equally thoughtful, indeed meditative, reply. That must be foregone. But there is one specific point in Angel Medina's commentary that deserves contradiction. Commenting that I do not handle the literary codes with assurance, he asserts: The phenomenon of repression fits better the code of persons than the code of actions. Mr. Medina's statement represents a traditional view of the place allowed to psychoanalysis in literary criticism, and some determination to keep it in its place. Psychoanalytically based literary criticism has usually been exercised in three areas: the psychogenesis of texts (the author's unconscious), the psychodynamics of literary response (the reader's unconscious), and the psychoanalysis of fictional characters (postulating an unconscious for them in order to explore occult motivation and to establish psychoanalytic typologies). Mr. Medina allows the pertinence of the psychoanalytic concept of repression in the third category-the code of persons-whereas it is my contention that all three categories are largely impertinent, and that we should be looking (and working) elsewhere: toward a psychoanalytically informed textual criticism, one that, for the moment at least, may find its most powerful exercise in the superimposition of literary and psychoanalytic texts, in an intertextual play between them.
Read full abstract