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.
Dying and creating: a search for meaning. London, Library of Analytical Psychology. Pp. xiii +186. £6.85.
No psychologically minded or reflectively inclined reader could fail to be intrigued by the title of this book. In the event, it lives up to its promise. Rosemary Gordon's book ranges widely, and different phenomena such as myths, rituals and clinical symptoms come under review. She has valuable things to say about the nature of creative processes and symbol formation. Hindrances to the unfolding of these processes are illustrated by clinical studies. All this is held together by the search for meaning. Thus the ideology behind her researches is of necessity connected with her analytical technique. The text is at once readable and profound, and my review could end on this note of praise and commendation were there no flaws, debatable points and idiosyncrasies to add special flavours to a meaty text. For this reader, meatiness depends on there being something to chew on. My choice of metaphor is deliberate because there can be little doubt about the predominance of sensory images in this book. The sensation function is used with great skill, both in the appreciation of art, as a life-enhancing phenomenon, as well as in the imaginative treatment of her topic generally. This treatment has, however, been modified by the discipline of thinking, as quite a few enumerations and tabulations of factors and categories, as well as summaries, go to show.
The resulting blend is so successful that various chapters of the book could easily be used for the purpose of lecturing. Further evidence of thinking is presented by a pilot study in the form of Rorschach tests which the writer carried out on four dying patients (Part I, Chapter 3). Having chosen to use the author's style and idiosyncrasies as my approach road to the major thesis of the book, I shall continue. Of course, there could be no justification for a reviewer to dwell on otherwise negligible quirks than th