Harry Potter: Oedipus Redux?

[rainy_lilac at yahoo.com]

No: HPFGUIDX 22937


*sigh*

I studied both Frued and Jung when I was in college, and while I 
would never consider myself an authority in their theories, I really 
did enjoy both of them.  I think it is worth saying here that Freud's 
theories about the Oedipal complex are typically misunderstood and 
distorted in the media , and it is really too bad because this has 
tended to cloud over so many of his other contributions to 
psychoanalysis. I don't think Freud ever really meant that children 
actually feel "murderous" or "sexual" impulses on an adult scale. He 
was simply using the Oedipus myth as a metaphor for a child's 
psychosexual development. In that sense, Harry's development is just 
as complex as anybody's (and it probably isn't the main point of the 
story, which I think is more about the profound power of love and 
honor). 

The author of this article strikes me as very, very carried away with 
his precious theory (as many theoreticians are drearily prone to do), 
and seems to be missing the bigger picture. God, do I remember 
academia!! Anything to squeeze that story into the meat grinder to 
fit the theory!

My take on Freud, for what it is worth, is this: 

Remember that he is a man of his time, speaking about social and 
psychological conditions which were often very particular to his 
time. Our world simply isn't as repressed as it once was, but back in 
his day, it was profoundly so and he brought up many things which for 
his time were very radical. 

People's psyches change over their lifetimes, and also (collectively) 
over the course of history-- thus, plenty of Freud's theories are 
going to feel dated to many of us. We are living in a time where the 
pressures are a bit different, and our awareness of the subconcious 
is especially different. 

Freud had a big effect on his contemporaries, and was a big an 
important influence many of our greatest writers and artists. 
Personally I think his ideas have had much more of an impact on 
literary theory and practice than on psychoanalysis. I would say the 
same for Jung, whose ideas are a treasure to creative thinkers, but 
less than useful in a clinical setting.

All that said, I think it is being a tad doctrinaire for this writer 
to impose such a strict Freudian template on an author who was born 
in 1967. Geez... come on now! Maybe he was just trying to show off 
his expertise. Soem people will do anything to get attention at an 
academic conference!


My Two Cents,

Suzanne