Applying Reality to Dreams

Some would say that the interpretation of dreams closely parallels the interpretation of texts (such as novels), and I would have to agree with them; however, it seems that just as a text can be given meaning or over-analyzed so can a dream.

In an excerpt from Sigmund Freud’s The Interpretation of Dreams, Freud discusses how in a dream, what we remember of the dream after we wake up is usually only a small part of the actual dream itself. He goes on to talk about how dreams should not always be represented by pictures, because they are so much larger than what a mere picture could describe. This could easily be applied to any work by saying that the physical words on the page are small representations of the greater meaning of the text as a whole.

However, Freud also states, “the elements of the dream are constructed out of the whole mass of dream-thoughts and each one of those elements is shown to have been determined many times over in relation to the dream-thoughts” (318). I think what he is trying to say here is that each “element” is created by multiple smaller, related “thoughts.” These elements and thoughts contained in the dream link to another idea or thought within the dream to create a giant web of interlocking thoughts.

An example of a dream...
What does this tree mean to you?

What I do not understand, however, is how Freud knows that dreams are created from “dream-thoughts.” If one is really asleep, then they are not consciously creating meaning from these thoughts while in slumber. Is it possible to presuppose the aspects of the conscious mind to a sleeping one? Could it be that the elements in our dreams can relate, but maybe they also contain entirely separate “meaning” or no meaning at all?

For example, let’s say that the setting of your dream has a small meadow with one tree. Is this one tree related to everything else? Does it have some greater meaning or symbolism? Maybe it represents your desire to become mature and settle down–be more confident in yourself… and maybe it is just a tree.

In The Scarlet Letter, Hawthorne follows Hester and Pearl into the forest to meet with Dimmesdale. Along the pathway there, the sun appears to only shine on Pearl; the moment Hester gets near it goes away. Is this symbolic of the sun’s fear of Hester’s sin? The sun refuses to shine on Hester because it is ashamed for her? Some could make that argument; however, it is more likely that Hawthorne is playing with our eagerness to ‘see symbols’ everywhere we look. So in this scene, the sun for all purposes is just the sun.

And while Freud has a valid point about the related aspects of dreams (and likewise works), as Hawthorne displays in his novel, there is also the human element in which we place our own meanings onto components of dreams when we wake up–which are then of course once again limited by our own knowledge and connotations.

Fear of a Name

Reading the introduction and first few chapters of Naomi Klein’s No Logo was quite fascinating. The concept of “branding” and what it means to actually advertise is an interesting topic, and based on what I read, it also seems that it has the ability to become quite controversial. Before reading this, I would probably have fit into the category of “jaded customer,” if such categories existed. In my mind, advertisements and such are, for the most part, simply annoying. I live with them each day, I deal with them each day, yet each day they seem unavoidable.

(The above picture is simply for dramatic affect, attempting to prove my point...)

Is the advertising industry taking over our lives?? Considering I was already “jaded” to begin with, a closer look at this ginormous industry only proved my point. We cannot escape ads. Yet despite all these amazing new marketing promotions, it seems that the customer is getting gypped. No matter how good the advertising, the product remains the same. That is not to say that products have not improved over time–I am sure they have–but rather that maybe companies aren’t focusing enough of their attention on creating good, safe, effective products for members of society.

Although I am sure some people know the truth, I would guess numerous Americans pay large sums of money, thinking that they are receiving a higher quality product, when, in reality, they are paying for the brand name of the product (whether it be a well known laundry detergent or “designer” jeans). As Klein discuses in her book, these brands are becoming more important than the product itself. What does this say about companies? That they are heartless? It would seem so. More importantly, however, what does this say about us–the consumers? Why has society put up with low quality products and endured hours upon hours of endless advertising? Do we lack the proper voice? Or do we lack the proper courage?

Personally, I wouldn’t mind if a company cut their advertising spending in half and used that other half to better their product. This seems like a logical conclusion. But companies today are more focused on the image of their product. They don’t try to sell diamonds or shoes, they sell love and sports­–abstract concepts or ideas that cannot be packaged and shipped to an address. Marx indirectly comments on this with his discussion of fetishism in “The Fetishism of the Commodity and Its Secret.” A fetish is commonly defined as something that is revered or awed because it is believed to have magical powers of some sort. His concepts of “fetishism” can easily be applied to the theory of “brands.” Both are giving objects power through giving the name itself power. Once a “brand” or name has power, this control is then automatically transferred to the product it’s associated with. As Dumbledore says in Harry Potter and The Sorcerer’s Stone, “Fear of a name increases fear of the thing itself.”

A Combined Effort

Well… My first attempt at a blog did not seem to go so well, and there are a few things I wish to amend/clarify, so I will attempt to do so in this blog. So to completely start over, here it goes:

Authors, text, words, language, circumstances, society, etc… all play a key role in the interpretation of a text. However, it is important to remember that not every single text will need context or background knowledge. I believe that it is crucial for each text or work to be evaluated individually. One should not make broad assumptions for all works based on experiences with certain cases. I spoke earlier of a “persona,” and by this I was mainly referring to the narrator of the story or work. An author does not always write as him or herself, and this character in the work must be given attention similar to the author.

I must further amend my previous statements, however, after reading Fish’s “How to Recognize a Poem When You See One” and then viewing Williams’s poem, “This is just to say.” Although I do not agree with everything Fish says, he does make a valid point when he claims that each of us is affected by the world around it whether we realize it or not. We are a product of where we were born, the society in which we live, and the people we interact with.

Because of this, it seems that in all cases resides the problem where it is impossible to view a work completely “objectively.” The work was written in the way it was written because of how the author learned, what he was taught, and how he grew up. These deceivingly small details reside in the very fabric of the language and cannot be escaped.

There will always be a certain meaning that the author wants readers to come away with–whether it is simply the literal meaning of the text or some more complex idea behind it–but then there will also usually be extra things in the text that the reader sees and makes significant, even if it’s not. These small ‘misinterpretations’ are nearly impossible to avoid, however, because of the very nature of language. There are certain words that will always have multiple meanings, and certain connotations each reader will feel for a different idea or expression. Because of this, works become a combination of both the author’s and the reader’s intent.

As an example of multiple interpretations and "author's intent," I have placed a common optical illusion above (and to the right) to demonstrate. Do you see an old lady? A young woman turning her head? Which does the artist intend you to see? Does the artist assume you will see both?