Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Report a Data Error | About
PEP-Easy Tip: To save PEP-Easy to the home screen

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

To start PEP-Easy without first opening your browser–just as you would start a mobile app, you can save a shortcut to your home screen.

First, in Chrome or Safari, depending on your platform, open PEP-Easy from  You want to be on the default start screen, so you have a clean workspace.

Then, depending on your mobile device…follow the instructions below:


  1. Tap on the share icon  Action navigation bar and tab bar icon
  2. In the bottom list, tap on ‘Add to home screen’
  3. In the “Add to Home” confirmation “bubble”, tap “Add”

On Android:

  1. Tap on the Chrome menu (Vertical Ellipses)
  2. Select “Add to Home Screen” from the menu


For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Sautter, D. (1974). Dylan Thomas and Archetypal Domination. Am. Imago, 31(4):335-359.

(1974). American Imago, 31(4):335-359

Dylan Thomas and Archetypal Domination

Diana Sautter

At the outset, archetypal analysis appears a potentially “romantic” endeavor—the mental suggestion is that through defining archetypes in a given poet's works, one will discover his words related to a larger world of meaning. Furthermore, discursive writing on the archetypes tempts one into the inflation of making factual statements about the meanings: the poems become labeled, grandiose, and paraphrased.

However, if there is a check to this inflation, awareness of archetypal patterns may function as an opening to resonance rather than as definition.

The opposing work of two critics on the poetry of Dylan Thomas provides a dialectic which makes just such a check—in fact, at first the two books seem to cancel each other out. The book by Jacob Korg, entitled Dylan Thomas, seeks to relate the poems to what Korg calls “the rhetoric of mysticism,” undertaking to analyze “the development of a private symbology, a system of metaphors capable of expressing the visionary realm.” Korg's conclusions are often appropriately mystifying—he is prone to identify image complexes by pointing out that they are typically “mystical” or refer to “primary oneness,” et cetera. This, it seems to me, is inflation par excellance, although Korg does have some valuable insights on individual poems. David Holbrook's book, Dylan Thomas and Poetic Dissociation, errs in the opposite direction: Holbrook sees Thomas' poetry as narcissistic, infantile, and as the product of “dissociated phantasy” The poems are dangerously immoral, abjectly incoherent, and by the end of the book, Holbrook is frankly referring to Thomas as “schizoid.”


[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2018, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.