>If I understand you correctly
>you no longer hold with Mauron's methodology or conclusions, so I'd guess
>we're in agreement about that at least.
Yes, I agree, to make Mauron's ideas sound like a methodology, you need a
student close to complition, a neurotic supervisor seeking personal-
gratification, and a dead-line. I had all of them, plus Sylvia Plath in the
way. But I think that Douglas Clark's use of the term "profusion" about
these kind of excess of creativeness, as in the case of Plath, is adequate
and correct.
To extend your metaphor about man seeking fire, inventing it, (I would say
not inventing, but finding out about its existence) learning how to use it
and attributing a heavenly nature to it, such a "profusion" could be the
same man becoming obsessed with the need and pleasures of the fire up to
the point of becaming a piromaniac. In a way, this is what Mauron asserts.
I am no longer adopting Mauron's ideas, since I don't need to resort to
them. Had I to exploit Mauronn again, given similar circumstances, probably
I would.
I certainly think that literary criticism, as a science, is always romantic
and romanticized, and it is hazarduous anyhow. For this reason, I do not
regard Mauron's attitude as more romantic in his pseudo-scientific
assumptions than any other line of thinking and/or methodology, within
philosophy of literature, as a discipline, amomg which of course
epistemology , to a certain extend.
I am curious to see whether in the index of Tim Kendall's new study of
Plath there is some reference to Mauron or to author's of the French school.
To return to the testicles issue, you were saying that...?
Erminia
>Creativity, as I understand it, pervades all of human life. It's the engine
>of non-biological adaptation: if I'm cold and a lightning-caused fire warms
>me I seek fires. I invent a way to carry fire with me. I invent a way to
>make fire happen less randomly than waiting for a celestial event. And
>others see what I do and adopt and improve upon my methods. One presumes
>that non-neurotics also sought heat.
>
>The creativity that's involved in making poems may serve many different
>purposes, but I think we can assume that the needs being met are not the
>property of neurotics exclusively.
>
>Mark
>
> At 11:49 PM 8/12/2001 +0100, you wrote:
>>Mark , did your excited answer purposedly intend to prove that Mauron was
>>right?
>>
>>At the time of my dissertation, I suffered Mauron's theory almost an
>>imposition, since it was one of my two supervisor, the professor of French
>>Literature, Renzo Paris, who suggested I supported my analysis of Sylvia
>>Plath with a psychoanalitic theory of this kind
>>
>>It was only after I studied Kristeva and Derrida and Focault in these
>>recent years that I have revaluated Mauron - meaning I was not mature
>>enough to apprecate him
>>
>>I am not surpriced by your reaction, though: the English speaking world
>>detests
>>any critical/philosophhical theory that comes from their French rivals
>>
>>("the creative mind" I referred to, in relation to Mauron's theory, was
not
>>associated neither by me nor by Mauron to a condition of being or not
famous
>>
>>fame was introduced by you
>>
>>creativety could be indeed a way of reacting to stress
>>
>>it can have therapeutical effects on its causes, in the case they are to
be
>>accounted as stress related stimuli
>>
>>I do not know
>>
>>I do not know where creativity ends and neurosis starts and viceversa
>>
>>Mauron's preoccupation with the study of the reflection of the parental
>>figures in an author's literary achievements is for me now a long lost
>>horizon
>>
>>I have by now overcome Mauron's perspective and I am finally convinced
that
>>the reasons of artistic artefacts are not to be found in the mind but in
>>ovaries and testicles and their quality varies accordingly
>>
>>Could the conversation be continued in that direction?
>>
>>Erminia
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>On Sun, 12 Aug 2001 13:57:13 -0700, Mark Weiss <[log in to unmask]>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>>My analysis found support in Charles Mauron’s psycho-critic, which also
>>>>provided a scheme to test his theory, a scheme according to which one
can
>>>>actually measure the amount of creativeness in relation to biographical
>>>>stability or instability. The stress was very much on the stimulant
>>effects
>>>>of neurosis on the creative mind.
>>>
>>>This is a strange form of romantic "science." One would have to question
at
>>>least two variables: the meaning of neurosis and the meaning of
creativity.
>>>
>>>One would also want at least two control groups: a random sample of
>>>non-neurotics, and another random sample of neurotics, however the
>>>researcher wishes to define them, so that one could arrive at a baseline
>>>level of "creativity" for each group--it would be useful for this kind of
>>>study to know whether neurotics who aren't famous are more "creative"
than
>>>non-neurotics who aren't famous.
>>>
>>>I worked with a woman years ago who didn't seem particularly neurotic to
>>>me. She was raising several children alone while on welfare and working
as
>>>much as welfare allowed in those days. She spent a lot of time telling me
>>>about her very creative ways of maintaining a humane and healthy life for
>>>herself and her family on a very limited budget, and she seemed to
>>>experience the discovery of a new way to provide nutritious meals at low
>>>cost very much the way I experience discovering a new way to express
>>>whatever I'm expressing. Does Mauron consider that creativity?
>>>
>>>Or is Mauron saying not that neurotics are more creative than non-
neurotics
>>>but that humans (and presumably other organisms--I'm thinking of urban
>>>coyotes) tend to be more creative when they have to deal with stress? If
>>>so, that hardly needs demonstrating.
>>>
>>>Mark
>>
Oh, no. they aren't, but the problems is also that very rarely doneurotics
admit to be such. they consider that their normal character with all the
|