![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Entry tags:
Psychoanalysis...
The problem with taking a psychoanalytic approach to fic critcism and discussion is that, well, fic isn't life and the characters aren't real people. (Duh)
Recently, many of my acquaintances have complained to me about a general lack of psychological realism in certain characterizations. Remus Lupin and Jonathon Kent come to mind as supposed examples of naughty authordom. Readers are rightly pinpointing logical inconsistencies in the characterizations of these two, in both canon and fanon, and not simply the kind of very human illogical that we are all prone to, but the kind of illogic indicative of a very fucked up individual.
How can Jonathan freak out about Helen's connection to Lex, in one episode, then give Lex a very personal gift in another? Fic writers often explain this as being Martha's influence, but I don't think we've seen evidence of her having this kind and this level of influence over her husband. We're meant to believe that both are genuine actions. In fact, we're meant to believe that Jonathan is one of, perhaps the most genuine and reactive character on the show. Everything comes directly from his heart.
How can Remus Lupin seem to be so honest and insecure on one hand, and so manipulative and confident on the other? Is one more true to his essence than the other? In the pensieve scenes, we have a teen who is either so cowed by his friends that he dare not speak up, or a teen who just doesn't give a damn, and refuses to involve himself until it's important to him. We know he doesn't like or respect Snape and that he cares for his friends deeply. We know that he's a smooth talker, but also that he was suspected of being a spy. Logically, he shouldn't be able to both the extremes.
A psychoanalytic approach does not take into account the logic of archetypes, cultural expectations and myths. It doesn't allow a character to be consistent mythologically, but not psychologically. For example, characters in ancient tragedies rarely behave in psychologically consistent ways. This isn't a flaw in the texts, so much as it is a difference in the type of story telling going on. We are so used to demanding psychological realism that other kinds of story telling tend to get maligned. However, no story will ever have 'real' characters. Writers depend on archetypes and shared, cultural references far more often than even they suspect. It isn't always evident, until you take the text out of its cultural context.
Fic in particular seems to depend on shared cultural references and archetypes, fanon, of course, is simply a set of archetypes, myths and cliches. However, the kind of story that many of us want to tell, is extremely dependent on very particular and specific cultural references. The Hurt/Comfort fic. The road trip fic. The summer fling. These are all ideologically informed, culturally specific and can be confusing to people who've never encountered them before. Certainly they also play off of more broadly "human" myths, but the fic form is overwhelmingly the modern, western, middle class version of the story. For many people, you have to get H/C before you understand that epic Blair/Jim cavefic, or that Wesley/Lilah angrysex vignette. A psychoanalytic approach makes the story seem thin and poorly though out, but really, you're missing much of the resonance and the layers in the characterization.
Looking at say, the Harry Potter series with expectations of total psychological realism, will prevent you from appreciating the fairy tale elements. If Remus seems to be an impossible character, it might be because you can't read him on different levels.
Ultimately, fiction isn't a social experiment or illustration. Characters bow to the needs of the story, and sometimes act in ways that are inconsistent to a single way of reading. If Harry Potter isn't a perfect fairy tale hero, its because he's also a modern, realistic hero.
Recently, many of my acquaintances have complained to me about a general lack of psychological realism in certain characterizations. Remus Lupin and Jonathon Kent come to mind as supposed examples of naughty authordom. Readers are rightly pinpointing logical inconsistencies in the characterizations of these two, in both canon and fanon, and not simply the kind of very human illogical that we are all prone to, but the kind of illogic indicative of a very fucked up individual.
How can Jonathan freak out about Helen's connection to Lex, in one episode, then give Lex a very personal gift in another? Fic writers often explain this as being Martha's influence, but I don't think we've seen evidence of her having this kind and this level of influence over her husband. We're meant to believe that both are genuine actions. In fact, we're meant to believe that Jonathan is one of, perhaps the most genuine and reactive character on the show. Everything comes directly from his heart.
How can Remus Lupin seem to be so honest and insecure on one hand, and so manipulative and confident on the other? Is one more true to his essence than the other? In the pensieve scenes, we have a teen who is either so cowed by his friends that he dare not speak up, or a teen who just doesn't give a damn, and refuses to involve himself until it's important to him. We know he doesn't like or respect Snape and that he cares for his friends deeply. We know that he's a smooth talker, but also that he was suspected of being a spy. Logically, he shouldn't be able to both the extremes.
A psychoanalytic approach does not take into account the logic of archetypes, cultural expectations and myths. It doesn't allow a character to be consistent mythologically, but not psychologically. For example, characters in ancient tragedies rarely behave in psychologically consistent ways. This isn't a flaw in the texts, so much as it is a difference in the type of story telling going on. We are so used to demanding psychological realism that other kinds of story telling tend to get maligned. However, no story will ever have 'real' characters. Writers depend on archetypes and shared, cultural references far more often than even they suspect. It isn't always evident, until you take the text out of its cultural context.
Fic in particular seems to depend on shared cultural references and archetypes, fanon, of course, is simply a set of archetypes, myths and cliches. However, the kind of story that many of us want to tell, is extremely dependent on very particular and specific cultural references. The Hurt/Comfort fic. The road trip fic. The summer fling. These are all ideologically informed, culturally specific and can be confusing to people who've never encountered them before. Certainly they also play off of more broadly "human" myths, but the fic form is overwhelmingly the modern, western, middle class version of the story. For many people, you have to get H/C before you understand that epic Blair/Jim cavefic, or that Wesley/Lilah angrysex vignette. A psychoanalytic approach makes the story seem thin and poorly though out, but really, you're missing much of the resonance and the layers in the characterization.
Looking at say, the Harry Potter series with expectations of total psychological realism, will prevent you from appreciating the fairy tale elements. If Remus seems to be an impossible character, it might be because you can't read him on different levels.
Ultimately, fiction isn't a social experiment or illustration. Characters bow to the needs of the story, and sometimes act in ways that are inconsistent to a single way of reading. If Harry Potter isn't a perfect fairy tale hero, its because he's also a modern, realistic hero.
no subject
Yes, psychological analysis is a tool, but it can be used with good authors. (As a note, I think both the examples you use of JKR and Smallville have terrible authors. But that's me.) Why? Because good authors do tap into that realism that makes analysis effective. The trick is remembering that it isn't the totality of the character, just as historical criticism wouldn't see the totality of one piece or new criticism or any critical technique.
no subject
That's actually why I chose them. I figured that the less self-conscious the canon was, the easier it would be to show how characters are built without psychological logic in fic. Canon being a more universal example, so to speak. It also makes it easy for everyone on my flist, since the majority of them are a part of at least one of these fandoms. So.
I would disagree with this simply because really good characters, archetypal, mythical, etc, are going to be internally consistent and have psychological realism.
Well, if we look at Jacobian revenge plays, I think we'll find some examples of characters that feel logical, far more than they actually are. Likewise with opera. Their actions are all out of proportion to stimuli, and sometimes they're acting more to type, than to the situation. There's psychological realism in the way the characters are constructed, in that we can see many real people contained within them, but because they're so big they don't always behave logically.
I just got out of bed, so I'm not sure how well I'm articulating the idea. ;)
The trick is remembering that it isn't the totality of the character, just as historical criticism wouldn't see the totality of one piece or new criticism or any critical technique.
Yes. I find that especially with younger fen, there's a tendency to latch onto one kind of analysis and use it for every character, every story, everything, everywhere. I would like to blame it on a lack of formal training, but I'm not sure if that would be accurate.
Lupin just reads... as confusing and there to facilitate the plot.
Would you like to help me construct a post on this? *g*