Quote:
Originally Posted by
Quark
What I'm saying, though, is that your interpretation and Neely's are just different species of psychological readings, and that neither exclude the possibility that the ghosts are real. Your last post was making it seem like we have to choose between a psychological reading (whether Freudian or not) and the reality of the ghosts. It tempting to slip into that either/or interpretation, but I think that kind of reading misses a lot of this story's thematic content. As I was saying above, I think much of the story is about the degree to which we pursue certainty and evil in a place that promises neither conclusively. To say that the ghosts are either entirely real or entirely delusion would cover up this question--or, at least, reduce it to a simple choice.
I see what your saying, and you're looking at the ideas in a rather abstract way. I'm looking at the story as an integrated work of art, and to have the ghost as inconclusive after a 100+ pages is theatrical manipulation - jerking the reader. I'll have more on this possibility later.
Quote:
That's a lot to say so quickly. It sounds like you've got four main problems with contemporary literary theory--and maybe Freudian readings in particular:
1) That it was developed and practiced by self-important professors
2) That it reflects a leftist world view
3) That Freudianism is discredited
4) That certain theories misplace readers attention onto the critics rather than the authors
Sure I can agree with all those, though I would phrase #2 differently. "That it reflects a leftist world view" is a symptom of critics projecting their world view unto a work. It's not that the overwhelming college literature professors are left wing (though I don't care for that either ;)) but that they impose it on art, art that in many cases was written in an era when current ideas weren't even conceptualized. Yeah that's a serious problem.
Quote:
The first points may be true, but it doesn't really prove anything one way or another. Yes, there are scholars who put their careers over knowledge, but that doesn't necessarily mean their ideas are wrong. It just means they're unpleasant people. Even if your ad hominem is a fair one, it doesn't really change my view of theory.
I would say that the treatment of art to be mere texts is a devaluation of the art. New Historicism (taken from all the deconstruction crap) goes so far as to claim that a telephone book is as much as a text as Hamlet. And that is not only the critic imposing himself on a work, but actually being superior to it.
Quote:
Similarly, I'm willing to concede the second point, but I don't think it's a reason not to trust theory. Sure, much of theory reflects the leftist atmosphere of Humanities Departments. Yet this doesn't mean that theory is wrong--it just means that theory is limited.
Ok.
Quote:
The third point is most damning for Freudianism, and it's why psychoanalytic readings receive the skepticism they do--even from theorist. This is stumbling block for most Freudian critics, and I don't see much of a way around it. I don't think this is true of all theory, though. It's a specific criticism of Freud.
Yes, I was being specific to Freud. Once such a theory is proven to be wrong, then any further interpretation of a work through it is flawed, except if the author is intentionally using it or believes in it. Frankly this is really moot. There aren't any real freudian critics out there any more. It's a hold over from the 1930's through 50s when Freud was credible.
Quote:
The last point is the most complex. It sounds like what you're complaining about here is what called "the hermeneutics of suspicion"--a familiar phrase probably. I think you're saying that critics should interpret the text as something that's completely aware of itself--something that's consciously trying to create an effect, and either succeeds or doesn't.
Yes. That's essentially New Criticism, formalism, or Aristotilianism. That is the true and lasting approach to reading literature. All these other "-isms" will fade into posterity over time.
Quote:
"The hermeneutics of suspicion," though, argues that the text works its effect in bad faith. It unconsciously bears the marks of the situation in which it was created. Hypothetically, from this perspective, a critic who understands these unconscious messages in the text could claim that they're superior to the author who wrote it--since they see more of the work than the author does. This seems to be your complaint.
I'm not claiming it's in bad faith. It's just a wrong headed approach. A hundred years ago, there was probably 1/20th of the number of literature professors in the world that there are today and 1/20th of the journals. Those journals need to be filled and those professors need to do something and they compete with each other for the next break through. They all want to be the next I.A. Richards or Lionel Trilling or Harold Bloom. Such quanatity and outlet and competition generates a lot of crap, though in all fairness it generates good criticism as well.
Quote:
Yet I think this misses the point. It doesn't matter who is superior--critic or author. Critics are just trying to understand the text, and to do so means that they have to look at what the author consciously expresses and what the author unconsciously expressed. Clearly, there are things that are not meant to be said that somehow come out when one is speaking. When Douglas is describing the governess, it slips out that he's quite enamored of her--even though he never says so directly. When you put on certain clothes, it probably reflects your gender, class, and even nationality, but when you were dressing you probably were not thinking: I'm going to put on my middle-class, male, American outfit today. Things slip out when anyone makes a decision. "The hermeneutics of suspicion" are merely one way of decoding those things that slip out. Any critics who is honest about what they're studying has to admit that there are things like this in a text. If it gives them a big head, I guess that's a personal problem, but it isn't an interpretative one.
Those are all details the author chose, and if they fit into the story line, then fine. That is not what I'm objecting to. It is one thing to look at those items, it is another to say that the character is sexually repressed because of he is wearing tight jeans, especially if the author was before Freud. That is to draw a conclusion based on the critic's ken of knowledge, or better stated outside the author's ken of knowledge.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Jozanny
Virgil, I think your hostility to Freud goes a little too far. He did revolutionize the way traditional western medicine looked at mental illness--which he recognized was a matter of degree, and he was one of the first to do so. My bosses respected both William James and Freud, and both men are still relevant historical scientists.
I didn't think I was hostile to Freud, so much as condemning imposing an idea into a work that wasn't intended. But yes, i guess i don't have much respect for Freud. He was in fact a fraud. I think there are books out there that revealed he had falsified his work to reach many of the conclusions he did, and that at a minimum his scientific method was crap. He made far expansive conclusions on a sample of one or two people. As science, his theories aren't credible at all. You can look it up.
