“Literary critic Harold Bloom wrote that Heart of Darkness had been analyzed more than any other work of literature that is studied in universities and colleges, which he attributed to Conrad’s “‘unique propensity for ambiguity.’” [Wikipedia information]
“Let’s take in an old movie tonight. Have you seen The Hunger?” “Will I like it?” “It is delicious.”
Many claim to have a hunger for knowledge. Knowing about the types of critics may satisfy that hunger.
Should you like to dig you teeth into an oldie-but-goodie–but a special treat–locate a copy of The Dynamics of Literary Response by Norman N. Holland (1968). You will not go away unsatisfied.
He writes that our first pleasures that quieted us were oral pleasures, satiating our hunger. We were held by a mother, nurtured by a mother. Here is the foundation for taking in “pleasure”–artistic or literary. Yum!
From there, remember memoriesofatime being read to, and how pleasurable it was, being cuddled or curled up to someone or in someone’s lap? More gratification and satisfaction.
And we curl up and watch a good movie with some ice cream. Or our movie-going or movie-watching is a feast sometimes, actual appetite satisfaction with popcorn and soda (pop), Twizzlers, and perhaps even nachos.
We read or attend, for pleasure, maybe even receiving pain; but we manage feelings that are virtual. Even though, as Holland says, we “devour books,” and are sometimes “voracious readers,” taking it all in.
The Psycho Critics help us find our way through the maze of our dreams and fantasies, help us clarify muddled images, awake or not. And even help us understand art and literature through knowing our earliest awarenesses of gratification and satisfaction.
All that food and drink (and drugs) in movies do play a role in our “liking” or “not liking” a movie.