Today in class we talked about how there are different things psychoanalytic critics can attempt to analyze, one of these being the characters. There was some discussion about whether or not characters can be analyzed, and whether or not when we do analyze them, we're really analyzing the author.
i have mixed feelings about this. i do definitely think characters can and should be analyzed; that not everything has to come back to the author. but at the same time, i don't know that authors always intend for their characters to be analyzed in the ways we do, especially authors who don't subscribe to psychoanalysis. To me though, this doesn't necessarily mean that analysis of characters is "wrong." If a critic believes that their school of thought actually can be used to understand and interpret the actions of people in the real world, then i feel that they can interpret characters' actions in the same way, without having to consider the author.
any thoughts?
-Amy
3 comments:
Characters are certainly important aspects of the text to analyze because, in my opinion, they are what the reader connects to the most. I agree that it is not always necessary to consider the author when analyzing characters, or any aspect of the text for that matter. Of course characters are created by the author and as a result, there is an obvious connection the author has to these creations. But I think it is a bit too simplistic to try to draw connections between the characters and the author. Nobody can know for sure what the author intended for the reader to interpret, and it seems like a waste of time to guess at what we are supposed to feel or think about a text. It is more of a challenge to analyze the characters as independent entities. Once the author puts the literature out there, it is open to interpretation. Fewer interpretations are possible if you limit yourself to thinking solely about authorial intent.
I also agree with Amy and Emily in that not everything has to come back to the author and that it is not always necessary to consider the author when analyzing characters. However, I want to point out that none of us have yet further discussed what Amy briefly touched upon—the psychoanalysis of characters’ unconsciousness. The question posed in class was if we believe that a character can display an unconscious and, if so, is it independent from that of the author’s? Also, if it is not always necessary to consider the author when analyzing character, then we must all agree that this goes for the unconsciousness of characters too. Right?
Well, my thoughts on a character’s unconsciousness are as follows: yes, I do think that a character can have an unconscious or at least one that might be interpreted by the reader. I think that most would agree that Gabriel either has or seems to have unconscious drives that motivate him periodically throughout the book. For me, either the author consciously tried to make it appear as if their character has an unconscious, or the author does not consciously make it appear as if their character has an unconscious and this is interpreted solely by the reader. But does this second method have to do with the unconscious mind of the author? Like what Emily contributed, “nobody can know for sure what the author intended for the reader to interpret.” Does anyone know where to draw the line here?
~ Kristen
Just a few thoughts, thanks to Amy whose comments really jumped out at me =)
First, as Emily said, characters are probably one of the most important entities within the text and calls for readers interpretations since afterall, "characters are created by the author." However, I do not necessarily think that this is a "simplistic" connection to make, as emily put it. In order to truly understand the characters within the text, a reader must truly become an expert on the author and his/her works. That way, we can have even more insight into the characters. This process is not simple, but rather complex (even moreso since we never will truly know the author's exact intentions). But I don't see this as a waste of time, more of a puzzle to put together. I feel that if we merely look at characters as "independent entities," they do not have as much depth as when they are looked at with authorial intent in mind.
Furthermoe, I agree with kristen when she said that "characters can have an unconscious or at least one that might be interpreted by the reader." In terms of The Dead, I think that Joyce most definitely intended to show Gabriel's unconcious. No offense to anyone who disagrees, but he was one heck of a smart author. There has to be works on the other hand where authors did not intend for their characters to have an unconcious. However, all characters should have one, at least according to a pyschoanaylsis's point of view, because all HUMANs have one (again, according to psychoanaylsis critics). So whether or not it was intended, it should be considered.
I think I just contridicted myself a tad but just some thoughts nonetheless!!
Post a Comment