27 Sep
2001
27 Sep
'01
7:43 p.m.
Calle wrote:
A lot of silly things are done in LitCrit
Absolutely agreed.
(and is it even possible to use Freud and *not* be silly?
Some works are suitable for such an analysis, some are not. For instance, practically everybody agrees now that the central relationship in D.H.Lawrence's 'Sons and Lovers' is best understood in terms of Freudian Oedipus complex. The same Freudian theory is also helpful in understanding Hamlet, although it cannot provide all the answers. I really resent it, however, when Freud is used to accuse an author of some hidden sexual anomalies.
N.