This week the readings for class were about rhetoric and poetry, Freud and psychoanalytical criticism, and subjectivity. The Cullen chapter on rhetoric, poetics, and poetry examined literary techniques and how they were used. The one thing that stood out to me was that, in regards to the extravagance of lyric, “exaggeration is key”. I would have to agree. I mean let’s think about it, everyday we exaggerate the truth. We want to make ourselves look or sound better because if not is anyone really going to care? Without exaggeration you have those stories that go on and on and on, only to find out that nothing exciting happened, but then suddenly the story teller found twenty bucks and the story got a little better. Therefore I do agree with Cullen’s point and think that it is a valid one. The subjectivity chapter in The Theory Toolbox was overly repetitive and dragged on. The Beginning Theory chapter on psychoanalytical criticism and the infamous Freud was, in my personal opinion, the most interesting of this week’s readings.
Now normally when I have to read about Freud I find it incredibly strange and sex driven, but in this week’s readings there was a new topic that I had not yet come across and it peaked my interest. The concept of dream work, “the process by which real events or desires are transformed into dream images” made me stop and think…ah interesting. This was most likely due in part to the fact that just an hour or so before my roommate spent a few minutes telling me about yet another one of her inconceivable dreams. Seriously though dreams aren’t supposed to last a half an hour, but that’s how long it takes her to tell. Don’t get me wrong, I know it sounds a bit harsh, but I’ve had super unrealistic dreams too, the difference is that they lasted for thirty seconds tops. I don’t know, but Freud’s theory makes me beg some questions.
“Dreams, just like literature, do not usually make explicit statements. Both tend to communicate obliquely or indirectly, avoiding direct or open statement, and representing meanings through concrete embodiments of time, place, or person” (Barry 94). Okay, the first problem I have with this is the word usually. To me the word “usually” means that there is a ton of room for anything to happen and in this case that my dreams or anyone’s for that matter could be making explicit statements. I’d like to think that I know what my subconscious is trying to tell me, but it is far from clear. The other problem I have with that statement is that the concrete embodiments in my dreams are people, places, and times I don’t want to remember. However, if I agree with Freud’s dream work theory then I have to accept the fact that those are real things from my life, right? I agree with the possibility that dreams are formed from real events and can maybe accept that they sometimes represent desires, but I don’t agree with or better yet understand condensation. Normally I don’t have vast amounts of people in my dreams, but when I do they certainly aren’t all united representing the same idea. Going back to my roommate and her dreams, I don’t know how a guy pushing her down the hallway, me driving a car, and some girl smoking have anything to do with each other. After reading about Freud and then going back through my roommate’s dream in my head I could see how they were based of real people and real things that have happened at least in some sense.
Overall I think that Freud’s dream work theory is at least half right. I do believe that dreams are based off real life events and people, as much as we may not want to accept that. However, the condensation aspect is still tricky to me. I really do see how there is a correlation between dreams and literature because there are endless meanings and interpretations that be formed after both and therefore no clear cut answers.
Hi Jacquelyn, Great background for your blog, even Freudian in a dreamy way. Thanks for your comments, which I thought were perceptive overall. Freudian and Lacanian theory is interesting, though perplexing. The basic idea is that we are driven by our subconscious, by what we cannot really perceive. I look forward to our discussion in class. dw
ReplyDeleteI agree with you about Freud. he's a bit complex and a little out there on some stuff. I think to get condensation, you really have to understand how one image is carries so much meaning and impacts. You can use so much figurative language to describe one thing right? Like you don't have to describe a chair simply as a chair. It could be a thrown or where you sit to watch t.v. I think by adding context, we can expand one image. Usually, poems, for example, have disjointed images, but they somehow just come together. I don't think I'm making any sense, but...let's say I want to describe a person in one word, using an image. Let's use a sunflower for example, since it's easy. It's always easy to do flowers for some reason. What would you think of this person I called a sunflower? Would they be gloomy and boil a cauldron every night or would they be bright and cheerful? We have this predisposed way of thinking, I think. We don't exactly equate sunflowers with cackling witches, usually. I mean there's probably an exception somewhere in the world. I think it takes a lot to build one image because it's so scarce and it's such a short time. If we go back to the sunflower, we could examine it further. Maybe some petals are missing or the color is off somehow. These are complications to an image like complications to literature I believe. But condensing is really difficult if you forget about everything else. Sometimes, I think dreams bring things out of our subconscious and it made connections we didn't consciously think of. All the neurons are firing in our brain while we're not there, so it's one big complicated mass of connections. Thinking too much about un-condensing things give you a headache though. It'd be cool if dreams could give us a few hints at times, right?
ReplyDeleteI completely agree with you on the word “usually.” I often wonder if it truly has any place in an argument. While the meaning it expresses may be valid for those with enough integrity to admit that they do not in fact have all of the answers, should we heed any argument, particularly one which demands application in one’s life, that begins with this word? “Usually” does not recognize reliable odds.
ReplyDeleteI habitually psychoanalyze myself, and if I’m being honest, I psychoanalyze others as well. With this said, I, too, like to believe that I am aware of all that takes place within my “repressed” self. But realistically, the likelihood of this supposition forces me to admit that I do not. To be honest I don’t dream much at all. I sleep well, much better than most of my peers in fact, but I dream very infrequently. When I do, my dreams are very episodic and disjointed in nature, and the characters in them are often fringe characters in my life. I might have the presence of a close friend, but the rest of the cast often consists of acquaintances and loosely knit friends.
I think above all this topic reminds of me of the movie Inception. Aside from the obvious complexity, both Inception and Freudian interpretation are irrefutable (i.e. no way of wholly affirming or refuting exists). Do I think the capabilities depicted in Inception are possible? Not really. Can I in any way prove that assertion? No. Much like this film, Freud’s ideas reside in a realm beyond my reach, the subconscious, by definition a level that I cannot fully explore and understand. When learning about Freud, I always thought the inability to disprove his theories was rather convenient, not that I seek to condemn Freud or suggest this advantage was intentional. In theory, it would be completely possible to rationalize, to form some sort of explanation for any psychological creation, such as the meanings of dreams. In this same way, theoretically at least, we could, if we truly so desired to, create infinite numbers of explanations or interpretations of a given text. Exhibit A: the Bible. How many denominations of Protestantism alone arose from differences in interpretations? How many of these interpretations exist to support a human motivation rather than human motivations coming forth as a result of interpretation? Who can ever know? Many contend that no approach, no perspective is objective. If this is true, all textual interpretations, and all psychoanalysis for that matter, are both subjective and impossible to disprove.
This seems like a massive response, sorry! I really enjoyed reading your thoughts. (P.S.- I loved the Jeopardy game!)