(This entry is very stream of layperson’s consciousness)

Dreams = manifestations of latent content i.e. the unconscious.

Speech = manifestation of language

Language = manifestation of the unconscious

Literature = what permits human beings to communicate with another consciousness and perhaps a collective unconscious?

I love this quote Freud used in The Interpretation of Dreams: “… a thousand threads one treadle throws,/ Where fly the shuttles hither and thither,/ Unseen the threads are knit together,/ And an infinite combination grows.” (Goethe, Faust)

However, I don’t believe that all those threads that make up the unconscious or dreams can ever be completely known, or even need be discovered. Perhaps interpretation is not what is important in art. Perhaps the effect its form has on the perceiver at the moment of its being perceived is. In other words, we can no more understand an object of art than we can know the unconscious.

The more theory I read, the more I realize that the search for definitions of what literature, an author and a reader are will never be found until we stop looking for some fixed “truth”. So far we think that literature is created through language, the human psyche of authors and readers, and the socio-economic climate of a historic moment. All these aspects of literature are in constant flux, so it seems to me that literature is simply a momentary expression of what it is to be human. It follows, therefore, that we are all authors and readers. We can all be artists, and we can all appreciate art. However, we have this word ‘art’, which is a term for what?

Regarding the human psyche, Freud’s analysis of dreams shows that dreams are a condensation and displacement of dream-thoughts. Also, he admits that it is impossible to determine the amount of condensation and that “some trains of thought may arise for the first time during analysis” of the dream. From this I gather that the manifest content of a dream comes from many sources all of which can never be identified, and that new thoughts can be associated with a dream even after its occurrence. Furthermore, Freud indicates that as all the sources of a dream are not represented by the dream, the condensation is created out of omission.

The dream then is a fragmentary version of the dream-thoughts as the subconscious must select the dream-thoughts that “have the most numerous and strongest supports.” (The repetition of elements is very interesting)

Dreams are a condensation brought about by omission = LITERATURE

Displacement in dreams means that text may be the same but it is given several or different meanings from the original = LITERATURE

Real and imaginary events have equal validity = LITERATURE

Repetition is important = LITERATURE

Fragmentation is key = LITERATURE

Confusion of time and space = LITERATURE

When applied to literature then, Freud’s theory fits very nicely with the idea of literature as langue. In other words, like meaning in dreams, meaning in literature has several sources that are condensed and displaced by the language of both the reader and author.

Problem:

 I find it difficult to see how Freud’s analysis of dreams can access dream-thoughts to arrive at an understanding of the way his patient’s mind works. The unconscious can only be inferred from the way consciousness operates because it is imperceptible. Also, he admits that his and his patient’s interpretations add new thoughts/meaning to the dream. Therefore, it is impossible to discover all the dream-thoughts on his “nodal points” to arrive at the truth behind a dream. Freud’s interpretation of dreams can never be definitive.

Consciousness never completely reveals what we want to say because behind it lurks the unconscious, which can never be known. Therefore, literature as language reveals only a fragment of the unconscious and can never reveal a single truth. It can only make us aware of another consciousness that somehow helps us to learn something about being human.

Marx argues that religion and literature have objective value and are determined by social, economic and historical factors. In other words, authors and their work are a product of the writer’s past and present and therefore literature does not deal with universal truths. What we know and how we know it is determined by factors outside the individual’s control. This means that what we read is contrived by dominant discourse to make us think in a certain way about both the world around us and ourselves. Consciousness then is another product that can be fabricated/labeled and consumed.

There is no author!

My question is where does the individual fit in? Is there no individual consciousness that has developed out of both public and private experience? Every human being’s interaction with the world is distinct, and we are able to choose how we process physical and mental stimuli. Literature is both social and personal.

What about literature that subverts hegemonic discourse? Where does that come from?

Also, I have a problem with his treatment of women in society. He argues for the abolishment of public and private prostitution, and recognizes that there has always been a community of women. However, would he give female individuals agency in society?

Perhaps less interpretation and more appreciation of the art form is in order.