Psychological Criticism and the author
There seems to be different views on the role that the author and the reader each play in the reading of a text. It seems that the reader can easily skew the author’s primary intentions, if they are completely unaware of the author’s background. Ch.7 of Lynn’s Texts and Contexts discuss the use of psychological criticism. It mentions how a reader can analysis a text and find a different meaning than even the author intended. Does the subconscious really effect what the author writes? And even if it does is a reader’s psychological analysis of a piece of text say more about the author’s psychological state or the readers own psychological state of mind?
I think by using psychological criticism the reader must completely ignore the author’s primary intent. Whether or not the reader does come up with a fair analysis of the author’s state of mind, it is likely that he or she is overlooking the point that the author was consciously trying to get across to the reader. Also, since readers have a tendency to bring their own backgrounds and emotions to a text, it is also quite possible that by using psychological criticism they will entirely ignore the meaning of the reading and subconsciously use psychological criticism to analysis their own state of minds. Although I think psychological criticism is useful, I think it forces the reader to neglect authorial intent completely. Instead of finding the meaning in the text that the author hoped the reader would see, the reader is instead analyzing the author’s mind, not his or her writing. I think it’s important to look first at the intended meaning of the text, before a reader tries to find a meaning based on the subconscious of the author.
hammad wrote:
In response to the last sentence of you post, the problem is that its often difficult to find a single intended meaning of the text. Unless the author specifically states his or her text’s meaning, there will always be differing interpretations of a text. I agree that psychological crticism can, to an extent, reject the notion of authorial intent. However, by examining the author’s state of mind, is it not possible to utilize that information in interpreting the literary piece? Whether or not that speaks to the author’s intended meaning is a mystery, and one that I do not intend to spend my time solving. Instead, I’d rather look at all the interpretations and judge for myself what I feel is the closest to the truth.
Posted 22 Sep 2007 at 4:54 pm ¶
sean wrote:
A good set of issues you both raise – but I would only add that “intent” can only be conscious. Any subconscious meanings, readings, and elements cannot carry the force of authorial intent, simply by definition. The unconscious and subconscious come out in texts (and our readings of them) despite our intentions, in fact.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 8:58 am ¶
dayne wrote:
In addition to Hammad’s point that psycho-analytical interpretations of a text that its author may not have intended may be valid, I’d like to say that the proposed aim of psycho-analysis is, indeed, to discover points that an author did not intent to make. Of course, the reading in Lynn mentions the phenomena of projection, and Jamie makes a legitimate criticism of psycho-analytic criticism in this regard. However, I think it is valid to assert that psycho-analytic criticism should be performed with a full immersion into the principles of psychology.
Also, I think that psychological criticism takes on different, or perhaps multiple, dimensions in different kinds of works. When analyzing a story, as is the case in Lynn’s analysis of Hamlet, the psychological analysis analyzes characters and the plot in novel ways. In essays and poetry, as well as in stories, the primary aim of psycho-analytical criticism is often to analyze the state of the author. In this case, I would agree that the text shouldn’t stand completely alone, and historical and biographical research or understanding should accompany an analysis into the author’s psyche.
Posted 25 Sep 2007 at 11:38 pm ¶
alison wrote:
When I consider psychological criticism I imagine that I am a relatively acclaimed author and that I have just put out a novel. As someone read my book, I think I’d want several things to happen 1) I’d want them to get a lot of what I had intended for them to get with close reading, i.e. the general point and more subtle symbolism. Without this, how would they know how clever/deep I was? 2) I’d want them to get something out of it for themselves. There would, hopefully, be some thought-provoking lines/themes that would really speak to them, even if they did so in a way I had not anticipated. 3) I think it would be pretty cool if they realized “oh, Frost totally included that reference to balance because she used to be a dancer.” I, as the authout might, again, not even have been aware of this connection. The psychological criticism inherent in number three adds a fascinating new dimension to reading. It can throw you off completely, but it may also illuminate a “more correct” interepretation of the text, as Hammad suggests. I agree with Jamie that authorial intent (number one) should not be forgotten). I agree with the rest of you in that psychology may be used as a tool to uncover such intent, for intent, subconcious or not, can be hard to find.
Posted 27 Sep 2007 at 4:10 pm ¶