|Stern, H.R. (1973). Psychoanalysis and Literary Process. Frederick Crews (Ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, 1970. 296 pp.. Psychoanal. Rev., 60:304-305.|
Viewing the full text of this document requires a subscription to PEP Web.
If you are coming in from a university from a registered IP address or secure referral page you should not need to log in. Contact your university librarian in the event of problems.
If you have a personal subscription on your own account or through a Society or Institute please put your username and password in the box below. Any difficulties should be reported to your group administrator.
(1973). Psychoanalytic Review, 60(2):304-305
Psychoanalysis and Literary Process. Frederick Crews (Ed.). Cambridge, Mass.: Winthrop Publishers, 1970. 296 pp.
Crews, a professor of English at the University of California at Berkeley, is known for his book The Pooh Perplex, a parody of various schools of literary criticism based upon Winnie the Pooh. As well as editing Psychoanalysis and Literary Process, Crews also wrote the introductory chapter, entitled “Anaesthetic Criticism,” mainly an attack upon the prevailing school of academic literary criticism as represented by Northrop Frye. Frye's school, according to Crews, has as its cardinal features
of and a of from artistic process into motifs, genres, literary (conceived not as the study of how books are influenced by objective conditions, but as chronology, borrowings, gossip, and a disembodied “ of ideas”), and the busywork of acquiring the skills and attitudes needed for circumspect research, (p. 10)
In a well-thought-out exposition, Crews shows that this approach is timid and repetitive. It involves the dull tracing of themes and sources, a listing of genres and styles. Crews states,
A criticism that explicitly or implicitly reduces art to some combination of moral content and abstract form and genre conventions is literally an anaesthetic criticism. It insulates the critic and his readers from a threat of affective disturbance—a threat that is perfectly real, for there is no reason to suppose that a reader's ego will prove more flexible and capricious than the artist's was. All literary criticism
[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.]