psychoanalytical readings

[Kesser]

Hi there!

I am studying literature at University and am currently writing an essay on the usefullness of psychoanalytic Criticism - i'm finding it a real struggle to seperate the differences in the different thoughts and where reader response theory comes into it and how to apply it to the book given (Lady Susan by Jane Austen) - I know what I want to say but how do I untangle the theories in order to say it? Anyone who can help my poor brain untangle through discussion, please do!! It's my forst essay and wow am i finding it difficult! Kes :)

[PeterL]

That would be an interesting topic to be stuck with. Alas, psychoanalytical readings usually say at least as much about the interpreter as they say about the work, but they can be very funny.

[Dr. Hill]

I make it my mission at school to use Crime and Punishment for as many different essays as I can, and this one fits perfectly. Explore the reader's response theory to Raskolnikov's Ubermench syndrome, and whether or not pity is felt for him after he delves into insanity following the murder.

[JBI]

We talking about analyzing the text to discover its writer, or analyzing the character to discover inner motives? The ladder is the more trustworthy, I think the usefulness of psychoanalytical criticism comes from how much is brought in from the outside.

There are readings that speculate too much, and as a result fail, and there are readings that speculate too little, and don't really psychoanalyze.

I personally am against readings that look for the author using psychoanalytical methods, but trying to uncover characters can work as long as the analysis doesn't get to theoretical, or too driven by trying to pin syndrome to patient.

[LitNetIsGreat]

I personally am against readings that look for the author using psychoanalytical methods, but trying to uncover characters can work as long as the analysis doesn't get to theoretical, or too driven by trying to pin syndrome to patient.

Yes me too, I think chasing after authorial intention on any level is a dangerous game, on the characters it can be very interesting though - certainly it is important to apply the text to the theory and not the other way round.

[backline]

I say we all do Literary Criticism naturally in the way that our personalities bring to the party.
Like personality attributes, we unconsciously apply whatever method appeals to us, be it New Historicism, Psychoanalytical, Deconstruction, whatever.
These approaches have been "discovered" or developed over time, consciously or unconsciously.

It may be useful to know of Dostoevsky's epilsepsy, etc. when reading some of his characterizations. Or Niccolo Machiavelli's background and cultural context. Hemingway's drinking habits and personality, etc.

To someone steeped in Psychoanalytical processes and theory it will be tempting to apply that knowledge to authors and works in that form of Literary Criticism. Whether or not it sticks depends on either how knowledgeable the reader of your polemic is, or how well you can instruct the reader in your logic chain.

Nowadays it's tempting to apply various pages of the DSM-IV to various works, authors, and character development in novels.
I can find myself on several pages of the DSM-IV, but I may not be the best person to evaluate myself. And projection may or may not be accurate, but it's always fun.