Letters to the Editor

The article by Bonime and Eckardt on psychoanalyzing literary characters in the April issue is interesting and scholarly. But unfortunately, it tends to deny the value of scholarly work in an important area — that of analyzing and searching for further meaning in the field of literary works.

With the statement that literary characters cannot be psychoanalyzed I can agree, but for very different reasons. It is surprising that they ignored the obvious: psychoanalysis is a living process in which the interaction between psychoanalyst and analysand is crucial. Change occurs in both as the result of tapping unconscious processes and clarifying transference issues and distortions. Who can do that with a literary character? On the other hand, it is entirely within reason for a psychoanalyst — one who has not only had special training in understanding people from a particular framework, or possibly several, but who has spent a lifetime studying people and thinking about them —to bring a special perceptiveness to bear in analyzing (not psychoanalyzing) literary characters. Further, there are always some who, by reason of special experiences or capacities, bring additional resources to their work.

As Bonime and Eckardt acknowledged through a quote from Eissler, literary figures are often larger than life. They may be truer, more consistent, since often they are the products of great minds also concerned about human character and the human condition. The myth of Pallas Athene, sprung full-grown from the head of Zeus, stands as a metaphor for the birth of brain children—the great figures created by great literary minds, be they Emma Bovarys or Hamlets. Even more importantly, the data presented, the “case histories,” are there for everyone to examine with equal opportunity, thus making discussion and comparison very valuable.

That language is the medium by which much about literary characters is conveyed is true. To the extent that the listener or reader can understand the message