You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
I appreciate Shainess's differentiation between “psychoanalyzing” and “analyzing.” I, too, believe that the word “psychoanalyzing” in any meaningful usage refers to the activity of exchange between two living beings. “Analyzing” is a broader term and can refer to examination of many aspects of a literary work, such as language, form, theme, and so on. Bonime and I, however, were discussing only the fallacies of subjecting literary characters to psychoanalytic study.
I also appreciate Shainess's reference to the article by Rose Spiegel, “Psychoanalysis and the Arts.” May I quote:
In literature we seek reflections and expressions of life, truth presented not in scientific symbolism but in polarity of images and their evocations. We seek an emotive experience … meaning and expression of values… a replenishment for our psyches…” (italics mine).
Spiegel's words convey what I emphasized in my part of the paper —the subjective enrichment we receive from literature.
The subjective nature of our experience with literature was made particularly vivid by the late Lionel Trilling (quoted in a N. Y. Times (editorial on Education):