10/17/07
ars poetica, Freud style
We have clearly moved away from deconstruction in class, even though some of those questions still persist, especially in our current readings. Freud, in his essay about creative writers, states that "a creative writer presents his plays to us or tells us what we are inclined to take to be his personal daydreams" where we are left to feel "a great pleasure" from the "confluence of many sources." Is "ars poetica" here really a secret? If we all opened up our egos to the world, we'd be the next Hemingways, Prousts, Tolstoys? Or is "creative writing" just one in an infinate number of outlets of sickened daydreamers? Maybe we are all creative "writers" in this way, in our own little centers of supposed human experience, each individual dream its own center in the "terrifying form of monstrosity"!
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
5 comments:
I think what freud means by Ars Poetica in this context is that the creative writer has a kind of unique talent to express his or her deepest fantasies and daydreams without frightening or repelling the community. i think this ability is based on some sort of linguistic talent, and the rest of us who don't have this creative writing gift can simply understand our egos through reading and connecting to literature. if the rest of us opened our egos to the world, we wouldn't be seen as the new most innovative writers, but would actually frighten people because we would have revealed our daydreams and fantasies without the accompanying creative shell that writers have. yes, creative writing is an outlet for "sickened daydreamers"--but we ALL are sickened daydreamers according to Freud, and the rest of us find the outlet for these dreams through reading and connecting to the writing of others.
According to Freud, learning of others fantasies will "repel us or at least leave us cold" (514). As Amy said, most people cannot tell their deepest fantasies without repelling others in the community. When the creative writer finds a way to express his fantasies and not repel others, he expresses them through societal norms and acceptable modes. "The writer softens the character of his egoistic daydreams by altering and disguising it, and he bribes us by the purely formal...aesthetic yield of pleasure" (514). When the writer does this, he is no longer revealing his deepest fantasies at all. He rather raises them to a standard accepted by society. Even the creative writers aren't showing what their deepest fantasies are- they are rather showing the acceptable parts of those daydreams, therefore leaving some repressed - the creative writer is "altering and disguising," thus never truly releasing, at least never fully. We cannot "enjoy our own daydreams without self-reproach or shame" to a full extent even in creative writing because it is always stifled by society. Aren’t creative writers just expressing in writing then how everyone expresses his/her deepest emotions? In ways that are acceptable to society? Also, what in society determines what is acceptable?
Michelle, I think you pose an interesting question. I agree with you and Amy that Freud's creative writer has a special ability to express something that speaks to many people's feelings or fantasies in a way to is appealing and essentially socially acceptable. I think that the question of what is socially acceptable goes back to our discussions of ideology and hegemony. Society determines what is acceptable by constructing individuals to see that as natural or normal before they can even object. Ideologies perpetuate and reinforce the existing power structures and maintain the status quo.
I agree with Megan's idea about ideology. I think our sense of belonging to a culture comes, in part, from sharing ideologies, and those beliefs are influential to societal norms.
In response to Michelle's question, I would say that some, not all, creative writers express their deepest emotions in ways that are acceptable to society. Unless one is willing to combat criticisms, it is difficult not to do so! I cannot help but think, however, of the more militant writers who "push the envelope" regardless of it's potential impact on society. If a writer is steadfast about sharing his/her fantasies on some of the more explosive, controversial issues, would societal norms hinder him or her? I doubt it.
Where do we draw the line? As much as creative writers attempt to articlulate their fantasies in a manner that readers can enjoy, there will be at least one reader that will find something distasteful in it. With that said, isn't creative writing sort of "backed into a corner?"
Post a Comment