Freudian/Lacanian Support for H/H (long)

[Ebony]

No: HPFGUIDX 7320

--- In HPforGrownups at egroups.com, "naama " <naama_gat at h...> wrote:
>  The point here is not that Carroll was not neurotic (we 
> all know he was), but that books of nonsense fantasy for chidren 
are 
> not such fruitful sources of psychoanalytic insight as one might 
> suppose them to be. They are much too rich in symbols. The symbols 
> have too many explanation." 

The only problem is, Carroll *was* writing nonsense on purpose, and 
JKR is not.  His keen wit and satirical devices can't be paralleled.  
Carroll's art shares many characteristics of Edward Lear's... another 
eccentric Victorian writer often read by children.

And I mentioned earlier that I usually *hate* psychoanalytic 
criticism.  I agree that some of it borders on the ridiculous.  The 
minute I read about Hermione's Divination experience in PoA, I 
related it to my own experiences with psychology.  I can only 
tolerate the stuff when it serves my purposes... and it happens to do 
so in this case  :)

However, it *has* had profound influence on modern critical theory.  
Without Freud, much of twentieth-century psychology, philosophy, and 
literary criticism would be quite different.  I try to keep that in 
mind.

==Ebony