WEBVTT

00:01.120 --> 00:03.990
Prof: Well,
now today is obviously a kind

00:03.985 --> 00:06.725
of watershed or transition in
our syllabus.

00:06.730 --> 00:12.600
You remember we began with an
emphasis on language.

00:12.600 --> 00:16.940
We then promised to move to an
emphasis on psychological

00:16.938 --> 00:21.278
matters, and finally social and
cultural determinants of

00:21.276 --> 00:22.456
literature.

00:22.460 --> 00:27.460
So far we have immersed
ourselves in notions to the

00:27.455 --> 00:33.945
effect that thought and speech
are constituted by language or,

00:33.950 --> 00:39.770
to put it another way,
brought into being by language

00:39.767 --> 00:46.817
and that thought and speech have
to be understood as inseparable

00:46.816 --> 00:53.696
from their linguistic milieu--
language here being understood

00:53.704 --> 00:59.364
sometimes broadly as a structure
or a semiotic system.

00:59.360 --> 01:06.350
Now obviously our transition
from language-determined ideas

01:06.350 --> 01:10.840
about speech,
discourse, and literature to

01:10.840 --> 01:16.510
psychologically determined ways
of thinking about discourse and

01:16.513 --> 01:22.193
literature has a rather smooth
road to follow because the first

01:22.185 --> 01:27.025
two authors who borrow from
Freud and understand their

01:27.033 --> 01:31.243
project to a degree in
psychoanalytic terms are

01:31.241 --> 01:36.551
nevertheless using what is now
for us an extremely familiar

01:36.547 --> 01:38.557
vocabulary.

01:38.560 --> 01:43.030
That is to say,
they really do suppose that the

01:43.032 --> 01:47.702
medium of consciousness to which
we now turn--

01:47.700 --> 01:51.670
the psyche, the relationship
between consciousness and the

01:51.674 --> 01:54.954
unconscious--
they really do suppose that

01:54.952 --> 01:57.842
this entity,
whatever it may be,

01:57.842 --> 02:03.222
can be understood in terms that
we take usefully from verbal

02:03.221 --> 02:06.141
thought and from linguistics.

02:06.140 --> 02:10.280
Lacan famously said,
as you'll find next week,

02:10.280 --> 02:13.400
"The unconscious is
structured like a

02:13.397 --> 02:17.047
language,"
and Brooks plainly does agree.

02:17.050 --> 02:21.910
You open Brooks and you find
yourself really apart perhaps--I

02:21.913 --> 02:26.943
don't know how well all of you
are acquainted with the texts of

02:26.938 --> 02:27.748
Freud.

02:27.750 --> 02:30.220
We'll say a little bit about
Beyond the Pleasure

02:30.222 --> 02:33.192
Principle, which is the
crucial text for our purposes;

02:33.190 --> 02:37.220
but plainly apart from the
influence of and the ideas

02:37.224 --> 02:41.034
borrowed from Freud,
you'll find Brooks writing on

02:41.027 --> 02:44.207
what for you is pretty familiar
turf.

02:44.210 --> 02:47.400
For example,
he begins by borrowing the

02:47.404 --> 02:52.624
Russian formalist distinction in
trying to explain what fiction

02:52.616 --> 02:55.136
is between plot and story.

02:55.139 --> 02:59.099
I feel that I do ultimately
have to cave in and admit to you

02:59.104 --> 03:02.134
that the Russian words for these
concepts,

03:02.128 --> 03:05.598
plot and story,
are syuzhet and

03:05.603 --> 03:09.703
fabula respectively,
because Brooks keeps using

03:09.695 --> 03:11.115
these terms again and again.

03:11.120 --> 03:15.690
I've explained my embarrassment
about using terms that I really

03:15.694 --> 03:19.464
have no absolutely no idea
>

03:19.460 --> 03:22.300
of the meaning of except that
I'm told what the meaning of

03:22.298 --> 03:25.138
them is in the books that I am
reading, which are the same

03:25.135 --> 03:26.625
books that you're reading.

03:26.628 --> 03:28.298
In >

03:28.300 --> 03:31.910
any case, since Brooks does
constantly use these terms,

03:31.912 --> 03:35.052
I have to overcome
embarrassment and at least at

03:35.054 --> 03:36.864
times use them myself.

03:36.860 --> 03:38.780
They're a little
counterintuitive,

03:38.780 --> 03:42.100
by the way, if you try to find
cognates for them in English

03:42.098 --> 03:44.788
because you'd think that
syuzhet would be

03:44.788 --> 03:47.988
"subject matter,"
in other words something much

03:47.991 --> 03:50.681
closer to what the formalists
mean in English by

03:50.681 --> 03:52.171
"story."

03:52.169 --> 03:54.299
On the other hand,
you'd think that fabula

03:54.297 --> 03:56.617
might well be something like
"plot"

03:56.617 --> 03:58.647
or "fiction,"
but it is not.

03:58.650 --> 03:59.930
It's just the opposite.

03:59.930 --> 04:03.760
Syuzhet is the plot,
the way in which a story is

04:03.764 --> 04:08.444
constructed,
and the fabula is the

04:08.439 --> 04:16.179
subject matter or material out
of which the syuzhet is

04:16.177 --> 04:17.207
made.

04:17.209 --> 04:18.129
All right.

04:18.125 --> 04:23.435
In addition to the use of the
relationship between plot and

04:23.442 --> 04:26.962
story,
we also find Brooks using terms

04:26.961 --> 04:29.981
that are now,
having read Jakobson and de

04:29.976 --> 04:33.556
Man, very familiar to us:
the terms "metaphor"

04:33.557 --> 04:35.377
and "metonymy."

04:35.379 --> 04:39.669
There's plainly a tendency in
modern literary theory to reduce

04:39.666 --> 04:43.386
all the tropes of rhetoric to
just these two terms.

04:43.389 --> 04:46.819
When needed,
they back up a little bit and

04:46.819 --> 04:50.779
invoke other terms,
but the basic distinction in

04:50.776 --> 04:53.306
rhetoric,
as literary theory tends to

04:53.305 --> 04:55.785
understand it,
is the distinction between

04:55.791 --> 04:57.871
metaphor--
which unifies,

04:57.865 --> 05:01.475
synthesizes,
and brings together--

05:01.480 --> 05:05.400
and metonymy,
which puts one thing next to

05:05.401 --> 05:10.561
another by a recognizable
gesture toward contiguity but

05:10.564 --> 05:16.694
which nevertheless does not make
any claim or pretension to unify

05:16.685 --> 05:21.335
or establish identity--
to insist, in short,

05:21.338 --> 05:22.558
that A is B.

05:22.560 --> 05:26.290
These two terms,
as I say, are understood

05:26.288 --> 05:32.068
reductively but usefully to be
the essential topics of rhetoric

05:32.067 --> 05:36.727
and appropriated by modern
theory in that way.

05:36.730 --> 05:41.080
Now Brooks then uses these
terms in ways that should be

05:41.083 --> 05:43.263
familiar to us,
as I say.

05:43.259 --> 05:49.669
We have now been amply exposed
to them in reading Jakobson and

05:49.665 --> 05:50.605
de Man.

05:50.610 --> 05:56.610
So there is a language of
language in Brooks' essay,

05:56.610 --> 06:00.730
"Freud's Masterplot,"
despite the fact that the

06:00.733 --> 06:05.013
framework for his argument is
psychoanalytic and that he is

06:05.005 --> 06:09.565
drawing primarily on the text of
Freud's Beyond the Pleasure

06:09.572 --> 06:13.052
Principle.
So what does he take from Freud?

06:13.050 --> 06:15.800
What interests Brooks about
Freud?

06:15.800 --> 06:18.250
He is, by the way,
a distinguished Freudian

06:18.250 --> 06:21.870
scholar who knows everything
about Freud and is interested,

06:21.870 --> 06:25.790
in fact, by every aspect of
Freud, but for the purpose of

06:25.790 --> 06:29.920
constructing the argument here
and in the book to which this

06:29.920 --> 06:33.120
essay belongs,
the book called Reading for

06:33.115 --> 06:35.595
the Plot--
for the purposes of

06:35.596 --> 06:40.366
constructing that argument,
what he takes in particular

06:40.372 --> 06:45.112
from Freud is the idea of
structure: the idea that,

06:45.110 --> 06:48.950
insofar as we can imagine Freud
anticipating Lacan--

06:48.949 --> 06:52.149
Lacan himself certainly
believed that Freud anticipated

06:52.154 --> 06:54.884
him--
the idea that the unconscious

06:54.879 --> 06:57.349
is structured like a language.

06:57.350 --> 07:01.060
In terms of creating fictional
plots, in terms of the nature of

07:01.060 --> 07:03.750
fiction, which is what interests
Brooks--well,

07:03.752 --> 07:05.192
what does this mean?

07:05.189 --> 07:09.199
Aristotle tells us that a plot
has a beginning,

07:09.201 --> 07:11.121
a middle and an end.

07:11.120 --> 07:11.980
"Duh!"

07:11.980 --> 07:16.250
of course, is our response,
and yet at the same time we

07:16.252 --> 07:20.682
can't understand a degree of
mystery in even so seemingly

07:20.682 --> 07:22.822
simple a pronouncement.

07:22.819 --> 07:24.809
A beginning,
of course--well,

07:24.809 --> 07:26.869
it has to have a beginning.

07:26.870 --> 07:29.840
We assume that unless we're
dealing with Scheherazade,

07:29.839 --> 07:33.069
it has to have an end,
but at the same time we might

07:33.074 --> 07:35.814
well ask ourselves,
why does it have a middle?

07:35.810 --> 07:39.780
What is the function of the
middle with respect to a

07:39.779 --> 07:41.569
beginning and an end?

07:41.569 --> 07:45.529
Why does Aristotle say,
as Brooks quotes him,

07:45.529 --> 07:49.669
that a plot should have a
certain magnitude?

07:49.670 --> 07:51.740
Why shouldn't it be shorter?

07:51.740 --> 07:53.780
Why shouldn't it be longer?

07:53.779 --> 07:56.149
In other words,
what is the relation of these

07:56.154 --> 07:59.004
parts,
and what in particular does the

07:58.995 --> 08:02.865
middle have to do with revealing
to us the necessary

08:02.872 --> 08:07.052
connectedness of the beginning
and the end: not just any

08:07.052 --> 08:11.312
beginning or any end but a
beginning which precipitates a

08:11.307 --> 08:15.177
kind of logic,
and an end which in some way,

08:15.184 --> 08:17.774
whether tragically or
comically,

08:17.769 --> 08:21.349
satisfactorily resolves that
logic?

08:21.350 --> 08:22.880
How does all this work?

08:22.879 --> 08:26.859
Brooks believes that he can
understand it,

08:26.855 --> 08:31.795
as we'll try to explain,
in psychoanalytic terms.

08:31.800 --> 08:36.780
So this he gets from Freud,
and he also gets,

08:36.779 --> 08:41.039
as I've already suggested,
the methodological idea that

08:41.037 --> 08:45.057
one can think of the
machinations of a text in terms

08:45.057 --> 08:48.287
of the distinction that Freud
makes--

08:48.288 --> 08:51.738
not in Beyond the Pleasure
Principle, but in

08:51.740 --> 08:55.070
The Interpretation of
Dreams in the passages that

08:55.068 --> 08:58.578
you read for today's assignment
taken from that book,

08:58.580 --> 09:01.740
The Interpretation of
Dreams, about the dream

09:01.735 --> 09:02.165
work.

09:02.168 --> 09:07.328
It's there that Freud argues
that really the central two

09:07.330 --> 09:13.430
mechanisms of the dream work are
condensation and displacement.

09:13.428 --> 09:18.698
Condensation takes the
essential symbols of the dream

09:18.697 --> 09:25.177
and distills them into a kind of
over-determined unity so that if

09:25.181 --> 09:31.261
one studies the dream work one
can see the underlying wish or

09:31.259 --> 09:36.629
desire expressed in the dream
manifest in a particular

09:36.629 --> 09:38.959
symbolic unity.

09:38.960 --> 09:41.700
That's the way in which the
dream condenses,

09:41.703 --> 09:45.153
but at the same time the dream
is doing something very,

09:45.152 --> 09:48.282
very different,
and it's called displacement.

09:48.279 --> 09:51.809
There the essential symbols of
the dream--

09:51.808 --> 09:54.868
that is to say,
the way in which the dream is

09:54.865 --> 09:58.195
attempting to manifest that
which it desires,

09:58.200 --> 10:02.560
are not expressed in
themselves, but are rather

10:02.561 --> 10:07.401
displaced on to sometimes
obscurely related ideas or

10:07.397 --> 10:12.577
symbols,
images, or activities that the

10:12.583 --> 10:16.683
interpreter,
that the person trying to

10:16.678 --> 10:20.458
decode the dream,
needs to arrive at and to

10:20.456 --> 10:21.446
understand.

10:21.450 --> 10:25.100
So displacement is a kind of
delay or detour of

10:25.096 --> 10:27.556
understanding,
and condensation,

10:27.556 --> 10:31.196
on the other hand,
is a kind of distillation of

10:31.202 --> 10:32.792
understanding.

10:32.788 --> 10:38.098
The extraordinary thing that
Freud remarks on as he studies

10:38.095 --> 10:41.495
dreams in this book--
published in 1905,

10:41.500 --> 10:45.620
by the way--the extraordinary
thing about the way in which

10:45.620 --> 10:50.030
dreams work is that there seems
to be a kind of coexistence or

10:50.029 --> 10:52.559
simultaneity of these effects.

10:52.558 --> 10:58.348
The dream work simultaneously
condenses and displaces that

10:58.351 --> 11:04.451
which it is somehow or another
struggling to make manifest as

11:04.448 --> 11:06.988
its object of desire.

11:06.990 --> 11:11.860
Now the first person to notice
that there might be--

11:11.860 --> 11:16.490
there are a variety of people
who noticed that there might be

11:16.488 --> 11:20.268
a connection between
condensation and displacement

11:20.268 --> 11:26.198
and metaphor and metonymy,
most notably Jacques Lacan whom

11:26.203 --> 11:32.383
Brooks quotes to this effect:
that the work in everyday

11:32.379 --> 11:36.169
discourse,
in what we say but also in our

11:36.172 --> 11:39.172
dreams and in what we tell our
analyst,

11:39.168 --> 11:45.468
can be understood as operating
through the medium of these two

11:45.470 --> 11:46.400
tropes.

11:46.399 --> 11:49.369
Condensation,
in other words,

11:49.368 --> 11:55.618
is metaphorical in its nature,
and displacement is metonymic

11:55.620 --> 11:57.530
in its nature.

11:57.529 --> 12:03.049
Metonymy is the delay or
perpetual, as we gathered also

12:07.148 --> 12:08.988
signification.

12:08.990 --> 12:15.650
Metaphor is the bringing
together in a statement of

12:15.652 --> 12:24.582
identity of the discourse that's
attempting to articulate itself.

12:24.580 --> 12:29.720
Again we see in fiction,
as Brooks argues in his essay,

12:29.720 --> 12:34.130
that these two rhetorical
tendencies,

12:34.129 --> 12:38.309
the metaphorical and metonymic,
coexist--

12:38.308 --> 12:42.488
and of course you can hear the
implicit critique of de Man in

12:42.494 --> 12:45.484
the background--
and may or may not work in

12:45.476 --> 12:48.006
harmony,
may or may not conduce to an

12:48.011 --> 12:51.931
ultimate unity,
but nevertheless do coexist in

12:51.934 --> 12:56.764
such a way that we can
understand the unraveling of a

12:56.761 --> 13:01.961
fictional narrative as being
like the processes we see at

13:01.961 --> 13:05.491
work in the unraveling of
dreams.

13:05.490 --> 13:10.640
So it's these two elements that
Brooks is interested in in Freud

13:10.639 --> 13:14.319
and that he primarily does take
from Freud.

13:14.320 --> 13:15.970
Now this means,
among other things,

13:15.970 --> 13:21.350
that Brooks is not anything
like what we may spontaneously

13:21.347 --> 13:25.967
caricature perhaps as a
traditional psychoanalytic

13:25.971 --> 13:27.011
critic.

13:27.009 --> 13:30.209
Brooks is not going around
looking for Oedipus complexes

13:30.210 --> 13:31.490
and phallic symbols.

13:31.490 --> 13:36.020
Brooks is, as I hope you can
see, interested in very

13:36.019 --> 13:39.749
different aspects of the
Freudian text,

13:39.750 --> 13:45.030
and he says as much at the end
of essay on page 1171 in the

13:45.032 --> 13:49.682
right-hand column where he says:
… [T]here can be

13:49.681 --> 13:53.681
psychoanalytic criticism of the
text itself that does not become

13:53.682 --> 13:56.862
["This is what I'm
doing," he says]--

13:56.860 --> 14:02.100
as has usually been the case--a
study of the psychogenesis of

14:02.096 --> 14:05.496
the text (the author's
unconscious),

14:05.500 --> 14:09.420
the dynamics of literary
response (the reader's

14:09.417 --> 14:13.367
unconscious),
or the occult motivations of

14:13.365 --> 14:18.255
the characters (postulating an
"unconscious"

14:18.259 --> 14:19.459
for them).

14:19.460 --> 14:22.690
In other words,
Brooks is not interested in

14:22.692 --> 14:27.392
developing a theory of the
author or a theory of character.

14:27.389 --> 14:31.359
Now I don't think he really
means to be dismissive of

14:31.356 --> 14:32.956
Freudian criticism.

14:32.960 --> 14:35.060
I think he's really just
telling us that he's doing

14:35.062 --> 14:36.412
something different from that.

14:36.408 --> 14:39.698
I would remind you in passing
that although we don't pause

14:39.696 --> 14:42.806
over traditional Freudian
criticism in this course,

14:42.808 --> 14:46.258
it can indeed be extremely
interesting: just for example,

14:46.259 --> 14:48.439
Freud's disciple,
Ernest Jones,

14:48.437 --> 14:52.717
wrote an influential study of
Shakespeare's Hamlet in

14:52.721 --> 14:57.371
which he showed famously that
Hamlet has an Oedipus complex.

14:57.370 --> 14:58.400
Think about the play.

14:58.399 --> 15:01.339
You'll see that there's a good
deal in what Jones is saying;

15:01.340 --> 15:03.870
and in fact,
famously in the history of the

15:03.870 --> 15:06.160
staging and filming of
Shakespeare--

15:06.158 --> 15:10.108
as you probably know,
Sir Laurence Olivier took the

15:10.110 --> 15:14.300
role of Hamlet under the
influence of Ernest Jones.

15:14.298 --> 15:17.888
In the Olivier production of
Hamlet,

15:17.890 --> 15:22.510
let's just say made it
painfully clear in his relations

15:22.509 --> 15:26.699
with Gertrude that he had an
Oedipus complex.

15:26.700 --> 15:31.280
Again, there were actual sort
of literary texts written

15:31.278 --> 15:34.668
directly under the influence of
Freud.

15:34.668 --> 15:37.358
One thinks of D.H. Lawrence's
Sons and Lovers,

15:37.361 --> 15:40.391
for example,
in which the central character,

15:40.389 --> 15:43.279
Paul Morel,
is crippled by an Oedipus

15:43.279 --> 15:47.549
complex that he can't master and
the difficulties and

15:47.546 --> 15:51.316
complications of the plot are of
this kind.

15:51.320 --> 15:55.400
Moving closer to the present,
an important figure in literary

15:55.403 --> 15:58.673
theory whom we'll be studying in
this course,

15:58.668 --> 16:01.468
Harold Bloom,
can be understood to be

16:01.466 --> 16:05.346
developing in his theories of
theoretical text,

16:05.350 --> 16:07.920
beginning with The Anxiety
of Influence, a

16:07.924 --> 16:10.324
theory of the author--
that is to say,

16:10.316 --> 16:15.126
a theory that is based on the
relationship between belated

16:15.130 --> 16:20.030
poets and their precursors,
which is to say a relationship

16:20.025 --> 16:21.995
between sons and fathers.

16:22.000 --> 16:25.830
So there is a certain pattern
in--and of course,

16:25.830 --> 16:30.190
I invoke this pattern in
arguing that Levi-Strauss'

16:30.186 --> 16:35.146
version of the Oedipus myth
betrays his Oedipus complex in

16:35.153 --> 16:37.073
relation to Freud.

16:37.070 --> 16:40.990
Plainly, Freudian criticism
with these sorts of

16:40.990 --> 16:46.220
preoccupations is widespread,
continues sometimes to appear,

16:46.217 --> 16:51.217
and cannot simply be discounted
or ignored as an influence in

16:51.216 --> 16:55.626
the development of thinking
about literature or of the

16:55.630 --> 16:59.630
possibilities of thinking about
literature.

16:59.629 --> 17:02.769
But the odd thing,
or maybe not so odd--

17:02.769 --> 17:06.059
the interesting thing,
that is, in Brooks' work is

17:06.056 --> 17:10.146
that although the text is not
there to tell us something about

17:10.147 --> 17:14.237
its author or to tell us
something about its characters,

17:14.240 --> 17:17.080
even though character is
important in fiction and that's

17:17.075 --> 17:19.235
what Brooks is primarily talking
about--

17:19.240 --> 17:24.040
although it's not there to do
those things it is nevertheless,

17:24.038 --> 17:28.548
like an author or a character,
in many ways alive.

17:28.548 --> 17:33.428
That is to say,
the text is there to express

17:33.426 --> 17:39.656
desire, to put in motion,
and to make manifest desire or

17:39.664 --> 17:41.144
a desire.

17:41.140 --> 17:45.390
That is a rather odd thing to
think about, especially when

17:45.387 --> 17:49.787
Brooks goes so far as to say
that he has a particular desire

17:49.785 --> 17:50.675
in mind.

17:50.680 --> 17:54.340
The text, in other words,
the structure of the text,

17:54.338 --> 18:00.688
or the way in which the text
functions is to fulfill in some

18:00.692 --> 18:05.652
way or another a desire for
reduced excitation:

18:05.645 --> 18:09.405
that is to say,
the desire which can be

18:09.406 --> 18:13.386
associated with the pleasure
principle in sexual terms and

18:13.391 --> 18:17.521
can be associated with the idea
of the death wish that Freud

18:17.515 --> 18:21.495
develops in Beyond the
Pleasure Principle that I'll

18:21.499 --> 18:25.129
be coming back to as the
reduction of excitation that

18:25.133 --> 18:27.723
would consist in being dead.

18:27.720 --> 18:31.960
In these ways--and it remains
to see whether,

18:31.960 --> 18:34.670
or to what extent,
these ways are cooperative--

18:34.670 --> 18:40.740
Brooks understands the
structure, the delay,

18:40.740 --> 18:45.230
the arabesque,
or postponement of the end one

18:45.234 --> 18:51.474
finds in the text to involve a
kind of coexistence of the sort

18:51.468 --> 18:56.978
that I have been talking about
between relations to the

18:56.984 --> 19:02.814
possibility through desire of
reducing excitation,

19:02.808 --> 19:06.408
being excited,
and reducing excitation.

19:06.410 --> 19:12.340
Now obviously both dreams and
stories don't just express this

19:12.339 --> 19:15.259
desire;
they also delay it.

19:15.259 --> 19:18.609
I'm sure we have all had the
experience of waking up--it's an

19:18.606 --> 19:21.226
experience, by the way,
which is an illusion;

19:21.230 --> 19:24.720
it hasn't really been the
case--and thinking that we have

19:24.715 --> 19:27.695
been dreaming the same damn
thing all night long:

19:27.703 --> 19:30.833
in other words,
that we have just been

19:30.829 --> 19:36.039
interminably stuck in a dream
predicament which repeats itself

19:36.042 --> 19:41.772
again and again and again to the
point of absolute total tedium.

19:41.769 --> 19:45.529
Many of the dreams we have are
neither exciting nor the reverse

19:45.527 --> 19:46.797
but simply tedious.

19:46.798 --> 19:51.078
Whatever excitement they may
have entailed in the long run,

19:51.076 --> 19:54.686
we feel as we wake up that they
go on too long.

19:54.690 --> 20:01.420
Perhaps fiction does have this
superiority over the dream work:

20:01.422 --> 20:05.222
that its art,
that its structure,

20:05.221 --> 20:11.741
is precisely the protraction of
delay to a desired degree but

20:11.737 --> 20:15.317
not unduly beyond that degree.

20:15.318 --> 20:22.398
But it's not just that the
middles of fiction involve these

20:22.403 --> 20:24.973
processes of delay.

20:24.970 --> 20:29.750
It's that they seem also--and
this is one of the reasons

20:29.746 --> 20:35.126
Brooks does have recourse to
this particular text of Freud--

20:35.130 --> 20:39.600
they also have the curious
tendency to revisit

20:39.603 --> 20:41.893
unpleasurable things.

20:41.890 --> 20:44.410
That is to say,
it's not that--the middles of

20:44.411 --> 20:45.731
fiction are exciting.

20:45.730 --> 20:49.930
We love to read and everything
we read is a page turner,

20:49.933 --> 20:53.553
all to the good;
but the fact is our fascination

20:53.549 --> 20:57.739
with reading isn't simply a
fascination that takes the form

20:57.740 --> 20:58.970
of having fun.

20:58.970 --> 21:03.470
In fact, so much of what we
read in fiction is distinctly

21:03.472 --> 21:04.762
unpleasurable.

21:04.759 --> 21:08.689
We wince away from it even as
we turn the page.

21:08.690 --> 21:10.820
One way to put it,
especially in

21:10.820 --> 21:15.360
nineteenth-century realism which
particularly interests Brooks,

21:15.358 --> 21:19.368
is all these characters are
just madly making bad object

21:19.369 --> 21:20.099
choices.

21:20.098 --> 21:22.608
They're falling in love with
the wrong person.

21:22.608 --> 21:26.958
They're getting stuck in sticky
situations that they can't

21:26.961 --> 21:31.621
extract themselves from because
they're not mature enough,

21:31.618 --> 21:33.628
because they haven't thought
things through,

21:33.630 --> 21:37.500
and because fate looms over the
possibility of making a better

21:37.496 --> 21:39.846
choice--
however the case may be,

21:39.854 --> 21:44.384
the experiences that constitute
the middles even of the greatest

21:44.381 --> 21:48.191
and the most exciting fiction do
have a tendency,

21:48.190 --> 21:52.860
if one thinks about them from a
certain remove,

21:52.859 --> 21:54.939
to be unpleasurable.

21:54.940 --> 21:57.690
Why, in other words,
return to what isn't fun,

21:57.693 --> 22:01.243
to where it isn't pleasure,
and what can this possibly have

22:01.243 --> 22:03.573
to do with the pleasure
principle?

22:03.568 --> 22:06.948
Now that's precisely the
question that Freud asked

22:06.948 --> 22:10.188
himself in Beyond the
Pleasure Principle,

22:10.190 --> 22:14.870
a text which begins with a
consideration of trauma victims.

22:14.868 --> 22:18.378
It's written at the end of the
First World War,

22:18.377 --> 22:22.717
and you should understand this
text as not isolated in the

22:22.724 --> 22:25.704
preoccupation of writers in
Europe.

22:25.700 --> 22:29.940
Almost contemporary with
Beyond the Pleasure Principle

22:29.935 --> 22:34.015
are novels written in
England partly as a result of

22:34.020 --> 22:38.640
the making public of findings of
psychologists about traumatic

22:38.635 --> 22:42.565
war victims as the war came to
its conclusion.

22:42.568 --> 22:45.598
Most of you have read
Virginia's Woolf's Mrs.

22:45.604 --> 22:49.034
Dalloway, and you
should recognize that her

22:49.026 --> 22:53.026
treatment of Septimus Smith in
Mrs. Dalloway is a

22:53.029 --> 22:55.869
treatment of a traumatized war
victim.

22:55.868 --> 22:58.078
Rebecca West,
a contemporary and an

22:58.080 --> 23:01.530
acquaintance of hers who wrote a
good many novels,

23:01.528 --> 23:04.318
wrote one in particular called
The Return of the Soldier,

23:04.318 --> 23:09.748
the protagonist of which is
also a traumatized war victim.

23:09.750 --> 23:12.750
So it was a theme of the period
and Freud's Beyond the

23:12.753 --> 23:15.493
Pleasure Principle
contributes to this theme.

23:15.490 --> 23:21.140
Brooks himself likes to refer
to the text of Beyond the

23:21.142 --> 23:26.102
Pleasure Principle as itself
a master plot--

23:26.098 --> 23:29.408
in other words as having a
certain fictive character.

23:29.410 --> 23:32.660
It would be,
I think, extremely instructive

23:32.662 --> 23:36.922
to read it alongside The
Return of the Soldier or

23:36.922 --> 23:37.462
Mrs.

23:37.463 --> 23:41.263
Dalloway for the reasons
I've mentioned.

23:41.259 --> 23:41.599
Okay.

23:41.597 --> 23:45.317
So anyway, Freud begins by
saying, "The weird thing

23:45.317 --> 23:49.507
about these trauma victims whom
I have had in my office is that

23:49.509 --> 23:53.569
in describing their dreams and
even in their various forms of

23:53.567 --> 23:57.967
neurotic repetitive behavior,
they seem compulsively to

23:57.967 --> 24:02.517
repeat the traumatic experience
that has put them in the very

24:02.519 --> 24:05.479
predicament that brought them to
me.

24:05.480 --> 24:07.810
In other words,
they don't shy away from it.

24:07.808 --> 24:11.498
They don't in any strict sense
repress it.

24:11.500 --> 24:14.170
They keep compulsively going
back to it.

24:14.170 --> 24:15.580
Why is that?

24:15.578 --> 24:20.248
How can that possibly be a
manifestation of the only kind

24:20.251 --> 24:25.511
of drives I had ever thought
existed up until the year 1919,

24:25.509 --> 24:29.129
namely drives that we can
associate in one way or another

24:29.130 --> 24:32.110
with pleasure--
with the pleasure principle,

24:32.111 --> 24:35.121
obviously;
with a sort of implicit

24:35.121 --> 24:41.051
sociobiological understanding
that the protraction of life is

24:41.045 --> 24:46.665
all about sexual reproduction
and that the displacement or

24:46.673 --> 24:52.603
inhibition of the direct drives
associated with that take the

24:52.596 --> 24:58.806
form of the desire to succeed,
the desire to improve oneself,

24:58.809 --> 25:03.729
and the desire to become more
complex emotionally and all the

25:03.730 --> 25:04.880
rest of it?

25:04.880 --> 25:08.410
All of this we can associate
with the pleasure principle.

25:08.410 --> 25:14.350
How does this compulsion to
return to the traumatic event in

25:14.351 --> 25:20.491
any way correspond to or submit
itself to explanation in terms

25:20.493 --> 25:24.123
of the pleasure principle?"

25:24.118 --> 25:28.568
So then he turns to an example
in his own home life,

25:28.568 --> 25:31.388
his little grandson,
little Hans,

25:31.390 --> 25:36.680
standing in his crib throwing a
spool tied to a string out of

25:36.679 --> 25:39.479
the crib saying,
"Fort!"

25:39.479 --> 25:41.149
meaning "away,
not there,"

25:41.145 --> 25:43.285
and then reeling it back in and
saying,

25:43.288 --> 25:45.208
"Da!"
meaning "there it is

25:45.207 --> 25:46.387
again": "Fort!

25:46.390 --> 25:49.300
Da!"
Why on earth is little Hans

25:49.295 --> 25:50.235
doing this?

25:50.240 --> 25:53.360
Well, Freud pretty quickly
figures out that what little

25:53.359 --> 25:56.769
Hans is doing is finding a way
of expressing his frustration

25:56.769 --> 25:59.889
about the way in which his
mother leaves the room;

25:59.890 --> 26:03.110
in other words,
his mother is not always there

26:03.105 --> 26:03.815
for him.

26:03.818 --> 26:08.408
So what is this play
accomplishing?

26:08.410 --> 26:10.670
He's got her on a string, right?

26:10.670 --> 26:13.450
Sure, she goes away--we have to
understand this:

26:13.453 --> 26:16.243
we know our mother goes away,
but guess what?

26:16.240 --> 26:20.620
I can haul her back in,
and there she is again.

26:20.618 --> 26:26.368
This is the achievement of
mastery, as Freud puts it and as

26:26.366 --> 26:31.316
Brooks follows him,
that we can acquire through the

26:31.321 --> 26:34.891
repetition of a traumatic event.

26:34.890 --> 26:37.340
So maybe that's the way to
think about it,

26:37.338 --> 26:41.508
but it can't just be the
achievement of mastery alone,

26:41.509 --> 26:46.319
because nothing can do away
with or undermine the fact that

26:46.323 --> 26:51.803
part of the drive involved seems
to be to return to the trauma--

26:51.798 --> 26:55.698
that is to say,
to keep putting before us the

26:55.702 --> 27:00.142
unhappy and traumatic nature of
what's involved.

27:00.140 --> 27:04.610
So the compulsion to repeat,
which of course manifests

27:04.613 --> 27:09.513
itself in adults in various
forms of neurotic behavior--

27:09.509 --> 27:12.739
by the way, we're all neurotic
and all of us have our little

27:12.739 --> 27:15.539
compulsions,
but it can get serious in some

27:15.540 --> 27:19.720
cases--
the compulsion to repeat takes

27:19.721 --> 27:22.401
the form,
Freud argues,

27:22.404 --> 27:29.034
especially if we think of it in
terms of an effort at mastery,

27:29.028 --> 27:33.098
of mastering in advance through
rehearsal,

27:33.098 --> 27:36.328
as it were, the inevitability
of death,

27:36.328 --> 27:41.168
the trauma of death which
awaits and which has been

27:41.167 --> 27:45.617
heralded by traumatic events in
one's life,

27:45.618 --> 27:47.348
a near escape:
for example,

27:47.354 --> 27:50.694
in a train accident or whatever
the case may be.

27:50.690 --> 27:55.340
So Freud in developing his
argument eventually comes to

27:55.344 --> 28:00.434
think that the compulsion to
repeat has something to do with

28:00.429 --> 28:05.339
a kind of repeating forward of
an event which is in itself

28:05.342 --> 28:08.792
unnarratable:
the event of death,

28:08.788 --> 28:14.118
which is of course that which
ultimately looms.

28:14.118 --> 28:19.778
Now it's in this context that
Freud begins to think about how

28:19.784 --> 28:25.454
it could be that the organism
engages itself with thoughts of

28:25.448 --> 28:26.768
this kind.

28:26.769 --> 28:32.709
What is this almost eager
anticipation of death?

28:32.710 --> 28:37.040
He notices that in certain
biological organisms,

28:37.038 --> 28:41.618
it can be observed--this by the
way has been wildly disputed by

28:41.615 --> 28:44.415
people actually engaged in
biology,

28:44.420 --> 28:50.450
but it was a useful metaphor
for the development of Freud's

28:50.446 --> 28:56.786
argument: he noticed that there
is in certain organisms a wish

28:56.787 --> 29:01.977
to return to a simpler and
earlier state of organic

29:01.982 --> 29:06.032
existence,
which is to say to return to

29:06.025 --> 29:10.895
that which isn't just what we
all look forward to but was,

29:10.900 --> 29:15.610
after all, that which existed
prior to our emergence into

29:15.611 --> 29:16.201
life.

29:16.200 --> 29:19.570
The relationship between the
beginning and the end that I

29:19.568 --> 29:21.728
have been intimating,
in other words,

29:21.734 --> 29:23.364
is a relation of death.

29:23.358 --> 29:29.188
I begin inanimate and I end
inanimate,

29:29.190 --> 29:33.640
and Freud's argument is that
there is somehow in us a

29:33.635 --> 29:38.975
compulsion or a desire,
a drive, to return--like going

29:38.977 --> 29:45.517
home again or going back to the
womb to return to that inanimate

29:45.523 --> 29:46.463
state.

29:46.460 --> 29:49.850
"The aim of all
life," he then says,

29:49.854 --> 29:51.594
"is death."

29:51.588 --> 29:56.048
Well, now maybe the important
thing is to allow Brooks to

29:56.054 --> 30:01.004
comment on that so that you can
see how he makes use of Freud's

30:00.997 --> 30:05.537
idea and move us a little bit
closer to the application of

30:05.540 --> 30:09.850
these ideas to the structure of
a literary plot or of a

30:09.846 --> 30:11.676
fictional plot.

30:11.680 --> 30:16.270
So on page 1166 in the
right-hand margin,

30:16.267 --> 30:22.457
the beginning of the second
paragraph, Brooks says:

30:22.460 --> 30:26.210
We need at present to follow
Freud into his closer inquiry

30:26.205 --> 30:30.345
concerning the relation between
the compulsion to repeat and the

30:30.347 --> 30:31.397
instinctual.

30:31.400 --> 30:35.620
The answer lies in "a
universal attribute of instinct

30:35.618 --> 30:38.878
and perhaps of organic life in
general,"

30:38.875 --> 30:43.535
that "an instinct is an
urge inherent in organic life to

30:43.539 --> 30:47.389
restore an earlier state of
things."

30:47.390 --> 30:52.660
Building on this idea,
page 1169, the left-hand

30:52.661 --> 30:59.651
column, about halfway down:
This function [of the drives]

30:59.654 --> 31:06.644
is concerned "with the
most universal endeavor of all

31:06.644 --> 31:11.334
living substance--
namely to return to the

31:11.325 --> 31:15.075
quiescence of the inorganic
world."

31:15.078 --> 31:17.778
Kind of pleasant,
I guess, right?

31:17.778 --> 31:22.438
"The desire to return to
the quiescence of the organic

31:22.435 --> 31:23.555
world."

31:23.558 --> 31:29.008
The aim in this context,
in this sense--the aim of all

31:29.012 --> 31:30.662
life is death.

31:30.660 --> 31:35.100
But there's more,
and this is why novels are

31:35.097 --> 31:38.507
long: not too long,
not too short,

31:38.513 --> 31:42.093
but of a certain length--
of a certain magnitude,

31:42.086 --> 31:43.466
as Aristotle puts it.

31:43.470 --> 31:47.420
There is more because the
organism doesn't just want to

31:47.421 --> 31:47.861
die.

31:47.859 --> 31:50.369
The organism is not suicidal.

31:50.368 --> 31:53.198
That's a crucial mistake that
we make when we first try to

31:53.196 --> 31:55.826
come to terms with what Freud
means by "the death

31:55.826 --> 31:56.566
wish."

31:56.568 --> 32:01.848
The organism wants to die on
its own terms,

32:01.848 --> 32:06.238
which is why it has an
elaborate mechanism of

32:06.241 --> 32:09.031
defenses--
"the outer cortex,"

32:09.027 --> 32:13.007
as Freud is always calling it--
attempting to withstand,

32:13.010 --> 32:16.100
to process,
and to keep at arm's length the

32:16.096 --> 32:17.486
possibility of trauma.

32:17.490 --> 32:22.430
You blame yourself as a victim
of trauma for not having the

32:22.432 --> 32:27.462
sufficient vigilance in your
outer cortex to ward it off.

32:27.460 --> 32:30.250
Part of the compulsion to
repeat is,

32:30.250 --> 32:34.390
in a certain sense--part of the
hope of mastery in the

32:34.394 --> 32:39.164
compulsion to repeat is to keep
up the kind of vigilance which

32:39.163 --> 32:43.783
you failed to have in the past
and therefore fail to ward it

32:43.778 --> 32:44.558
off.

32:44.558 --> 32:47.938
So the organism only wishes to
die on its own terms.

32:47.940 --> 32:52.820
If you are reminded here by the
passage of Tynjanov that I gave

32:52.823 --> 32:56.763
you where he makes the
distinction between literary

32:56.761 --> 33:01.641
history as evolving and literary
history as modified by outside

33:01.644 --> 33:04.614
circumstances,
I think it would be a

33:04.608 --> 33:05.918
legitimate parallel.

33:05.920 --> 33:08.610
What the organism,
according to Freud,

33:08.608 --> 33:12.768
wants to do is evolve toward
its dissolution,

33:12.769 --> 33:17.129
not to be modified--not,
in other words,

33:17.130 --> 33:21.020
to be interfered with by
everything from external trauma

33:21.015 --> 33:22.565
to internal disease.

33:22.569 --> 33:23.759
It doesn't want that.

33:23.759 --> 33:26.359
It wants to live a rich and
full life.

33:26.358 --> 33:29.008
It wants to live a life of a
certain magnitude,

33:29.009 --> 33:35.309
but with a view to achieving
the ultimate desired end,

33:35.308 --> 33:38.978
which is to return to an
inorganic state on its own

33:38.981 --> 33:39.571
terms.

33:39.568 --> 33:45.288
So there is this tension in the
organism between evolving to its

33:45.294 --> 33:50.024
end and being modified
prematurely toward an end,

33:50.019 --> 33:53.359
a modification which in terms
of fiction would mean you

33:53.355 --> 33:55.205
wouldn't have a plot,
right?

33:55.210 --> 34:00.450
You might have a beginning,
but you would have a sudden

34:00.451 --> 34:05.891
cutting off that prevented the
arabesque of the plot from

34:05.887 --> 34:08.507
developing and arising.

34:08.510 --> 34:13.430
Now what Brooks argues
following Freud is that to this

34:13.429 --> 34:17.269
end,
the creating of an atmosphere

34:17.273 --> 34:21.463
in which with dignity and
integrity,

34:21.460 --> 34:22.590
as it were,
>

34:22.590 --> 34:27.120
the organism can progress
toward its own end without

34:27.119 --> 34:30.179
interference,
as it were--what Brooks

34:30.175 --> 34:33.655
following Freud argues is that
in this process,

34:33.659 --> 34:37.479
the pleasure principle and the
death wish cooperate.

34:37.480 --> 34:41.350
This is on page 1166,
bottom of the right-hand

34:41.349 --> 34:46.509
column, and then over to 1167,
a relatively long passage:

34:46.510 --> 34:50.560
Hence Freud is able to proffer,
with a certain bravado,

34:50.559 --> 34:53.859
the formulation:
"the aim of all life is

34:53.856 --> 34:56.946
death."
We are given an evolutionary

34:56.945 --> 35:01.215
image of the organism in which
the tension created by external

35:01.224 --> 35:05.364
influences has forced living
substance to "diverge ever

35:05.364 --> 35:09.574
more widely from its original
course of life and to make ever

35:12.661 --> 35:15.751
reaching its aim of death."

35:15.750 --> 35:18.960
In this view,
the self-preservative instincts

35:18.958 --> 35:23.038
function to assure that the
organism shall follow its own

35:23.043 --> 35:26.073
path to death,
to ward off any ways of

35:26.065 --> 35:30.615
returning to the inorganic which
are not imminent to the organism

35:30.617 --> 35:31.327
itself.

35:31.329 --> 35:34.079
In other words,
"the organism wishes to

35:34.077 --> 35:36.377
die only in its own
fashion."

35:36.380 --> 35:40.760
It must struggle against events
(dangers) which would help to

35:40.760 --> 35:45.070
achieve its goal too rapidly--by
a kind of short-circuit.

35:45.070 --> 35:48.760
Again on page 1169,
left-hand column,

35:48.762 --> 35:54.822
a little bit farther down from
the passage we quoted before,

35:54.815 --> 35:58.155
Brooks says:
… [W]e could say that

35:58.157 --> 36:01.407
the repetition compulsion and
the death instinct serve the

36:01.413 --> 36:04.493
pleasure principle;
in a larger sense [though],

36:04.492 --> 36:08.072
the pleasure principle,
keeping watch on the invasion

36:08.068 --> 36:11.518
of stimuli from without and
especially from within,

36:11.518 --> 36:15.098
seeking their discharge,
serves the death instinct,

36:15.099 --> 36:19.879
making sure that the organism
is permitted to return to

36:19.878 --> 36:21.028
quiescence.

36:21.030 --> 36:27.910
It's in this way that these two
differing drives coexist and in

36:27.913 --> 36:34.573
some measure cooperate in the
developing and enriching of the

36:34.574 --> 36:38.544
good life,
and in the developing and

36:38.536 --> 36:41.106
enriching of the good plot.

36:41.110 --> 36:45.090
An obvious problem with this
theory,

36:45.090 --> 36:48.170
and Freud acknowledges this
problem in Beyond the

36:48.170 --> 36:52.590
Pleasure Principle,
is that it's awfully hard

36:52.585 --> 36:55.985
to keep death and sex separate.

36:55.989 --> 36:59.709
In other words,
the reduction of excitation is

36:59.706 --> 37:04.906
obviously something that the
pleasure principle is all about.

37:04.909 --> 37:11.159
The purpose of sex is to reduce
excitation, to annul desire.

37:11.159 --> 37:13.339
The purpose of death,
Freud argues,

37:13.340 --> 37:15.010
is to do the same thing.

37:15.010 --> 37:17.530
Well, how can you tell the one
from the other?

37:17.530 --> 37:22.320
There's a rich vein of literary
history which insists on their

37:22.320 --> 37:23.970
interchangeability.

37:23.969 --> 37:27.149
We all know what "to
die" means in early modern

37:27.146 --> 37:27.596
poems.

37:27.599 --> 37:30.469
We all know about
"Liebestod"

37:30.474 --> 37:32.974
in "Tristan and
Isolde,"

37:32.969 --> 37:36.979
the moments of death in
literature which obviously are

37:36.980 --> 37:38.720
sexually charged.

37:38.719 --> 37:45.059
There is a kind of manifest and
knowing confusion of the two in

37:45.057 --> 37:48.007
literature--
and Freud always says that the

37:48.007 --> 37:50.587
poets preceded him in everything
that he thought--

37:50.590 --> 37:53.940
which suggests that it is
rather hard to keep these things

37:53.942 --> 37:54.592
separate.

37:54.590 --> 37:58.120
For example,
by the way, the compulsion to

37:58.123 --> 38:01.733
repeat nasty episodes,
to revisit trauma,

38:01.726 --> 38:04.456
and to repeat the
unpleasurable--

38:04.460 --> 38:07.330
well, that could just be called
masochism, couldn't it?

38:07.329 --> 38:10.789
It could be called something
which is a kind of pleasure and

38:10.789 --> 38:13.779
which therefore could be
subsumed under the pleasure

38:13.780 --> 38:17.360
principle and would obviate the
need for a theory of the death

38:17.358 --> 38:20.348
drive as Freud develops it in
Beyond the Pleasure

38:20.349 --> 38:23.339
Principle. Now Freud
acknowledges this.

38:23.340 --> 38:26.720
He says that it is difficult to
make the distinction.

38:26.719 --> 38:30.749
He feels that a variety of
sorts of clinical evidence at

38:30.751 --> 38:34.641
his disposal warrant the
distinction, but it is not an

38:34.637 --> 38:35.587
easy one.

38:35.590 --> 38:41.230
It's one that I suppose we
could continue to entertain as a

38:41.233 --> 38:46.393
kind of skepticism about this
way of understanding the

38:46.389 --> 38:52.319
compulsion to repeat as somehow
necessarily entailing a theory

38:52.324 --> 38:54.664
of the death wish.

38:54.659 --> 38:55.769
All right.

38:55.766 --> 38:58.756
Now quickly,
as to the plot:

38:58.755 --> 39:03.845
desire emerges or begins as the
narratable.

39:03.849 --> 39:05.189
What is the unnarratable?

39:05.190 --> 39:11.580
The unnarratable is that
immersion in our lives such that

39:11.577 --> 39:17.277
there is no sense of form or
order or structure.

39:17.280 --> 39:21.840
Anything is unnarratable if we
don't have a sense of a

39:21.838 --> 39:26.138
beginning, a middle,
and an end to bring to bear on

39:26.137 --> 39:26.737
it.

39:26.739 --> 39:29.139
The narratable,
in other words,

39:29.143 --> 39:31.553
must enter into a structure.

39:31.550 --> 39:35.130
So the beginning,
which is meditated on by

39:35.132 --> 39:40.032
Sartre's Roquentin in La
Nausee and quoted to that

39:40.025 --> 39:45.175
effect by Brooks on the
left-hand column of page 1163--

39:45.179 --> 39:50.199
the narratable begins in this
moment of entry into that

39:50.199 --> 39:54.289
pattern of desire that launches
a fiction.

39:54.289 --> 39:58.519
We have speculated on what that
desire consists in,

39:58.518 --> 40:03.338
and so the narratable becomes a
plot and the plot operates

40:03.338 --> 40:06.828
through metaphor,
which unifies the plot,

40:06.833 --> 40:11.383
which shows the remarkable
coherence of all of its parts.

40:11.380 --> 40:15.300
A narrative theory is always
talking with some satisfaction

40:15.295 --> 40:19.745
about how there's no such thing
in fiction as irrelevant detail.

40:19.750 --> 40:22.330
In other words,
nothing is there by accident.

40:22.329 --> 40:27.689
That is the metaphoric pressure
brought to bear on plotting,

40:27.686 --> 40:31.316
sort of, in the course of
composition.

40:31.320 --> 40:35.070
Everything is there for a
reason, and the reason is

40:35.074 --> 40:39.434
arguably the nature of the
underlying desire that's driving

40:39.431 --> 40:42.891
the plot forward;
but on the other hand,

40:42.893 --> 40:46.663
metonymy functions as the
principle of delay,

40:46.661 --> 40:51.201
the detour, the arabesque,
the refusal of closure;

40:51.199 --> 40:56.299
the settling upon bad object
choice and other unfortunate

40:56.297 --> 40:58.687
outcomes,
the return of the

40:58.690 --> 41:03.280
unpleasurable--all the things
that happen in the structure of

41:03.282 --> 41:06.422
"middles"
in literary plots.

41:06.420 --> 41:10.930
The plot finally binds material
together, and both metaphor and

41:10.927 --> 41:13.907
metonymy are arguably forms of
binding.

41:13.909 --> 41:17.699
Look at page 1166,
the right-hand column,

41:17.704 --> 41:20.744
bottom of the first paragraph.

41:20.739 --> 41:23.849
Brooks says:
To speak of "binding"

41:23.851 --> 41:27.321
in a literary text is thus to
speak of any of the

41:27.324 --> 41:30.264
formalizations (which,
like binding,

41:30.260 --> 41:33.430
may be painful,
retarding) that force us to

41:33.427 --> 41:36.517
recognize sameness within
difference,

41:36.518 --> 41:40.708
or the very emergence of a
sjužet from the material

41:40.708 --> 41:42.078
of fabula.

41:42.079 --> 41:42.429
Okay.

41:42.429 --> 41:46.979
Now I want to turn to Tony
as an instance of the way in

41:46.978 --> 41:50.258
which reading for the plot can
take place.

41:50.260 --> 41:55.070
I also want to mention that the
choice of these materials for

41:55.065 --> 41:59.305
today's assignment is not just a
way into questions of

41:59.311 --> 42:04.681
psychoanalysis as they bear on
literature and literary theory,

42:04.679 --> 42:07.879
but also a gesture toward
something that those of you

42:07.876 --> 42:11.376
whose favorite form of reading
is novels may wish we had a

42:11.382 --> 42:14.152
little more of in a course of
this kind--

42:14.150 --> 42:16.330
namely narrative theory:
narratology.

42:16.329 --> 42:20.909
I commend to you the opening
pages of Brooks' essay where he

42:20.905 --> 42:25.555
passes in review some of the
most important work in narrative

42:25.559 --> 42:28.919
theory,
work that I mentioned in

42:28.920 --> 42:34.800
passing when I talked about
structuralism a couple of weeks

42:34.797 --> 42:38.867
back and work which,
for those of you who are

42:38.871 --> 42:42.091
interested in narrative and
narrative theory,

42:42.090 --> 42:43.970
you may well wish to revisit.

42:43.969 --> 42:46.279
Roland Barthes,
Tzvetan Todorov,

42:46.280 --> 42:50.090
and Gerard Genette are the
figures to whom Brooks is

42:50.085 --> 42:53.365
primarily expressing
indebtedness within that

42:53.365 --> 42:54.555
tradition.

42:54.559 --> 42:57.929
Anyway: Tony the Tow Truck.

42:57.929 --> 43:02.349
I would suggest that in the
context of Beyond the

43:02.353 --> 43:07.263
Pleasure Principle we could
re-title Tony the Tow Truck

43:07.260 --> 43:10.560
as The Bumpy Road to
Maturity.

43:10.559 --> 43:13.979
It certainly has the
qualities of a picaresque

43:13.981 --> 43:14.681
fiction.

43:14.679 --> 43:19.229
It's on the road,
as it were, and the linearity

43:19.226 --> 43:22.356
of its plot--
the way in which the plot is

43:22.362 --> 43:25.532
like beads on a string,
which tends to be the case with

43:25.532 --> 43:28.762
picaresque fiction,
and which by the way is also a

43:28.764 --> 43:31.134
metonymic aspect of the
fiction--

43:31.130 --> 43:38.990
lends the feeling of
picturesque to the narrative.

43:38.989 --> 43:43.779
Quickly to reread it--I know
that you all have it glued to

43:43.775 --> 43:48.305
your wrists, but in case you
don't, I'll reread it:

43:48.309 --> 43:50.939
I am Tony the Tow Truck.

43:50.940 --> 43:53.680
I live in a little yellow
garage.

43:53.679 --> 43:55.849
I help cars that are stuck.

43:55.849 --> 43:57.969
I tow them to my garage.

43:57.969 --> 43:59.609
I like my job.

43:59.610 --> 44:02.040
One day I am stuck.

44:02.039 --> 44:04.249
Who will help Tony the Tow
Truck?

44:04.250 --> 44:07.590
"I cannot help you,"
says Neato the Car.

44:07.590 --> 44:09.160
"I don't want to get
dirty."

44:09.159 --> 44:13.039
"I cannot help you [see,
these are bad object choices,

44:13.036 --> 44:15.506
right?],"
says Speedy the Car.

44:15.510 --> 44:17.490
"I am too busy."

44:17.489 --> 44:19.249
I am very sad.

44:19.250 --> 44:21.430
Then a little car pulls up.

44:21.429 --> 44:23.309
It is my friend, Bumpy.

44:23.309 --> 44:25.579
Bumpy gives me a push.

44:25.579 --> 44:29.299
He pushes and pushes [by the
way, this text,

44:29.304 --> 44:34.244
I think, is very close to its
surface a kind of anal-phase

44:34.239 --> 44:35.279
parable.

44:35.280 --> 44:38.360
In that parable,
the hero is not Tony in fact

44:38.356 --> 44:42.546
but a character with whom you
are familiar if you're familiar

44:42.552 --> 44:46.832
with South Park,
and that character is of course

44:46.827 --> 44:49.337
the one who says,
"He pushes and

44:49.344 --> 44:52.114
pushes…"]
and I am on my way."

44:52.110 --> 44:54.990
[In any case that is part of
the narrative,

44:54.989 --> 44:56.769
and then:]
"Thank you,

44:56.771 --> 44:58.761
Bumpy,"
I call back.

44:58.760 --> 45:00.980
"You're welcome,"
says Bumpy.

45:00.980 --> 45:02.690
Now that's what I call a friend.

45:02.690 --> 45:05.870
So that's the text of Tony
the Tow Truck.

45:05.869 --> 45:08.969
Now we've said that it's
picaresque.

45:08.969 --> 45:13.069
We can think in terms of
repetition, obviously,

45:13.065 --> 45:18.135
as the delay that sets in
between an origin and an end.

45:18.139 --> 45:21.729
We've spoken of this in this
case as--well,

45:21.726 --> 45:26.676
it's the triadic form of the
folk tale that Brooks actually

45:26.679 --> 45:31.809
mentions in his essay;
but it is, in its dilation of

45:31.813 --> 45:37.743
the relationship of beginning
and end, a way of reminding us

45:37.744 --> 45:40.764
precisely of that relation.

45:40.760 --> 45:43.990
He comes from a little yellow
garage.

45:43.989 --> 45:47.299
The question is,
and a question which is perhaps

45:47.302 --> 45:50.902
part of the unnarratable,
is he going back there?

45:50.900 --> 45:53.900
We know he's on his way,
but we don't know,

45:53.900 --> 45:56.400
if we read it in terms of
Beyond the Pleasure

45:56.396 --> 45:59.026
Principle,
whether he's on his way back to

45:59.029 --> 46:01.149
the little yellow garage or
whether--

46:01.150 --> 46:04.030
and there's a premonition of
this in being stuck,

46:04.030 --> 46:05.770
in other words in having broken
down--

46:05.768 --> 46:08.008
whether he's on his way to the
junkyard.

46:08.010 --> 46:11.270
In either case,
the only point is that he will

46:11.269 --> 46:15.469
go to either place because the
little yellow garage is that

46:15.472 --> 46:19.372
from which he came;
in either case--little yellow

46:19.373 --> 46:23.123
garage or junkyard--
he's going to get there on his

46:23.117 --> 46:25.897
own terms,
but not as a narcissist and not

46:25.902 --> 46:29.582
as the person who begins every
sentence in the first part of

46:29.583 --> 46:31.893
the story with the word
"I,"

46:31.891 --> 46:35.011
because you can't just be an
autonomous hero.

46:35.010 --> 46:38.530
On your journey,
and this is also true of the

46:38.534 --> 46:41.664
study of folklore,
you need a helper.

46:41.659 --> 46:44.079
That's part of fiction.

46:44.079 --> 46:46.069
You need another hero.

46:46.070 --> 46:49.790
You need a hero to help you,
and having that hero,

46:49.789 --> 46:53.529
encountering the other mind as
helper,

46:53.530 --> 46:59.280
is what obviates the tendency,
even in a nice guy like Tony,

46:59.280 --> 47:01.900
toward narcissism which is
manifest in the "I,"

47:01.898 --> 47:03.158
"I,"
"I"

47:03.159 --> 47:04.749
at the beginning of the story.

47:04.750 --> 47:06.710
Notice that then the
"I"

47:06.713 --> 47:10.053
disappears, not completely but
wherever it reappears it's

47:10.045 --> 47:12.005
embedded rather than initial.

47:12.010 --> 47:14.090
It is no longer,
in other words,

47:14.094 --> 47:16.924
that which drives the line in
the story.

47:16.920 --> 47:21.160
So the arabesque of the plot,
as I say,

47:21.159 --> 47:24.969
is a matter of encountering bad
object choices and overcoming

47:24.967 --> 47:27.997
them: neatness,
busyness--choices which,

47:27.996 --> 47:30.826
by the way,
are on the surface temptations.

47:30.829 --> 47:33.129
We all want to be neat and
busy, don't we?

47:33.130 --> 47:36.760
But somehow or another it's not
enough because the otherness,

47:36.760 --> 47:41.660
the mutuality of regard that
this story wants to enforce as

47:41.663 --> 47:44.823
life--
as life properly lived--is not

47:44.815 --> 47:49.105
entailed in and of itself in
neatness and busyness.

47:49.110 --> 47:54.560
Resolution and closure,
then, is mature object choice

47:54.559 --> 48:00.219
and in a certain sense there,
too, it's a push forward,

48:00.217 --> 48:04.407
but we don't quite know toward
what.

48:04.409 --> 48:07.929
We have to assume,
though, in the context of a

48:07.934 --> 48:12.954
reading of this kind that it's a
push toward a state in which the

48:12.947 --> 48:17.097
little yellow garage and the
unnarratable junkyard are

48:17.097 --> 48:20.307
manifest as one and the same
thing.

48:20.309 --> 48:23.449
Now as metonymy,
the delays we have been talking

48:23.447 --> 48:26.397
about,
the paratactic structure of the

48:26.403 --> 48:30.133
way in which the story is told--
all of those,

48:30.130 --> 48:35.190
and the elements of repetition,
are forms that we recognize as

48:35.186 --> 48:37.306
metonymic,
but there's something beyond

48:37.309 --> 48:38.649
that at the level of theme.

48:38.650 --> 48:40.870
This is a story about cars.

48:40.869 --> 48:43.979
This is a story about
mechanical objects,

48:43.980 --> 48:46.880
some of which move--remember
those smiling houses in the

48:46.880 --> 48:49.280
background--
and some of which are

48:49.275 --> 48:53.055
stationary, but they're all
mechanical objects.

48:53.059 --> 48:53.939
They're all structures.

48:53.940 --> 48:56.520
In other words,
they're not organic.

48:56.518 --> 49:00.898
This is a world understood from
a metonymic point of view as

49:00.898 --> 49:05.318
that which lacks organicity,
and yet at the same time the

49:05.324 --> 49:09.354
whole point of the story is
thematically metaphoric.

49:09.349 --> 49:12.709
It is to assert the common
humanity of us all:

49:12.706 --> 49:15.836
"That's what I call a
friend."

49:15.840 --> 49:19.460
The whole point of so many
children's stories,

49:19.460 --> 49:21.370
animal stories,
other stories like this,

49:21.369 --> 49:22.659
The Little Engine that
Could,

49:22.659 --> 49:27.069
and so on is to
humanize the world:

49:27.074 --> 49:32.874
to render friendly and warm and
inviting to the child the entire

49:32.867 --> 49:35.947
world,
so that Tony is not a tow

49:35.952 --> 49:40.572
truck--Tony's a human being,
and he realizes humanity in

49:40.567 --> 49:43.637
recognizing the existence of a
friend.

49:43.639 --> 49:46.239
The unity of the story,
in other words,

49:46.239 --> 49:50.109
as opposed to its metonymic
displacements through the

49:50.105 --> 49:53.705
mechanistic,
is the triumphant humanization

49:53.713 --> 49:58.703
of the mechanistic and the fact
that as we read the story,

49:58.699 --> 50:02.339
we feel that we are,
after all, not in mechanical

50:02.338 --> 50:04.688
company but in human company.

50:04.690 --> 50:07.990
That's the effect of the story
and the way it works.

50:07.989 --> 50:09.989
In terms of the pleasure
principle then,

50:09.989 --> 50:14.029
life is best in a human
universe and in terms of--

50:14.030 --> 50:16.750
well, in terms of Beyond the
Pleasure Principle,

50:16.748 --> 50:19.418
the whole point of returning
to an earlier state,

50:19.420 --> 50:21.750
the little yellow garage or
junkyard,

50:21.750 --> 50:27.200
is to avert the threat that one
being stuck will return to that

50:27.199 --> 50:31.329
junkyard prematurely or along
the wrong path.

50:31.329 --> 50:31.789
Okay.

50:31.789 --> 50:36.909
So next time we will turn to
the somewhat formidable task of

50:36.909 --> 50:38.819
understanding Lacan.

50:38.820 --> 50:45.000