Stan: I've read the Murray article -- and it doesn't even begin to
explain why the Bridge response has been rejected. It's a lousy
source to turn to.
Eric: Granted, Murray and Murray can be gnomic, unfathomable, and
unnecessarily lapidary. Plus the writing style is difficult. And
indeed, much is left unanswered.
For example, is Murray and Murray one person or two?* And is it
necessary to know Piaget in order to have an unconscious? If so, how
well does one have to know Piaget?**
To me it's obvious that we have no idea what's going on in our
minds. Otherwise we wouldn't all be insane. Whether a therapist can
bring this repressed material to the surface and, indeed, what the
surface is a surface of, remains sublimely inscrutable.
As for word play and puns, it's been shown that it takes a writer
at least a dozen puns to get one published.*** Hardly worth the
trouble of having an unknown mind is it?
____
* See Klopstock, Gervin, "Take it to the Bridge(s): Segue in the
Bridges of Madison County," Lit-Ideas Press, Fresno, 2005.
**See Tyner, McCoy, "To No-no-no You," American Bodybuilder, May, 1998.
------------------------------------------------------------------ To change your Lit-Ideas settings (subscribe/unsub, vacation on/off, digest on/off), visit www.andreas.com/faq-lit-ideas.html
