Lauren loves Jung better

I was not unfamiliar with Freud before reading this book. Although it expanding on many of his theories, I come away with the same understanding of the man’s work and contributions to the psychological field. Again, as with the Marx book, I found myself unhappy with the format. Maybe I’m just channeling my dislike of graphic novels, but I thought the format was distracted and clumsy, skipping over some important points (his entire outlook changed during his later years with the development of the id-ego-superego theory, one of his most enduring contributions, and they devoted so little time to it!), and poorly explaining other points.

But despite all that, I thought the emphasis on the unconscious and Freud’s dedication to scientific reason was well portrayed. I also really enjoyed how they traced back his theories to classical myths and stories. Though they sexualized them a bit too much for my liking (and skimped on the details for people unfamiliar with the mythology) I share the view that humanity has expressed some of its most important desires and values through its myths. I’ve always preferred Jung over Freud for this reason… Jung desexualized much of Freud’s theories, which I believe is correct. Libido makes much more sense when seen as a generalized passion, rather than something inherently sexual, for example, and childhood anxieties don’t need to be linked to repressed sexuality. In this respect I think Jung was ahead of the curve a little more than Freud. So with that, I’m going to complain we’re not concentrating on Jung more in this class. If we are discussing the unconscious, psycho-analysis, etc, and how those play into the role of the artist and what the artist creates, Jung comes out as the more significant person in my opinion.