tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post1152547429122279355..comments2009-07-12T15:24:11.029-04:00Maja Djikichttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16522265542660035768noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-73759278647962645002009-07-12T15:24:11.029-04:002009-07-12T15:24:11.029-04:00Thanks, Bill. I am very committed to interdisciplinary cooperation, but it does not always happen. I guess what occurs is that many people have already made commitments to what they think is sensible and what they think is not. But given what you say about Freudian and Jungian explications, perhaps I should flash my membership card: I did a training in psychoanalytic/phenomenological therapy with Ronnie Laing (quite a while ago, when all that was going in London). But perhaps not ... what I say will be more like the stuff we discuss on this site. So, I will let you know how that goes down.Keith Oatleyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16419339550879570935noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5455277388900637928.post-15253151418270597672009-07-10T16:48:27.718-04:002009-07-10T16:48:27.718-04:00I'll be interested in hearing what kind of reaction you get, Keith. As you know, most humanistic interest in the psychology of fiction has been in Freudian or Jungian explication. The sort of psychological investigation you do is quite different. That humanists are interested in that kind of psychology, that is encouraging.bill benzonhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08360044945265178991noreply@blogger.com