I just wanted to rant about psychoanalytical criticism, I think it is 'crap'. While I was listening to the literature group today I do believe they did a good job. Although, I personally believe that all of it was just a reason. I think that psychoanalytical just gave critical thinkers more of a reason to 'think', haha.
In class today, we discussed what women want and how you could never pin point what it was. This is true and I'll use my example like I used in class; when I was younger I wanted a barbie doll, now I want a better car and in the future I might want more money. Everything depends on the time period, how old the person is, how they were brought up-values and so many more things.
In addition, we discussed this in reference to the book. As many times as we try to interpret what the author meant by this, or what she meant by this word use, we can't. Simply because of what is listed above or who the directed audiences is. When I use analogies, comparisons, etc, I try to use the appropriate for my audience. For example, the wind was as windy as the world spinning around the world. I know, it doesn't make sense but that was directed towards an adult audience because they are more likely to understand or narrow it down. Where if I was to talk to a child I would say, the wind was as windy as a fan blowing in my face.
With this book, there could be reasoning behind her writing what she did, mainly her audience. Or, maybe it was because she wanted to address issues that as some point your going to have to go through, like identity. There are so soo sooo many reasons why they wrote what they did and to try to analyze it is crap cause you can't. No one can except for themselves.
I guess I just felt the need to go on a mini rant and I felt this would be a good place to do it. I'm sure that I am not the only one to think so but please tell me otherwise if you don't.
To add on to everything that I had written above, I would like to say that I really enjoyed the book!! It was a very interesting story and easily read. It kept me interested and wanted me to read more.
I agree that I think a lot of it is B.S. Of course, this is probably because I saw Freud being mentioning and kind of lost interest almost immediately. Freud sucks. He can stuff it as far as I’m concerned. Boo boo I say! (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q_c7SbkGaLk) Okay that was a bit of shameless plugging, but I’m sure you get what I’m saying (and you have to admit, it WAS a great movie!). Anything relating to Freud deserves some healthy booing, Princess Bride style.
ReplyDeleteThat being said, I am a bit interested in the Le Can bit we discussed in class. That seems, while hard to interpret, a lot better then Feudism. At the very least, it could be great to use when looking at some 14th or 15th Century Dutch paintings (because I’ve said it once and I’ll say it again- my people can’t draw anything without it being screwed up in some weird ass way). Okay maybe not to anyone else, but since I’m in art history, looking at phallic symbols in paintings regarding the seven deadly sins or regarding a man’s fertility/bed chambers with his new bride….yeah, it pops up pretty often. So maybe the interest is only on my part. Hmm…. Yeah, it’s probably just me.
Good criticisms, but was there anything that you found useful from psychoanalytical criticism?
ReplyDelete