Paris: Bibliographic de la France. Escarpit,Robert C. Yearbook of Comparative and General Literature Escarpit, Robert C. Goldmann, Lucien Materialisme dialectique et histoire de la litterature. Revue de metaphysique et de morale — Escarpit and N. Robine at the Army Induction Center at Limoges. Lehman, Harvey C.
Scientific Monthly — Oxford Univ. Edited by Peter Ludz. Berlin: Luchterhand. Revue d—histoire litteraire de la France Plekhanov, Georgii V. London: Lawrence … Wishart.
First published in Russian. Sartre, Jean-paul What Is Literature? New York : Philosophical Library. Schucking, Levin L. London: Routledge. Berlin: Gruyter.
Edited by Paul van Tieghem. Geneva: Droz.
edcyshuta.cf The psychology of literature is an emerging, rather than an established, discipline. We can distinguish three aspects or stages in its development, although these are not sharply defined. First is the insertion of psychological questions and theories into the predominantly aesthetic or historical writing of students of literature. Second is the writing of psychologists who seek to explain and interpret literary works by means of theories and techniques developed in other contexts.
Third is the psychological analysis of literature by those who try to adjust their method to the peculiar nature of the subject matter and who hope to make discoveries rather than to impose stock explanations. The present article, inevitably narrow in scope, will be organized loosely around these categories in an effort to sample the writings of the contemporary period. As one of the most distinctive of human activities, literature would seem to be a natural focus of psychological inquiry.
How it is produced, how it affects those who enjoy it, what it reveals concerning the author and his society—these are questions that have occupied major thinkers from early times. Psychology of literature is referred to in standard works on literary criticism, and a recent bibliography of the field lists thousands of relevant titles Kiell Yet textbooks of psychology rarely mention either literature or psychology of literature.
The paradox is partly explained by the positivistic restrictions of psychology and partly by the elusiveness of literature when approached by science.
Some conception of literature necessarily precedes scientific study of it. Permanent material documents do exist that can be called repositories of literature, but these docu- ments are simply a modern device for bringing author and reader together in the literary transaction.
Protest and the Body in Melville, Dos Passos, and Hurston - CRC Press Book. Series: Literary Criticism and Cultural Theory. Routledge Published September. feilanpartbatti.cf: Protest and the Body in Melville, Dos Passos, and Hurston (Literary Criticism and Cultural Theory) (): Tom McGlamery: Books.
At an earlier time, essentially the same transaction took place by oral means, aided by gestures and pantomime and often by instrumental music, and nothing was stored in documents. Human memory and capacity for improvisation sufficed. The modern reader is a step removed from the early pantomime, but only a step. He can still turn the written words into spoken ones, and, if he is artistically sensitive, he is likely to do so. He can also, to some extent, experience the various kinds of imagery intended by the words, and, through the sound and imagery and temporal structure of the composition, participate in moods, attitudes, and values that may have acted as initiating and sustaining forces for the author.
According to this view, literature is a process of expression by an author which induces a corresponding process of reception in a reader. The process in the reader is not necessarily equivalent to the process in the author, but it is such as to bind him to the author. Literature exists in that union. The author can, of course, be his own reader.
This circular transaction, however, is typically not enough; the impulse of authorship moves toward communication. Imperfect as this characterization of literature is, a scientific approach must be regulated by some such reflections; and since it appears that the literary process requires the scientific observer to be an intimate part of what he observes, it is evident that the methodological problem is grave. The bulk of literary criticism falls in the first of the three categories mentioned above. Much of it does not pretend to be psychological.
Some of it, however, consciously employs psychological language and theory to dress up, supplement, or govern the critical discussion. Rare are those works that are deeply imbued with psychology and are still, in the main, appreciative. An example is Bodkin—s Archetypal Patterns in Poetry Exploring literature from a Jungian base, this book seeks to locate the meeting ground of author and reader in the universal symbols of the collective unconscious.
The theory is not merely decorative; it controls the analysis throughout, although it is in turn controlled by mature literary taste. Lowes is not quite faithful to the author he admires. For Coleridge, imagination is creative and esemplastic, making and shaping into organic unity, while fancy can only join together mechanically what imagination supplies. In agreement with Coleridge and Freud on the importance of feeling is Prescott, whose The Poetic Mind is an expansion of his earlier essays on the connection between poetry and dream.
Like Freud he invokes the unconscious; distinguishes two modes of thought practical and dreaming ; closely identifies poetry with dream; emphasizes unfulfilled desire as the motive for both; makes use of the ideas of condensation, displacement, and projection; and otherwise shows an appreciation of Freudian principles.
For Prescott both literature and dream are direct, not cryptogrammic, expressions of the mind. He specifically compares poetic creation to sexual generation or the divine genesis of the universe. Especially in his chapter on the formation of imaginary characters Prescott emphasizes the power of the mind to create.
Binet studied a number of contemporary authors by personal interview, including some formal testing, and by analysis of their lives and works. He put authors in three classes with respect to the relative strength of these tendencies. There are those like de Curel, in whom the critical function is suspended during the period of creative activity and the imagination-produced characters use the writer as an amanuensis or sort of trance medium.
There are those like Victorien Sardou , in whom the opposition between the two mental forces continues, but the critical function itself becomes one or more of the autonomous persons, participating in the dramatic dialogue with other persons more charged with the imaginative force. Finally, there are those like Hervieu, in whom the critical function remains in control so completely that the imaginary characters never achieve full autonomy, being themselves rather the puppets through which the voice of the master speaks.
In all three types, however, according to Binet, the literary work reveals the personality of the producer.
As is evident from the preceding discussion, the psychoanalytic influence has been felt everywhere in the study of literature. A varied collection of essays showing this influence at its best has been edited by Phillips The psychoanalytic studies in this genre, in comparison, often seem less judicious.
You can expect some work with electronic resources: for instance, with online journal databases and the Oxford English Dictionary. A Handbook of Critical Approaches to Literature. According to Bressler, some feminist intellectuals such as Toril Moi think that feminist criticism is a theoretical, political, and critical approach to dismantle patriarchy within all cultural areas Cited in Bressler, Geburtstag: Elisabeth Rethberg AlthoughWoolf believed that women have always encountered with social and economic obstacles in the course of their literary productions, she asked for aneutral femininity, which is not concerned with the notion of femaleness or maleness. A Healthy download protest and is the turrets of ' boolean people ' for new stickers and supplies. London Government and the Welfare Services.
Probably the best is the Ernest Jones study, Hamlet and Oedipus , which soberly develops the idea proposed by Freud that Hamlet and his creator could be explained by the Oedipus complex. The dream is supposed to be a coded message from the unconscious. The code consists of certain stereotyped, universal symbols, plus many individual symbols produced by very complex dreamwork. But there are other reasons for distrust. For one thing, the Freudian approach at times has an uncomfortable resemblance to the cryptographic approach of the Baconians searching through the plays of Shakespeare for hidden evidence that their candidate, Francis Bacon Lord Verulam , was the real author.
A more general reason is that literature seems in its basic constitution the very opposite of a cryptogram.
Authors on the whole strive to express, not to conceal. It is true, no doubt, that a great literary work is thick with meaning, layer upon layer, and that some layers are more sharply articulated than others; but authors are aware of this and welcome the depth of meaning, in exactly the spirit of an orator who is glad for his voice to take on tremors and intonations that do not seem to be called for by the logic of his argument or the matter-of-factness of his vocabulary.
The richness and subtlety of a literary work may elude an ordinary reader, but it is doubtful that such deficiency in sensitivity is to be repaired by imputing conscious or unconscious concealment to the author.
These strictures are not meant to disparage the merit of psychoanalysis as a vivifying influence on the study of literature. Recognition of the depth of literature and its relevance to the concerns of the psychiatrist and vice versa cannot be regarded as mistaken. Furthermore, the expansion of outlook engendered by psychoanalysis holds much promise for the future.
Once collected, the images can be classified and counted for the sake of answering various kinds of questions. Thus, she demonstrates that Shakespeare—s imagery differs from Marlowe—s and Bacon—s; and she attempts to draw conclusions as to Shakespeare—s favorite haunts for example, gardens , particular experiences for example, noticing an eddy in the Avon below the eighteenth arch of the Old Clopton Bridge , and general character. Undoubtedly, at times she pushes inference too far. For example, from Shakespeare—s many references to blushing and other quick emotional changes in fair-skinned faces she concludes that his own face was fair-skinned and of a fresh color.
It is questionable whether we have, or can have, principles that fully justify such an argument. For example, he finds that the images clustering around the goose symbol in many of the plays commonly refer to disease and penal restraint, and somewhat less commonly to music, bitterness, and seasoning. Several such image clusters are studied in detail.