I dont think Tim Kendall or anyone else here will ever have heard
of Mauron. I certainly havent.
Douglas Clark, Bath, England mailto: [log in to unmask]
Lynx: Poetry from Bath .......... http://www.bath.ac.uk/~exxdgdc/lynx.html
On Mon, 13 Aug 2001, Erminia H. Passannanti wrote:
> >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
>
|