The Psychoanalytic Theme in Margaret Atwood's Fiction: A Response to Burkhard Niederhoff*1
Bibliographic record
Abstract
IIn Margaret Atwood's 2003 dystopian novel, Oryx and Crake, the protagonist and narrator Jimmy - later known as Snowman - persistently presses the beautiful and enigmatic Oryx for details of her exotically traumatic past; Tell me one thing (114), he pleads. Born into geographically un-located third world poverty and sold into child slavery - working first as beggar, then filmed for paedophilic pornography - before entering North America as state-sanctioned sex worker, Oryx's history is litany of degradation and abuses. For Jimmy, this necessarily equates to trauma; Oryx has suffered, in Ian Hacking's term, spiritual lesion, wound to the soul (Hacking 4).2 Faced with her determined refusal to recover and examine further memories of her exploited childhood, Jimmy reads Oryx's reluctance as an admission of unacknowledged horror and shame; thought he understood her vagueness, her evasiveness. 'It's alright/ he told her, stroking her hair. 'None of it was your fault'; but Oryx deflects his sympathy with the maddeningly ingenuous response: None of what, Jimmy? (114). Oryx refuses Jimmy's invitation to speak her trauma, to enact a recovery of lost memories of pain (Hacking 3), and thereby achieve self-knowledge and self-acceptance. Discussing the novel's interrogation of Crake's purportedly therapeutic scientific project (Dunning 87), Stephen Dunning suggests that, through her silence, Oryx both secures herself against penetrating intellectual curiosity and becomes the of perpetual mystery (96). Despite her silent resistance, however, Jimmy simply amalgamates her reticence within psychoanalytic narrative of repression and denial: Where was her rage, he ponders; how far down was it buried, what did he have to do to dig it up? (142).In his insistence that Oryx should react 'appropriately' - with anger, hatred and distress - to her childhood trauma, and in his assumption that about the past will bring her greater clarity (and that such insight would be ipso facto beneficial), Jimmy casts himself in the role of psychoanalyst and saviour. He invites Oryx to enter into the talking cure (Freud, Psychoanalysis 184) - to undergo what Sigmund Freud once referred to as cleansing of the soul (Psychoanalysis 184) - and be healed. In his pursuit of her unconscious self, vague recollections become dreamlike memory symbols (Psychoanalysis 187) with revelatory potential; chasing incidental details that resist signification, Jimmy fantasises about psychoanalytic breakthroughs: there it would be, the red parrot, the code, the password, and then many things would become clear (138). It is certainly curative procedure that Jimmy himself would like to engage in. last man standing in post-apocalyptic world, Jimmy longs for sympathetic ear into which he might unburden his heavy soul, and he cries out in his desolation: Just someone, anyone, listen to me please! (45). Atwood, however, proves sceptical of the psychoanalytic - specifically, Freudian - method. As auditor-analyst, Jimmy, who first encounters Oryx as just another little girl on porno site (90), is inextricably entangled in web of voyeurism, vicarious thrills, and pleasurable indignation. And as implied western readers of this exotically oriental misery memoir, we too are painfully, irresistibly, implicated in Jimmy's desire to plumb ever greater depths of poverty and sexual degradation. truth, it seems, does not always set us free, and revelations of past traumas are not always productive and therapeutic. This anxiety around the efficacy of psychoanalytic practice - as Niederhoff valuably demonstrates in his article on Atwood - is concern that the writer repeatedly returns to in her fiction.IIIn The Return of the Dead, Niederhoff compares Atwood's 1972 novel Surfacing to the 1996 novel, Alias Grace. former, which Niederhoff rightly notes has attained the status of classic work of contemporary fiction, commences with its unnamed narrator heading up into northern Quebec in search of her missing father. …
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".