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.
In this article I hope to contribute to the growing and productive interplay between literature and psychoanalytic theory and practice. There are of course warnings to be heeded. Jules Glenn's (1976) comment seems to sum up the central danger: the analyst's own unresolved countertransferential issues or fantasies may “determine his interpretations, unrestrained by the rigorous control in the analysis of a real person” (p. 484). I attempt to deal with his caveat by requiring that each of my interpretations of the play meet the following criteria:
It must describe the observed event as following dynamically from the stated character structure of the individual and as leading to predictable types of consequences.
It must be logically and psychodynamically compatible with all other suggested interpretations; and
The actions of this particular character, and the actions of the play as a whole are brought into a more unified totality than they would have without this interpretation. For example, events which before had seemed out of place or meaningless are now seen as integrated elements of a larger, tightly knit unity.
With these restrictions in mind, I subscribe to Glenn's position that
One of the approaches that comprise the field of applied analysis is to study a character of a play as if he were a real person and not simply the creation of an artist (p. 473).
It is from that perspective I will listen to both Dr. Dysart and his patient, Alan Strang, the leading characters in Shaffer's (1974) play,