Projecting Too Much
Lynn details Freud’s theories of the unconscious mind extensively in chapter seven. Focusing on the sexual aspects of psychology, Lynn holds that “the unconscious is inherently sexual” and “acts of literary criticism and psychological analysis begin to look very much alike.” While embedded sexual deviancy remains evident in a variety of literary works, Lynn (from what I gathered from the reading) believes the root of all psychological literary criticism–and of the mind itself–is innately sexual.
In my eyes, this position cheapens the value of psychological criticism by reducing it to a single aspect of the human psyche. Yes, sexual urges undoubtedly drive our day-to-day lives; however, narrowing our perspectives to sexual fantasies closes off other possibilities that may reveal even more information about a literary character or work. The mind is a complex and powerful thing–there are other factors besides sex that govern its actions and thoughts.
Ironically, Lynn mentions the potential inaccuracies of his analysis by highlighting the Freudian concept of “projection,” whereby the critic’s own subconscious desires are “projected” into the text, as is the case in Lynn’s critique of the poem “A Slumber Did My Spirit Seal” by William Wordsworth. Lynn takes great pains to prove Wordsworth possessed incestuous feelings for his sister; however, there is absolutely no indication of sexual desire from Wordsworth at all. The poet was merely “close” with his sister, as all brothers and sisters are. Jumping the gun to “unconscious incestuous desires” is not only projecting your own thoughts into the text, it’s a sad attempt at writing about something that clearly isn’t there, perhaps just to prove a point (”the unconscious is inherently sexual”) or to tack on a few extra pages to your book’s length.
If Lynn read my critique, he would most likely conclude that I was molested as a child and thus incapable of talking about sex. Go figure.
Samantha wrote:
I agree that Lynn is extremely limiting on the subject of psychological criticism. However, I felt that in class today, the general feeling toward the subject as a whole, as well as towards Lynn’s explanation, was fairly negative. I think, though, that this type of criticism is important to consider. The mental processes and functions in psychology underlie everything that we do. Therefore, I think that anything that an author writes is a manifestation of something psychological and any ideas that a reader finds as possibilities of authorial intent amount, to some degree, to a psychological analysis. Even the critic can be criticized for projecting his own expectations on the text, but this in itself is a psychological phenomenon called self-fulfilling prophecy—finding what you expect to find. Basically, I think that because of the limiting view on psychological criticism that we read, we underplayed the entire realm a little too much. I find literature and psychology to be inextricably intertwined, but not always, not often even, in the context of Freud’s ideas of sex and the unconscious.
Posted 24 Sep 2007 at 11:09 pm ¶