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.
Narcissism and the Literary Libido is one of the ongoing series of books on literature and psychoanalysis edited by Jeffrey Berman. This particular book is an ambitious attempt to apply to literature theories from such different fields as psychoanalysis, literary criticism, and philosophy. Since the proof of any such approach is in the increased understanding it can bring to a work, the test of Alcorn's success is his analysis of Joseph Conrad's Heart of Darkness, to which he devotes an entire chapter. A scholar who chooses Conrad's famous novella as a example of the “narcissism of creation and interpretation” has a difficult task ahead of him because such an approach entirely ignores the work's political content. Alcorn's solution is to consign to footnotes Conrad's indictment of Belgian imperialism in the Congo and to proceed with a psychoanalytic approach.
The first chapter is entitled “Political Ties and Libidinal Ruptures,” but the author seems to use the word political as nearly synonymous with rhetorical in that both are arts of persuasion. Alcorn maintains that “in reading…rhetorical strategies make libidinal investments fluid so that libido can shift to new objects, allowing us to consider as” interesting “objects we might in other situations dismiss or recognize only according to established patterns of habit” (p. 9).
I would like to offer a translation of this passage: “Good writing opens new worlds to the reader,” or “Authors write so that readers may become interested in different characters and situations.” What is gained by the use of the word “libido” instead of “energy” or just plain “interest?” Perhaps a psychoanalyst, as opposed to a literary scholar who has not been psychoanalytically trained, would be more careful in using the word libido outside