The "Hook" Within a Poem

Discussion in 'Plot Development' started by JavaMan, Apr 7, 2009.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    Hard to seeing him setting back a "science" that didn't really exist until he came along.
    (It's actually kind of hard to see it a science NOW, no matter whose theories one listens to: if physics had a dozen different theories of gravitation, none of which could predict future behavior, it wouldn't be called a science, either)

    Freud and Jung were both psychoanalyists, by the way, not "psychologists". They didn't really pretend to be scientists. Their goal was therapy. 0r cultism, or something. No kind of psychoanalysis has ever been exprimentally demonstrated to create "cures" at a statistically higher rate than spontanous remission.

    Layman language: if you've got something wrong with your mind, you have an equal chance getting better if you go to a shrink or just wait and see it you improve.
     
  2. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    The idea of critiquing literature based on Freud OR Marx is pretty obscene, when you come to think of it.
     
  3. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    I'd beg to differ there. Any way of looking at literature that can reveal more about the work is of enormous benefit. It's when those theories are wrongly applied (as with the Bettelheim example above, and countless others) that they become derogatory.

    And Freud was a clinical psychiatrist, founding the practice of psychoanalysis in the process of his research (with his talking cure, etc). He may not have been a scientist but he was at least a doctor who should've known better than to lie about the success of his practices. Anyway, I think that's enugh from me about Freud...
     
  4. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    LOL - I was going to add, but fair enough! - you've contributed enough in a great way to this thread!

    Now, looking back, I realize that my intutiton was leading me to sort of 'map out' the dominant archetype or complex of my (potential) demographic. Either I would capitalize on that by emphaszing it, or I would sort of 'lead' it - in a theraputic sort of way - to either nuetralization or release. I've been trying to develope a mathematical model for that. Arguably - I'll admit! - many good folks here have said that it couldn't be done. However, I'm not quite sure that I've explained the process in such a way that would validate the arugument either way....

    Have any of you comments? Methods of your own? Let's read them!
     
  5. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    You really think so? So a phrenology criticism would be helpful? Examining Milton from an Islamic framework? Applying a rap music deconstruction to Dickens? An astrological workup on Chaucer? A gynecological or proctological critique?

    Not to strain the point, but results are no better than the tools one uses, and their proper implementation.

    By the way, it's a stretch to call Freud a "clinical psychiatrist". The term "psychiatrist" was barely in use in his times and didn't really have much of a clinical component. He was, of course, a physician.

    Many would say that, other than the principles of medicine, psychiatry itself has little qualifications as a "science". There is little data, most of it contradictory and divided in many warring theoretical structures.
     
  6. lynneandlynn

    lynneandlynn New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2009
    Messages:
    746
    Likes Received:
    3
    Location:
    Asheville, NC
    The Psych class I took in high school basically taught us that Freud's theories were pretty much moot now except for his theory of I, Id, and Ego.
     
  7. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    WW, obviously the examples you give there are not going to provide any deeper insight. But you can't read Orwell without knowing Marx, just like you can't look at a Dali painting without understanding Freudian psycholanalysis (regardless of my thoughts on its value...)
    As a literary critic, it is your responsibility to interpret the text in a way that builds on readers understandings, not to needlessly extrapolate data from the book to fit into an irrelevant model you are trying in vain to apply.
     
  8. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    No offense to anyone, as all of this is very interesting. However, I don't see what any of this debate has what to do with what is credible to Frued in the particular sense as to the nature of the hook of a poem.

    Admittedly, it was me who brought him up, but it was only to give evidence of the idea that more or less, the different types of "logic," scientifically speaking, can be used in the creation of art such as poetry.....

    :p
     
  9. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry, I had to say this becuase it seems that there is a gerneral misunderstanding towards this point....

    Some of Freud's theories have been challenged - but that is mainly based on the idea that nearly all of his patients were sexually neurotic women who were completely stressed out due to the times that they were living in - the Victorian period.

    Freud's theories are only 'moot' if you consider the stereotypical idea of therapy as sitting on a couch talking about your childhood while an absent-minded man takes notes (while mumbleing 'um-hum' at intervals:p). The practices, yes are outdated, but the theories are still very much being used, as I said in modern psychiatry (which is different - the use of drugs which were not available before the '60's) and in the making of psycho-theraputic drugs by pharmacutical companies.

    The only reason in modern day that psycho-theraputic workers may not use Freud's beleif system is that there are many 'models' of the mind now, including the behaviorist, humanist, cognitive, etc. It should be carefully noted that no single model ever devised is always successful in helping the patient deal with a certain problem out of it's scope of explaination...
     
  10. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Still, Freudian psychology is not a particularly favored model any more. Too much of it reflects his own personal hangups and biases.
     
  11. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    You forget Sir Cog, that there have been others that have improved on his theories within the last 100 years or so. To say that Freudian psychology is only about Freud is like saying genetics is only about Darwin.:eek:
     
  12. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    They survive as terms, but were always useless for any practical purpose and not really suported by any current theory. Think about it... what do you do with "superego", in terms of helping somebody or even figuring out what's with them?

    Freud is basically a steam engineering kind of model of the mind. The zeitgeist of his day. Pressure builds up, it will blow out the weak places, etc.

    The whole way people understand things these days is much closer to the way the mind works. SLANG makes more sense: saying somebody overamped or burned out or has a defective default or faulty human interface is much closer to what's going on.

    Actually, the three Freudian terms (as is "Freudian" itself") are more useful for discussing literature than any clinical application. But the idea of critiquing writing from the standpoint of Freudiean or Marxian THEORY is pretty silly.
     
  13. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    Absolutely untrue. Orwell is not informed by Marxist theory, it's analoging the behavior of totalitarian politics. Actually anybody can look at Dali and get a buzz. And understand it just as well as any psychoanalutic theorist can.
    In fact, some kid might be inspired by those paintings and come up with psychological theories that actually have some validity. God knows, the world could use it.

    The WORST THING A WRITER CAN DO is to confuse terms used in discussing lit and art to inform his writing. And the worst thing a art fan can do is to take the map for the reality.
     
  14. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    ...have you read Orwell? You don't think Animal Farm, a metaphor for socialism, is informed by Marxist socialist theories? Even 1984 takes various political theories and explores them, Marxism included...
    And you can still enjoy Dali, in the same way that I could enjoy a novel written in German. It be aesthetically pleasing, but I'd have no idea what was happening. Good critcism enhances a reader/viewers understanding and presumably enjoyment of a given text...
     
  15. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    You would balance the Id and Ego in relation with it.
     
  16. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    Sorry, i forgot to add this:

    It's only silly if you want to reach a much broader demographic. Personally, I see nothing wrong with combining psychological philosophies such as cognitive and Jungian with Freudianism. Being that cognitive theories deal almost exclusively with how people learn and process information, and Jungains deal with recurrent themes, I think it's ideal to use them in writing.
     
  17. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    "Using them in writing" is not the same as applying them as criticism.

    It's like buying a ticket to the dustbin for your book to saddle it with a bunch of theoretical poppycock like that, but that's your business.

    But the topic was critical structures.


    The idea that one has to cop a bunch of psychology in order to comprehend a painting is bizarre and inbred. But the idea that not being primed with WHATEVER sort of intellectual claptrap somebody wants to associiate with a visual work is like trying to read a book in a foreign language is totally bizarre. If you said something like that to Dali, he'd have laughed. Picasso would have spit in your face.

    You don't need to know anything about Marx to understand what's happening in Animal Farm or 1984. What is being shown there is not doctrine, it's the way such things work. The universality is what's important in the humanities.

    I'm starting to see this as basically victimization. Somebody takes literature classes and they toss in all this stuff, then the idea comes about that the discussions are intrinsic, even necessary to the work.
    They're not. Show me a book or piece of plastic art that requires education or indoctrination or esoteric knowledge in order to work and I'll show you folly in a dustbin.
     
  18. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    Just a reminder that the site rules require discussion to be respectful in tone.
     
  19. JavaMan

    JavaMan New Member

    Joined:
    Jul 15, 2008
    Messages:
    123
    Likes Received:
    1
    WrongWriter,

    I think that the point is that there is always an underlining struture to a piece of art. It seems that the three of us together are arguing that at different points but...

    "ships passing in the night":confused:
     
  20. mammamaia

    mammamaia nit-picker-in-chief Contributor

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2006
    Messages:
    19,150
    Likes Received:
    1,034
    Location:
    Coquille, Oregon
    more like 'east is east, and west is west, and never the twain shall meet'!

    or perhaps, 'my dad can beat your dad, ya-ya-yah!'?
     
  21. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    The question (which generally comes up between theists and atheists of "theme") is this:

    if there is an underlying structure, is it an objective thing that all concerned, including the artist would agree is basic to the work?

    If so, why can't anybody agree on what the intrinsic structures are for any given work?

    If not, why worry about it? You write something, somebody claims they know the theme. Claim you wrote it as an analogy for Hitler, claim it proves you wanted to spank your mother. Who cares?

    Don't just skim by that thought, mull it over a little. It's important and very much part of why it's not a good idea to overthink writing. Especially for writers.
     
  22. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    Again, I think you're missing my viewpoint...applying these critical theories adds to the understanding of the texts, but not all critical theories do this. I'm not saying that you can't enjoy writing without criticism or that all criticism is necessary/improves the reader's experience. What I'm saying is that successful criticism can help readers understand why a piece of writing works, what it says about the culture that produced it, what it says about human nature, etc. You can read Animal Farm as a parable or whatever if you want, but if you read a little about Orwell and Marxist theories (sorry to overuse this example) then it becomes far more interesting, because in addition to that basic parable you can now see it in all these new ways that enrich your appreciation of the text. And to imply that Orwell didn't have Marx in mind when he wrote it is ridiculous. Just like it would be ridiculous to say that the Surrealists didn't have psychoanalysis in mind when they painted. Admittedly, these two examples are quite exceptional, most works aren't direct responses to theories, but that's what they are.
     
  23. WrongWriter

    WrongWriter Banned

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2009
    Messages:
    47
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Southern California (figures, huh?)
    I' m not "missing" the viewpoint. I've been around those corners for decades. I;m rejecting it.

    Actually neither "had that in mind". It was part of their world, something that soaked in and emerged. That's what art works from. Unlike, say, propoganda, which is powered by theses, thought out and directed towards and end.

    You don't have to "read Marx" to "get" Orwell. If you live in our current centuries, you already KNOW about Socialism and Hitler and Freud and all that stuff.

    Are you really comfortable with the idea of novels encoded so that they can only really be understood by people who devote themselves to the study and incorporation of theories and critical structures?????

    Think about that a minute.

    Then think about this. How far is enough? How much to you have to study in order to be able to read a damned novel or look at a picture? I was a fan and collector of surrealist prints at a young age and read quite a bit about the movement. And will never forget a party in San Francisco with some fiery young woman whose beautiful eyes and incredible tits made it pretty clear that she didn't get a lot of contradiction from men. She kept talking about some obscure book on the surrealists. And the thing was, if I hadn't read that book I didn't understand any of it and couldn't even really see the paintings in front of me. Dali, by the way, was not a surrealist in her pantheon, nor was Phillip LaMancha...both slammed by The Book.

    So it wouldn't be hard just to one-up you elitists... show you how you're only getting part of the picture because you think it's about Marx and Freud only because you're not familiar with Szasz and Pericore. And you would be correct in assuming that I'm full of crap because you appreciated those works without having to do it my way.

    CHILDREN like Dali. And Animal Farm Are they just too stupid to know they're not supposed to?

    Once again, this whole "concept-driven" idea of what art is about is crippling to an artist.
     
  24. arron89

    arron89 Banned

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    2,442
    Likes Received:
    93
    Location:
    Auckland
    Ok this is going nowhere. You still don't seem to realise the difference between using theories and worshipping them. So whatever, I'm done.
     
  25. Cogito

    Cogito Former Mod, Retired Supporter Contributor

    Joined:
    May 19, 2007
    Messages:
    36,161
    Likes Received:
    2,827
    Location:
    Massachusetts, USA
    This has degenerated into an argument that has little to do with the original question.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page

  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
    Dismiss Notice