Brain Pain discussion

This discussion covers The Creative Writer and Daydreaming, p. 23 – 34


In this essay, Freud compares creative writing to daydreaming.

OK, when this essay started off, and Freud was trying to get to the bottom of how writers and artists can just "come up with this stuff", I thought hey, he's going to tackle the big one: where does An Idea come from?

Nope. Just more of his wish-fulfillment nonsense. It absolutely inconceivable that a person could make an observation, then extrapolate upon that observation, and come up with something new.

It is true when Freud writes "You will say that I have told you far more about fantasies than about the creative writer, whom I have nevertheless put first in the title of my paper."

I think Freud has identified an interesting idea, relating to a significant thread within the creative process, but that it does not in any way account for the whole. Freud tends towards absolutism, so his good ideas can be overblown, but I still find them valuable to contemplate.

His idea that creative writing is a kind of daydreaming as wish-fulfillment (the theme that brings everything--childhood memories, daydreams, dreams, stories--back to wish fulfillment as expressed in Interpretation of Dreams and which represents Freud's own monomania) is both obvious and incomplete. Freud acknowledges in his way the incompleteness of the idea, though perhaps he doesn't express quite how incomplete the idea is.

With regards to play, and how it may relate to the role of the literary artist, I found myself thinking about how I've seen children play. Freud neglects the very common phenomenon of a child picking up toy cars and crashing them together, over and over again, and shouting. The child, I would say, is not fantasizing about how much he wishes he could be in a car crash. He is living out the fantasy of being the God who is the master of this situation. There is nothing within this micro-drama narrative to identify with as a wish fulfillment. It is the play and joy of creating narrative drama itself which is both the fantasy and fulfillment complete. To be honest, I think I tend to write in this way too.

Freud also relegates the "aesthetic" aspects of writing to the role of dressing, or allurement, beneath which is concealed the real pleasure of living a narrative fantasy. But I very much tend to think of literary arts as being all about the aesthetic... yet I may not be so far from Freud as all that, because my own notion of what is "aesthetic" incorporates the narrative fulfillment and the appreciation of the play of creation. That is, it's not the dressing of purple prose or charming poesy alone, and those elements may well be absent, from a work which is yet thoroughly "aesthetic" to me.

I don't want to dismiss Freud too thoroughly. I kind of love Freud, but its only his desire to be absolutely right and to find a relationship between his theory and an accounting for all human phenomena which can be frustrating. I think I will always see Freud as a thinker who can point us to interesting ideas.

Which reminds me that I also wanted to say that Freud neglects the potential of literary art to do exactly what he sets out to do in his essays: literature can be an examination and exploration of ideas. It has it's own analytical component, which in itself can be "aesthetic" to thinking readers. And, taking this back to a discussion of play... why can't child's-play too be a kind of exploration and analysis--a kind of learning about the world and it's relations and consequences, rather than merely a living out of wishes?

Actually... maybe even Freud's monomania is alluring too, come to think of it. I have a certain appreciation for idealists and extremists, even if they happen to be wrong. Let's call it the aesthetic allure of audacity.

---------------------------------

Here is a thought that is perhaps worth further discussion, as it is both audacious and thought-provoking:

The truth is that we cannot forgo anything, but merely exchange one thing for another; what seems like a renunciation is in fact the invention of a substitute, a surrogate.

Zadignose wrote: "It is true when Freud writes "You will say that I have told you far more about fantasies than about the creative writer, whom I have nevertheless put first in the title of my paper."

I think Freud..."

Shortly before I read your response to that chapter, I had read the opening paragraphs of an LRB story about Christopher Harper-Mercer, the Oregon mass murderer, and other want-to-be-Alpha-males killers. The story aligns with your comment, "Freud neglects the very common phenomenon of a child picking up toy cars and crashing them together, over and over again, and shouting. The child, I would say, is not fantasizing about how much he wishes he could be in a car crash. He is living out the fantasy of being the God who is the master of this situation."

An excerpt from the LRB story:
"On 31 August, he [Harper-Mercer] posted a blog about Vester Flanagan, who had killed a TV reporter and her cameraman in Virginia the week before. ‘I have noticed,’ it says, ‘that so many people like him are all alone and unknown, yet when they spill a little blood, the whole world knows who they are. A man who was known by no one is now known by everyone. His face splashed across every screen, his name across the lips of every person on the planet, all in the course of one day. Seems the more people you kill, the more you’re in the limelight.'"

Whether the daydreaming/fantasies are benign or malignant, I do think Freud is right when he says they fall into two categories: those that elevate the subject's personality (from winning the job to slaughtering one's classmates) or erotic. In the chapter he doesn't say much about the creative process, and you're right, he almost belittles it, but he does so not in regard to "writers who enjoy the highest critical esteem," but the mass market writers. In fact he says, "... we are no means unaware that very many imaginative writings are far removed from the model of the naïve daydream." So for now I'm giving Freud a pass.

Alex wrote: "So for now I'm giving Freud a pass."

We'll see if that pass is still valid when you get to Leonard da Vinci.

Alex wrote: "... In the chapter he doesn't say much about the creative process, and you're right, he almost belittles it, but he does so not in regard to "writers who enjoy the highest critical esteem," but the mass market writers. In fact he says, "... we are no means unaware that very many imaginative writings are far removed from the model of the naïve daydream."..."

I will comment further in the thread for the Da Vinci essay, but I note that Freud is shrewd in anticipating the objections of readers while not actually giving much ground in the face of these objections. He applies qualifying statements when he can perceive he may have gone a bit too far, to shield his conclusions from criticism.

Freud went out on many a limb. Limbs occasionally break. I look forward to seeing how Leonardo fares. Mkfs has me worried.

Alex wrote: "Freud went out on many a limb. Limbs occasionally break. I look forward to seeing how Leonardo fares. Mkfs has me worried."

I had a brief chat with some friends last night (while drinking scotch) about Freud and the relative usefulness of his work in our era, and our slightly toasted conclusion was that, at a minimum, he inspired those who came after him to do better research and better science...

Jim wrote: "I had a brief chat with some friends last night (while drinking scotch)..."

You were obviously drinking an equitable Highland -- a good unbalanced Islay would have made you properly comabative towards Freud.

I agree that Freud's legacy far eclipses his actual findings. He demonstrated that analysis could be applied to these problems, and that mental trauma could be treated more or less mentally (as opposed to surgically or pharmaceutically).

Anyone with an ounce of critical thinking can see past Freud's silly obsessions and find the value of his analytic method. Of course, attend just one university psychology class and you will realize that critical thinking is in quite short supply...

Speaking of psychiatry, has anyone here read Satan: His Psychotherapy and Cure by the Unfortunate Dr. Kassler, J.S.P.S.? Great book. A favorite of mine since high school.

Mkfs wrote: "Jim wrote: "I had a brief chat with some friends last night (while drinking scotch)..."

You were obviously drinking an equitable Highland -- a good unbalanced Islay would have made you properly co..."

I haven't read the Satan book, but sounds interesting for sure. I wonder too, has anyone read William James? I'm curious how his 19th-century psychology compares with Freud.


And yes, Milton Duff, aged 12 years, Elgin, Scotland...