punishment with his pajama pants dutifully pulled down and his naked bottom exposed, *suggests* anal rape. There is simply no getting around that fact. This doesn't mean that he was anally raped. However, the suggestion would operate on a symbolic level; to wit: the boy *associated* the beatings with anal rape, in the sense that he was powerless, under the control of his father, emasculated, etc.
>
> >> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >>
> >> You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.
> >>
>
> > I did *not* say that a writer's interpretation is the only "right one." I said that *the context* of "Twilight Girl" does not allow the reader to assign any identity to the characters apart from that of Will, Kathy, and Clay -- anymore than a reader could claim that "Paul Revere's Ride" was about anyone other than Paul Revere.
>
> > You have stated that you had intentionally left your poem "vague" on certain points. In doing so, you have allowed the reader a greater than usual degree of freedom in interpreting your work. "Twilight Girl" leaves little to the reader's imagination. It is meant as a parody of Will Donkey's poetry (set to the tune of "Twilight Time"). In "Twilight Girl," Will clearly pimps his wife to the Mexican patrons of a taco stand in exchange for money to buy himself tacos. His son, Clay, is curled up in the bed of his pickup truck as this is going on. This is not my interpretation, but a literal reading of the text.
> None of the above is actually a part of the "Twilight Girl" poem, though.

Michael Pendragon wrote:

> On Saturday, January 7, 2023 at 8:09:33 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>> On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 3:36:20 PM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
>> > On Monday, January 2, 2023 at 8:00:29 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
>> > George Dance has never heard of PTSD. There is a certain red-headed prince who is still reacting to and moaning about losing his mother 25 years ago.
>> I'm sorry, but I'll have to bring up your "psychologist" credentials again, "Dr." NG. In fact, I have heard of PTSD. What I have never heard from anyone but you before is that PTSD can be caused by one's mother dying 25 years ago, of by one's father spanking one >50 years ago. Those both look like your own theories.
>>

> Trauma occurs in many forms.

> Boy George lying in bed with his pants down awaiting a whipping obviously underwent a great deal of trauma. And the fact that he (or, for sake of argument, let's say his grown up counterpart) refuses to admit to his trauma shows that he has repressed it. Repression, however, does not address the problem, but merely forces it just below consciousness -- where it can well up and release itself at random moments similar to your paranoid outbursts here.

>> > Emotional trauma doesn't stop just because the original event is over. Ask a war veteran how he feels when he hears fireworks on New Year's Eve.
>> That sounds like what I'd call an "engrammatic" reaction - the vet hears something that sounds like gunfire, and his old brain takes over. It doesn't mean he constantly feels the same way (like a "fuck up", as the Chimp put it) all the year through. Someone who did -- someone obsessed with the idea of returning to Vietnam to shoot Vietnamese, to get his mojo back -- would be suffering from much more than PTSD.
>>

> An engrammatic reaction is a triggered memory. PTSD affects one regardless of external stimuli.

> As for your example of the obsessed vet, it is applicable to your stance at AAPC wherein you lash out against perceived authority figures as if you were the vet and they were Vietnamese.

>> > We don't think that George Dance took any psychology courses in college (nor read "Oedipus). Every boy has to symbolically kill his father in order to become a man.
>> I haven't taken any psychology courses, but I have read /Oedipus Rex/ (if that's what you mean) in translation. I think you misunderstand the plot entirely. Oedipus did *not* want to kill his father -- he killed his real father in a fight, not knowing who it was -- and the only trauma he suffered came from realizing that he had killed his father (not from any failure to do so).
>>

> You're right about Oedipus (the play), however, in terms of Freudian psychology, each boy must overcome (symbolically "kill") his father as part of his passage to adulthood. According to Freudian psychosexual development theory, all male children experience "Oedipal" desires during the "phallic stage" (age 3 - 6), wherein they wish to replace their father as their mother's spouse. Replacing the father is symbolic form of killing him (removing him from his position as head of the family). The sexual aspects of this attachment may be unknown to the child, but still exist within him on a subconscious level. Those suffering from an"Oedipus complex" (a term Freud created) have failed to mature beyond the phallic stage of psychosexual development.

>> As for psychobabble (from Dr. Morrison et al) about "killing" one's father, that sounds like purple poetry rather than factual description. Maturation involves rejecting one's father's rules and authority, and living by one's own rules and judgement instead, but that is not necessarily even a violent process, let alone involving any "killing."
>>

> Yes, but that maturation process involves getting beyond the desire to remove the father from the picture. This is normally accomplished during the latency stage wherein the boy (age 6 to puberty) transfers his desires from his mother to a friend his own age. While this attachment is not overtly sexual, it contains many unhealthy elements that materialize later in sexual bonds (jealously, dependence, possessiveness).

> Since Boy George (in the poem) was not allowed to play with other children, he was unable to form such a bond -- and consequently, failed to go through the latency stage. He has, therefore, never been able to move beyond the Oedipal (phallic) stage, and still harbors revenge fantasies wherein he burns down a home symbolizing his father.

>> > Evidently Jim's/George's boy never did that and never became a man, but is fixated on the memory of that house, the man who beat him, and the impotence that the boy felt during the beatings.
>> Well, that was the point of my poem: to show a glimpse into the mind of an person traumatized by a past event -- and that you and Dr. MMP think the poem is straightforward autobiography just shows how good it is.
>>

> No, George. It shows that you *told* us that the poem was "largely" based on your childhood experiences, and that your father believed in (and put to use) forms of corporal punishment.

>> I just find your explanation out to lunch -- I think the boy is traumatized by what happened to him, not because of some loss of mojo he experienced by letting it happen.

> "Mojo" is not part of psychological terminology, Mr. Morrison; however, it is obvious that a young boy lying submissively in bed with his pants down awaiting the belt has lost any feelings of power/self-worth. To impotently submit to another's abuse leaves its psychological scars that manifest themselves throughout one's adult life. Childhood victims of sexual abuse suffer from similar trauma.

>> > Those memories are still in his conscious mind, and the speaker remains that boy.
>> The speaker of the poem, yes. Me, no: I still have all the memories, but none of that alleged "trauma."

> You're in denial, George. Your trauma expresses itself in your posts. You categorize everyone into teams, and align yourself with the team you recognize as symbolizing the helpless child role: the derelicts, mentally infirm, semi-retarded; and lash out against anyone who demonstrates a superior understanding of language, culture, etc., or who possesses a superior talent for poetry (PJR, NancyGene, Jim, & co.). When you attack "Team Monkey," you are symbolically lashing out against your father.

Says Michael Pendragon, the delusional little monkey boy who has fantasies about being a better poet than T.S. Eliot.

And so it goes.

🙂

Michael Pendragon wrote:
> Will Dockery wrote:
>
>> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.

> I quoted his statements, Donkey.

> What's scrawny, white and red all over?

> George's butt.

Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?

🙂

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > Will Dockery wrote:
> >
> >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
>
> > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
>
> > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
>
> > George's butt.
>
> Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
>

I don't recall having written that one, Donkey -- but I certainly LOL'd at your repost.

On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > >
> > >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
> >
> > > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
> >
> > > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
> >
> > > George's butt.
> >
> > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> >
> I don't recall having written that one

Another impersonation post?

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 6:24:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > >
> > > >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
> > >
> > > > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
> > >
> > > > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
> > >
> > > > George's butt.
> > >
> > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > >
> > I don't recall having written that one
> Another impersonation post?

I may have written it. I couldn't find the original to check.

In either case, I'm readily willing to take credit for it.

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 3:47:59 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 6:24:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
> > > >
> > > > > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
> > > >
> > > > > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
> > > >
> > > > > George's butt.
> > > >
> > > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > >
> > > I don't recall having written that one
> > Another impersonation post?
> I may have written it. I couldn't find the original to check.
>
> In either case, I'm readily willing to take credit for it.

We found it--it seems to have been written by you. Great observation.
https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/L7W32Mg5GDM/m/JqV70nxPAAAJ
"Song and Poems and Stories are NOT necessarilly autobiographical!!!"
michaelmalef...@gmail.com
Dec 4, 2022, 10:55:52 AM
to
On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:52:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.

I quoted his statements, Donkey.

What's scrawny, white and red all over?

George's butt.

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 3:47:59 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 6:24:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
> > > > >
> > > > > > George's butt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > >
> > > > I don't recall having written that one
> > > Another impersonation post?
> > I may have written it. I couldn't find the original to check.
> >
> > In either case, I'm readily willing to take credit for it.
> We found it--it seems to have been written by you. Great observation.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/L7W32Mg5GDM/m/JqV70nxPAAAJ
> "Song and Poems and Stories are NOT necessarilly autobiographical!!!"
> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> Dec 4, 2022, 10:55:52 AM
> to
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:52:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
>
> I quoted his statements, Donkey.
>
> What's scrawny, white and red all over?
>
> George's butt.

Apparently another Google Groups glitch.

On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 11:43:36 AM UTC-5, NancyGene wrote:
> On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 3:47:59 PM UTC, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 5, 2023 at 6:24:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 3:52:33 PM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail.com wrote:
> > > > On Saturday, February 4, 2023 at 7:56:36 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > Michael Pendragon wrote:
> > > > > > Will Dockery wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > >> I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
> > > > >
> > > > > > I quoted his statements, Donkey.
> > > > >
> > > > > > What's scrawny, white and red all over?
> > > > >
> > > > > > George's butt.
> > > > >
> > > > > Again, why do you lie and misrepresent so much, Michael Pendragon?
> > > > >
> > > > I don't recall having written that one
> > > Another impersonation post?
> > I may have written it. I couldn't find the original to check.
> >
> > In either case, I'm readily willing to take credit for it.
> We found it--it seems to have been written by you. Great observation.
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/L7W32Mg5GDM/m/JqV70nxPAAAJ
> "Song and Poems and Stories are NOT necessarilly autobiographical!!!"
> michaelmalef...@gmail.com
> Dec 4, 2022, 10:55:52 AM
> to
> On Sunday, December 4, 2022 at 10:52:45 AM UTC-5, Will Dockery wrote:
> > I'll let George Dance speak for himself, just as he doesn't need you putting words in his mouth either, Pendragon.
>
> I quoted his statements, Donkey.
>
> What's scrawny, white and red all over?
>
> George's butt.

Thanks, NancyGene.

On Friday, February 3, 2023 at 2:43:41 PM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
> On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 11:44:08 AM UTC-5, michaelmalef...@gmail..com wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 26, 2023 at 8:27:37 AM UTC-5, george...@yahoo.ca wrote:
>
> > > >Dr. NancyGene sees both signs of a lack of maturity and PTSD in both you and the Prince.
> > > > After reading the entire poem, the words "they said it would be quite all right to take a drive to see it now" jump out. Who are "they" and why is it all right "now?"
> > > It's all right because "they" said it would be. Who "they" are is deliberately left to the reader's imagination.
> > No, they aren't.
> >
> > There are only three logical possibilities: 1) his doctors at the asylum, 2) the family currently living there, 3) the authorities upon his release from prison.
> You're being illogical again. I can immediately think of two more possibilities: (1) his family; (2) his employers. And even "Dr." NastyGoon can suggest two more: (3) absentee owners or (4) their agents:
> > > > Is it for sale and the owners are holding an open house?
> > > > Could be. He seems to be alone in the house, and I don't know if that would be the case in an open house, but it might be.
> > > > Has the speaker just been released from prison for killing his father 13 years ago in that home? Does the speaker want to get rid of every speck of the father and the house?
> > > That's imaginative; but in you're blaming the speaker's memories, and his desire to "get rid of" them by getting rid of the house on his failure to "symbolically kill his father". I'd expect that actually killing one's father would count as symbolically killing him.
> > >
> > Agreed. Although, if the nightly beatings included anal rape, he might need to burn down the house as well.
> So, according to you, the "father killing" that isn't in the poem is evidence for the the "nightly beatings" and "anal rape" that also aren't in the poem. You don't seem any better as a reader than you are as a doctor.
> > > Those aren't "subtexts", as they're actually in the text. (1) As a boy, he did chores, didn't have unrestricted run of the house, had an early bedtime, and sometimes got the belt. (You could call MMP's embellishments of those facts "subtexts", if you want)
> > > (2) As an adult, thinking back on all that, he expressed a wish to burn down the house (a symbol of his memories).
> > The his is not primarily a symbol of his memories. The poem's title is "My FATHER's House" [CAPS added for emphasis], and the narrator (significantly) refers to it as such. This makes the house of symbol of (and substitute for) his father -- in no uncertain terms.
> It's his father's house (not his father's "his"), and his father's rules. What else should he call it? The subject of the poem is the "house" -- which, as I've said, is just a symbol for the memories.
> > It represents his memories as well, but this is a secondary interpretation.
>
> > > > > Regardless of anything you might conceivably argue, it has been established that Jim intended his poem to be a parody of, and commentary on, yours -- and that the speaker in Jim's poem is intended to be the same as the speaker in your poem.
> > > As I've said before: one can't discuss the poem a poet "intended" to write.
> > That isn't true, George.
> >
> > When a poem is a blatantly obvious parody of another, one can *only* discuss it as such. My poem, 'Twilight Girl," is an obvious parody of Will Donkey's poem of the same name. The three main characters in it are intended to represent Will, Kathy, and Clay. Any other interpretation of the poem would be wrong.
> That contradicts what you said yesterday: "[A writer] can either agree with the reader's explanation, or offer an alternate explanation of his own -- bearing in mind that there are often multiple ways in which to interpret a poem, and that
> > his readers' explanations are every bit as valid as his own."
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
>
> You wrote that at Jan 26, 2023, 11:12:07 AM -- less than half an hour after you wrote this. So which do you believe; that a writer's interpretation of his work is the only "right one", or that any reader's "interpretation" is as "valid" as his? That's a rhetorical question; At this point it's fair to conclude you don't believe either one, but just will say what you think it takes for the win.
> > Similarly, George's poem is an obvious parody of your poem. The primary characters can only be interpreted as George J. Dance and his father. Your attempt to make it a poem about Jim (IKYABWAI) would be laughable if it weren't so pathetic.
> It's the Chimp's poem, based on the Chimp's own imagination. It's s'posed to be about me and my father, of course, but his characters are no more me and my father than, say, the characters in his writing about SCOTUS actually the members of SCOTUS.
> > > > And the voice is the same.
> > > It would be interesting to have you show, with reference to the texts, why you think so. At this point, it's not clear that you understand what a "voice" is.
> > The voice (in this case, the identity of the narrator) is the same. Jim's first person narrator mimics your first person narrator, reusing portions of his original statements when applicable.
> Not at all. My speaker recites memories, and represses his emotional response (until the end, when he expresses the wish to be free from them.) . The Chimp's speaker, OTOH, does nothing but; he doesn't just give in to his emotions, but wallows in them. He considers himself a loser and a failure, and blames his failures on his father. There's nothing of that in my poem.
> > > > > NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche -- not advising a patient.
> > > > Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." We are surprised that George Dance is not familiar with the concept.
> > > I tried to look that quote up, using "Nietzsche kill father", and found nothing. Are you quite sure that Nietzsche said that boys had to metaphorically kill their fathers to become men? It's possible that you're confusing what MMP's been saying about Nietzsche with what he's been saying about Freud?
> > >
> > I'd recently paraphrased Nietzsche by writing something along the lines of "He who dances with Donkeys too long becomes a donkey himself."
> >
> > "Kill the father - fuck the mother" is a popular saying that is used to describe the Oedipus complex (and is closely associated with Jim Morrison's song, "The End").
> >
> > IIRC, Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch and the Will to Self have also been mentioned, but since you've failed to identify which Nietzsche reference you're talking about, I am unable to explain it to you.
> While I suspect you're just playing dumb, I'll be happy to refresh your memory.
> MMP: NancyGene is referring to Nietzsche
> NG: Yes, we were referring back to "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man."
>
> Nietzsche never talked about "having to kill one's father (metaphorically) in order to become a man." (any more than Sophocles did). NG has obviously confused "Nietzsche's theories of the Übermensch" with Freud's "Oedipus complex" theory. I don't blame them for that -- I'd put the blame on your rambling "explanations" -- but I am going to continue to point out that they don't know any of this theory you're talking about, and are simply following your lead.
> > > > > Have you read Nietzsche? Are you familiar with his philosophy?
> > > > >
> > > > > Symbolically "killing" the frightened, submissive boy and overcoming/usurping the father, to recreate oneself as a new "powerful Big Boy" makes for a humorous comment on Nietzsche's " Übermensch."
> > > > NancyGene tries to make therapy sessions fun for the patient.
> > > It certainly is amusing to hear your thoughts about Sophocles and Nietzsche, I'll grant you that.
> > This is a textbook example of a patient in a state of denial attempting to dismiss his doctor's opinions as worthless.
> I suppose it might be, if there were a "patient", a "doctor," or a "textbook". But since there isn't - just you with your theory from a book you read decades ago, and your flunkie who's trying their best to support you but hasn't a clue.
> > > > Stiff Person Syndrome.
> > >
> > > I thought you'd abandoned that silly attempt at "diagnosis." Do I really have to comment more in that thread, too?
> > This question can be solved with a visit to your local proctologist.
> >
> I doubt a proctologist would have a professional opinion about comment on an NG thread. Their expertise is with a different sort of asshole.
> > > > >
> > > > > She is describing a healthy, normal response.
> > > Noted. "Doctor" NG thinks it's healthy and normal for children to fight their parents.
> > Uh-duh! Children go from being entirely dependent on their parents (infancy), to learning from and obeying their parents (early childhood), to "fighting" their parents as a means of establishing their independence from them (teens).
> That's true enough, except for your attempt to smuggle in the "fighting" and "symbolic killing". (You may think that, when one of your teenaged children argued with you over a house rule, that the rule was just an excuse or rationalization, and they're were really trying to "symbolically kill" you, but that's just your theory.) But that's not what NG said: they were saying that children subject to corporal punishment -- preteens -- should run away or fight their parents -- not for a rational reason like establishing their independence, but as part of a symbolic murder ritual.
> > > > We wonder how many times the "fight or flight" response was triggered in Little Boy George? What harm was caused in Little Boy George by his not choosing either of these and instead lying passively in bed with his pants down, waiting?
> > > "Fight" and "flight" are not options one chooses; they're emotional reactions, based on fear, that one gives in to.
> > Except that Little Boy George did not give into these normal responses to fear -- out of an even greater, and overruling fear.
> Again, I think you're setting your own thoughts on the poem. While you wouldn't say how you were punished, you told me that you constantly gave in to your fear. So you've got the idea that giving in to fear is normal and healthy, It's so normal and healthy to be give in to fear, to you, that someone who doesn't just obviously has to be giving in to some imagined "greater" fear.
> > > > > > Yes, "at some point" , as part of the maturation process, a boy will reject his father's authority, and sometimes that even results in a physical fight. But that normally happens in the late teens. A 6-year-old who got into a fistfight with a parent trying to punish him would be abnormal, not merely precocious.
> > > > A six year old just shot his teacher.
> > > And you find that "normal and healthy"?
> > Of course, not. That's an extreme example.
> > > > > Age 3 - 6 is when the phallic stage of psychosexual development exists. It is at that age that the child will be at his most rebellious against his father.
> > > > > > > Bill Clinton did this with his stepfather.
> > > > > > I had to look that up:
> > > > > > "He was barely 5 years old when his stepfather, Roger Clinton, fired a gun at his mother, Virginia Kelley. The bullet smashed into a wall next to where Kelley was seated."
> > > > > > https://apnews.com/article/6c177c056457b7d2f89cc906d2701d71
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There's nothing in the story about 5-year-old Willie fighting his father, or doing anything really but passively observing.
> > > > George Dance, you are not a good researcher: "When Billy was a big-for-his-age 14-year old, he broke down a door and confronted his drunken stepfather. Pointing to his mother and stepbrother, Billy said: " You will never hit either of them again. If you want them, you'll have to through me."
> > > > https://www.newsweek.com/bill-clinton-198464
> > > While doing your "research," you should have checked whether age 14 falls within the "Age 3 - 6" period when MMP's postulated "psychosexual" rebellion is supposed to take place. It doesn't.
> > Nor need it be viewed as such.
> >
> > One progresses from the Phallic stage around the age of 6. If a 14-year old has progressed from the Phallic stage, he would be able to actively challenge his father at the age of 14.
> > > > Little Lost Boy George never developed an imagination. He was short-sheeted.
> > > I was never imaginative enough to imagine 14 coming between 3 and 6, admittedly.
> > You are obviously "playing" dense again.
> >
> > (See above.)
> Fortunately, we don't have to go down tha rabbit hole again, since it turns out that Bill Clinton is irrelevant anyway (and I think I'll snip all mention of him in the next go-round). As you've told us on another thread (and no one doubts you're paraphrasing Freud accurately):
>
> "An Oedipus complex occurs when a boy fails to mature beyond the Phallic Stage of psychosexual development. To pass from the Phallic Stage, the boy needs to symbolically kill/usurp his *father* (not his mother, nor his uncle, nor his brother, nor his babysitter, nor his grandfather, nor anyone else administering punishment to him). This has nothing to do with the trauma from corporal punishment, nor does it eliminate the trauma. It merely allows the boy to pass to the next stage of psychosexual development."
> https://groups.google.com/g/alt.arts.poetry.comments/c/vhO7kDQSMqw/m/dJZIkTm6AQAJ?hl=en
>
> Bill Clinton didn't do anything to kill or usurp his biological father, since his biological father had died before Clinton was born. The example is irrelevant. Your "colleague" has gotten the Oedipus Complex wrong yet again; wrt Sophocles, wrt Nietzsche, and now wrt to Bill Clinton. .