si Creative Writers and Daydreaming Sigmund Freud ‘We raven nave alays been intensely curious to know —like the ‘Cardinal who pura similar question to Ariceto—frm what sources that serange being dhe creative writer, devs his material, and ow he mas- tiger fo ake sich an impeston on with i and to ace is eer tions of which, perhaps, we had not even thought oarecles capable. Our imueret is only heightened the more by the fee that, f we ak hi, the ‘writer himsel gives us no explanation, or none tht is stisfactory: and i is ot a all weakened yon knowledge that not even the clearest insight int the determinants of is choice of material ad into the matre of the ae of centing imaginative for will eer help to make erative swcters of If se could a lest dscorer in ourselves o in people like ourscies| an acvity which was in some way akin to erative writing! An exami- ‘ition of it would then give us «hope of obtaining the beginnings of an eninge Sd ral Cm ae ae of Pc a ie pr Lt uo dr a Cop Plea ‘Wr Sand Pra, es ance by Jones Ser endo Hogs Ao fom Ti eel perf Sewn Fra eed Et oe tore! anton etre saperson of Jn Rie. Plated by Base Bete, ty tng wh i Hop Pr iy ade Tc a ycos ‘Amin Laden By prin Bane Bok, oe, Ne Yr cxplination of the crentive work of writers. Aa, indeed, there i some prospect ofthis being posible. After al creative writers themselves like to lessen the distance between dee ind and the common run of hua lity they so often assure us tha every man ia poct at heart and that the 1st poet will ot perish il the ast man does. Should we not lok forthe St tracer of imaginative scivigy as carly a5 in childhood? The chil’sbescloved and most intense oocupe: ton is with his pay o games. Might we not say tha every child st play behaves like a creative writer, in that he eretes 4 world of his own, of rather, rearranges the things of his world ia a new way which pleases him? Ie woul be wrong to think he dos ae take that world seronly cn the contrary, he takes his play very seriously and he expends lage mounts of enwtion oa i. The oppaste of play is aoe whit i serious ‘bur whae is ra In spice ofall the emotion with which he eathets his ‘world of play, the child distaguishes i quite wll fom rity, and he lies wo link hi imagined objects and stations to he tangible nd wisbe things ofthe eal wor. This inking i al that diferentes the ci’ “play from “antsying.” "The creative writer does dhe same asthe child at play. He creates « woeld of fantasy which he takes very serioaly—that which he invests With large amoants of emotion while separating it sharply from realty. Language has preserved this relationship berween childrens play and poetic eeation. Te gies (in German the mime of Sp! [play eo those orm of imaginative wring which requite 1 be linked to tangible ob- Jess and which are capable of representation. It spe of Lap or Trap comedy ing play" and describes those who eatry out dhe representation a Shas: spur {players erally “show players". The unrelty ofthe writers Imaginative world, however, has very important consequences forthe technique of his ar; for many dings which, i they were rel, could give no enjoyment, can do so in the play of fantasy, and many cacitemeats which, in themselves, are scully disresing, cam become source of Pleasure forthe hearers and spectators st the performance of writer’ wt ‘May we really attempt to compare the imaginative writer with the dreamer in road daylight” [Der Triamer om blichten Tag] ad bis eee ‘tions with daydeeams? Here we mst begin by making an iil di tinson. We must separate writers who, Ike the ancient authors of epiand tragedies, tke over their material ready-made from writers who Scem 19 originate their own material. We will keep tothe ater kn, nd, forthe purposes of our comparison, we will choose net the writers ‘mos highly esteemed by the ert, but theless pretentious authors of novels, romances, and shor stores, who nevertheless have the widest and most eager citele of readers of beh sees. One fete above all cannot falc strike us abou the creations ofthese try-uriers cach of them has. a hero whois the cemter of interest, fr whos the writer res win cour sympathy by every posible means aad whom he sems to place ‘under the protection fa special Providence If, tthe end of one cpt of my story, I leave the hero snconscious and bleeding from severe ‘wounds, 1am sure to find him atthe begining ofthe mene being care fully nursed and on the way to recovery andi the ist volume closes ‘ith the ship he i gong down in «storm ats, Tam cera, atthe ‘pening ofthe second volume, to read of his miraculous reseue—a resee Without which the story could oe proceed. The felng of security with ‘whieh T follow the hero through bis perilous adventres i the sie 3¢ the feng with which a hero ia real ie ehrowe himelf nto the water to save ¢ dowaiag man or xpos himslf to the enemy’ fre in order to storm ater. Iris the re heroic feng, which one of ur best, wots his expeesed i an inimitable phrase: "Nothing ean happen to re!" Ieseems to me, however, cht through this revealing charetrietic of invulnerability we ean immediately recognize His Majesty the Fo, the hero ale of every daydream and of every sory. Other typical features of these eacentsc works pint tothe sume Iinship. The fac that all the women in the nove invariably fll in love With the hero ean hardly be loked on a a portrayal of reality, but iis casi understood as aecestary constituent ofa daydreim, The same ie ‘uve of the fact tha he other characters in the story are sharply divided ito good and bud, in defiance of the varity of human characters that ae tobe observed ia rel life. ‘The “good” ones are the helpers, wile ‘the “bad” ones ae the enemies and rials, ofthe ego which has become the hero of the sty We are perfec aware dat very many imaginative writings are fa removed from the model ofthe naive daydream, and yet I eanoe sup ress the suspicion hat even the most extreme deviations fom thet model ould be linked with it through an uninterrupted series of transitional cass, It has stuck me tha in many’ of whit ae known a “psycholog cal” novels only one person—once agsin the hero—is deserbed frm within, The autor sit insides mind, aie were, and looks tthe other characters from outside. The psychological navel in general no doute we its spec nature tothe inclination of the modern wrter to split up bis ego, by seiobservation, into many partegos, and, in consequence, fo pernity the confiting curves of his own mental lie i several Jieses; Crain novels, which might be described a “ccente seem (0 ‘standin quite special cntrst othe type ofthe daydream. In these, the ‘ern who is induced a che ero plays only very small active pars he sees the actions and sufferings of other people pas tore in ike 8 spectator. Many of Zai'slater works belong to thi eategory Bue | must Poin ut that the psychological analysis of individuals who are ot ere sive writers and who diverge in some respects fom the socaled norm, ‘as shown us analogous variations ofthe daydream, in which the ego contents itself withthe role of spostatr. ~ Four comparison of the imaginative writer with the daydreamer, ‘nd of poten creation with the daydream, is to be of any vale, i ‘mos, above all, show ie in some way or other fruitful. Let us, for insance ey to apply to these authors” works the thesis we laid down caries concerning the relation becween fntsy and the chee periods of tine snd the wish whieh euns through them, andy wth ts help lets fy to study the connections that exist betwee the ife of the write and his works. No one has known, asa rule, what expectations to frame in ‘pproaching this problem; and afen the connection hasbeen thought of ia meh too simple terms. In he light ofthe insight we have aained from fantasies, we ought wo expect the flowing state of afi. A strong. experience inthe present awakens inthe crestive writer a memory uf st ‘ace experience (asully bloging to his childhood) fom which there sow process a wish which find is flillmentin the ceive work. The work itself exhibits elements of the eecent provoking ocason a well a of he old memory. ‘Do not be alarmed atthe compleity of this formula. H suspect that in face ic wil prove to be too exiguos& patter. Nevertheless, it may ‘ots a frst approach to the restate of aff; ad fom Some ek. periments [have made, Iam inclined wo think thit this way of looking ‘creative writings may earn out not unfeuitfal. You will noe forget that the stress it lys on ehldbood memories in the write’s hfews sees. Which may perhaps seem puaaling—i akimately derived from thecompton tht pee of eee wating, ie 3 daydream, contin St ofan nbstiate for, whet wa one the pay of eidood "het at nes, howerer ogo back he nd of aise ors hh we hae w recog, nt arial crenons, but he SERIO ot rentymade a ocala acl ven ber the write {Sipe n crn smvet af tdeendec, which cn expres isl nthe SSE tn in cigar in wih ae fen qe extensive iar a the mara aedy a an, howe, deed fom 1a ope eure bse of yh; gaa ry ts. The tay Seto a fl pyeoloy Sch tae sf om Wig Misa har tu earenely poate at ty fr ace, ae ore geo the wfl mas of wie mains he meer dom youth ban Notes 1. Cardinal Ippolito DE was Avot fst puso, 10 whom be de cot he Orde Porn ‘The pote oly reward the question: Where did Yoneda ey sso, ac Sg ay dine goebcea™ Thi pase fm Anzengrbe, he Vie: se eaves of Frey, Se Ting fr Tee ‘iar and Death Caled Pago, 385 Sond Bi 1496. 3S Sigmund Freud, Os Nerssm: An a, «9 Stand Ein, 189 nar ir sea be gested by Fra in eae Pes of Jly ign he aj aoe of CoB. Mayers sort re Fred, ‘ri of Pye nas New Nok Ba Bak, 50h Laer 9 8 2, The Interpretation of Dreams Sigmund Freud oe Ousipus Reis capable of moving 2 modern rade or play goer no less powerflly then it moved the contemporary Greeks, the only prnile explanation is tit the efor of the Greek tragedy doesnot de Pend upon the eater between fite and human wily bt upon the pe falar acute of dhe material by which this confit is reveled, There ‘must be a voice within us which i pepured to acknowledge the come palling power of fie in the Opus, while we ae able to condemn the Situations occuring in Die Awrau or other tages of fit a arbitrary inventions. And cere actually i a motive ia the story of King Oedipus shih explain the verdict ofthis inner voice. His fate moves wonky becuse it might have been our own, because the orile laid pon Iefare our bird the very curse which rested upon biz, emay be chat | vee were all destined to dice ou fst sexual impulues toward our moth | 5, and our fist impulses of hatred and violene eward our fthers; oar reams convince ut that we were. King Ondipus, who slew his father live and wedded his mother Jocasta, is nothing more or less than 2 wish fllnest—ehefafillment of the wish of our childhood. But we, om Te Be Wri f Smad Fr, A.A. Hl, MLD. ad Sew Ya Ren He, Mara ier 1998. Cops reed © 965 Gn BB ‘linn! RB Rep by perme 9more fortunate than he, in so far ab we have not Become payehoneuret- Ea have since our childhood socredad in withdrawing oor sexu im poles from our mothers, and ia forgetting our jelossy of on fthes. {We reo fom the person fr whom tis primitive wish of ou cilbood ‘os boon fale with ll the face ofthe repression which these wishes fave undergone im wut minds sine childhood. As the pot brings the fui of Outipus to light by his inverigntin, be fores ws to become Neate of our own inner selves, in which the sume impulses ate sil ex ‘ann even though they are suppressed. The antithesis with which the chorus departs ehold, this s Oedipus, ‘Who unraveled che gett riddle, and as fist in power, ‘Whose foraae all the towasmen praised and envied See in what dead adversity he sank — this adepnition touches us and our own pride us who since the years GF our childhond have grown so wise and So powerfl in our own ex Staion, Like Oedipus we live in igaorance ofthe deste that offend TDoraity, the desires that aarure has forced upon us, an afte cei Un “Vllng we may well prefer to avert our gaze from the scenes of our ctildbood| To the very text of Sophocles sragedy there isan unmistakable re reae tothe ft that the Oedipus legend had is source in dresme-marei ‘immemorial antiquity, the eooteatof which was the painfal distur tance ofthe chil’ relation to ts parents caused by the fst impulses ‘rauality,Jocastacomforss Osdipas—who i not ye enlightened, but {fteoubled by the reolleetion ofthe ortle—by an allusion toa dream Ueki offen dreamed, though i cannot, in her opinion, mean 20)- thing For many 2 man hut seen himself dreams His mothers mate, but he who gies no heed. ‘To suche matters bears the easier ie “The dream of having sens intercourse with one's mother was 38 com ‘mon then a iis today with many people who tell t with indigoation fd astonishment. As bay well be imagine, its the Key to the ragedy tnd the complement tothe dream of te death ofthe father. The Oxi pus fable is the reaction of fanary to these two typical dreams, and just > erngreaceseege emergent nono cee 2s such a dream, when oocuring to an alt, i experienced with fectings of aversion, so the content of the fable must iaclude terror and sl ‘hasisemeat. The form which it subsoquenly assumed was the result of an uncomprehending secondary elaboration of the material, which Sough to make i serve thelagclinteaion* The attempt to reconcile Aline omipogence with human responsibility must, of course, fil with ‘his mater as with any other ‘Another of the gest pot ages, Shakespeare's Ham, roted | in the sme sil a Our Rex, But the whole diference isthe psyehic lie ofthe two widely separated pera of civiiation, andthe progres ring the coarse of time, of repression in the emotional feof human: iy, ie manifesta ia the diferingtrestmeat of the same material. Io ‘Osis Rex the basic wish fantasy of the eld is beoughr to life and realized sit is in dreams; in Homi i ermsne repressed, and we learn 1 ts exitence—as we discover the relevant fre in 2 newosis—only ‘cough the inhibitory effect which proced from i. Inthe more mod fm drama, che curios fac that tx posible to remain in complete wn- ‘certainty as to the characte of the hero has proved tobe ite coasistent ‘vith the overpowering effee of the tragedy. ‘The play i based upon. Harlrs hesiaton in accomplishing the task of revenge assigned to hi: the text does ao give the eatse othe mative of this hesitation, nor have the manifold sempre a interpretation suceeded in doing 50. According to the all prevailing conception, a conception for which Gocthe was fit responsible, Hale cepresents the typeof man whose active energy ‘3 paralyned by exceasive neleral acy “Siclid fr with che pale ‘ast of though.” According to another conception, the oct as endear ‘wed to portray & morbid, irsnlte charscer, on the Verge of neuas- thenia. The plot ofthe drama, however, shows us that Hamlet i by no ‘cane icended t appear a = character wholly incapable of ation. On ‘wo spare occasions we sce him asser himself: once in a sudden out borst of rage, when be sabe the eavesdropper behind the ara, and 08 the ther ocasion when he deliberately, and even erty, with the com plete unscrapalousnes of prince of the Renaissance, sends the evo cour fers to the death which was intended for hima. What i then, that Inhibit him in accomplishing the ask which his father’ ghost has aid ‘pon him? Here the explanation offers itself thac iis the peculiar ature this cask. Hat abe to do anyehing but ake vengeance upon the Iman who did away with is father aad has taken his father’s ple wich uhis mother—the nan who shows him in realization the repressed desires of his own childhood. The lsthing wbich should have driven im to revenge i thus replaced by selé-reproach, by conscientious scruples ‘hic cll hi hat he himeif no heer han dhe murderer whom be Te requred to punish, Ihave bere walt into consciousness what bad to remtin unciascious inthe sind of che hero: if anyone wishes to ell “amie «hysterical subject | cannot but admic that this iste deduction to be dawn fom my interpretstion. The sexual aversion which Hamlet Cxprescr ia conversion with Ophelia is perfecy consistent with this ‘lsction the same sexual aversion which diag the next few years ‘ras increasingly to take possession ofthe poet's soul, unt it found its Inpreme uterance in Timon of Aer. It an, af course, be nly the posts Gur payhlogy wth which 9 are confronted in Homle and in 3 work fon Shakespeare by Georg Brandes (1896) I find the staterear thatthe drama was composed immediately after the death of Shakespear’ father {rena is to by, when he ws still mourning his loss, and during + revival a we may fly assume of is own chsh fecings in respect (this father. Tes known, too hat Shakespeare's on, who ded in chil hood, bore the name of Herne identeal with Hamlet). Jat as Homie trea ofthe ration of the son to is parents, so Marizb which was Seiten about tbe same period is based spon the theme of chldlesnes. jst as all neurotiespmptoms, tke dreams themselves, are capable of hhyperiaterpretation, and even require such hyper-interpettion before they become perfectly inti, so every genuine poets eatin must have proceded fra more than one mative, more than one impube in the mind ofthe poet and must admit of mote than one interpretation. 1 have here atemped to interpret only the depes stra of pulses in the ming ofthe erative poet. Notes 1. None ofthe doves of pyc reer has exo sich ceniterd triton ich fro pein, od a sich eer ‘Shits af encom thie nde a the iaconans ingles of childhood ‘ich survive inthe tesco Am tempt as even been made een, 8 ‘Eke al eaprienn to sia uly 4nymbolie™signibance to net Fe ert hs ent ingens remerpettion of the Onps myth, bse so » 1 i one noe of Sgn et Ima, vl 1 Te “Otis Eee,” which was otal to ere Fe Dnt of rams at though further ty oft bet sped an wnerpced sigibeanc eranig of a Hoy Se Sasi Se Sleanig oan sas ogo a my. Se 1"Se the deam-tril exibition, Bas Wet, pp. 201-95 8