Re: a cuckoo clockmaker

blah b b blah (jrovira@juno.com)
Sat, 06 Feb 1999 11:57:13 -0500 (EST) 

See, I can't speak for Salinger's beliefs as far as his opinions of
Jung's or Freud's theories were concerned.  There is a strong
undercurrent of skepticism regarding psychology as a discipline whenever
it is mentioned in Salinger's writing, and given the time period we are
probably talking about a Freudian construct of some kind.  I think this
subtextual criticism is along the lines of the psychoanalysts being
"apple eaters" more than anything else, it's a distrust coming from the
use of reason to understand something as deep as the human mind.

Personally, I think they're both full of Crap.  I especially like Lewis's
critique of Jung -- I don't see how we've come out ahead by constructing
a vast mythology to explain all smaller ones.  Jung is certainly more
religious then Freud, but you have to ask, "Why should I believe this,"
and you can never get an answer other than, "Because Jung said so." 
Course, for some people that's the only answer any religion ever gives
:), but if I'm going to look for answers in religion I'd go further back
than Jung.   I think I'd go to his sources.

But both Freud and Jung provide systems of thought that can serve as
lenses through which we view everything, and once you've accepted their
premises you're immediately seeing either libido or archetypes
everywhere.  This kinda brings me back to Eco's novels--esp Rose and
Pendulum.  Is the pattern there, or only in our minds?  

The thing with BOTH Jung and Freud when we're applying their ideas to any
kind of literary criticism is that we're attempting to do mimetic
criticism of some kind.  In other words, the author's opinion of these
theories are even less valid than we'd usually take them to be.  If
humanity does share a collective subconscious, then it does so whether
Salinger believed it or not, and it will appear in his writing whether he
intended it to or not.  If we are driven by the opposing forces of Id and
Superego, then they're going to come out whether Salinger accepted the
tenets of psychoanalytic theory or not.  In fact, the fact of his denial
is, in this paradigm, probably proof that he is indeed being driven by
his Id and is suppressing this knowlege :)

But whether your "see" psychoanalytic theory reflected in Salinger or
Jungian archetypes kinda depends ahead of time whether or not YOU accept
this crap.  The author's opinion doesn't really matter, and that's the
point of this kind of criticism to begin with.  If you're just curious
about Salinger's beliefs and what he's read, then I'd have to ask, Why? 
So you can better understand his literature?  But don't you have to
understand his literature **first** before you can see his beliefs
reflected in them?  If you really want to know Salinger's beliefs with
any certainty you have to ask him, and he seems to not be speaking too
much these days.

Jim

PS You know, it is possible for people to comment on and make
observations of human psychology without any intended direct reference to
ANY established school of thought.  People have been doing that for
thousands of years, actually, and will continue to do that.  Lolita's a
good example :)     

  

___________________________________________________________________
You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail.
Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html
or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]