Obviously, they are instrumental in deconstructing the fiction/non fiction opposition. According to Freud the case studies are definitely non fiction. Throughout 'Dora' he claims he is not writing fiction, that he is not a 'man of letters.' Rather than simple fiction, this supremely modernist writer proclaims the birth of a new Science. He demonstrates to the reader how easy it is to discover concrete facts about the unconscious by simple Holmesian observation and deduction. Through Method, Freud purports to create Truth. The question the postmodern theorist raises is simply: Whose truth?
Theorists such as Feyerabend and Lyotard have limited the boundaries of truth and deconstructed the idea of a rational, objective Science. If the reader fails to interpellate Freud's ideology then the boundary between truth and fiction is significantly blurred. Freud assumes that he and only he is capable of telling Dora's story. Her continued denials that his version is not her story are glossed over as her hysteria. The power relations contained in the doctor-patient relationship leave Dora without a voice and deny her subjectivity. If one reverses that power relationship, and gives precedent to Dora's representation, then one is left with a very different narrative. 'Dora' becomes a projection of Freud's fantasies and neuroses, not an expose of Dora's.
There are hundreds of very similar works created in the same time period, which, not having the benefit of science, are termed pornography, or romantic fiction. Freud's conviction that Dora is secretly sexually attracted to practically anyone and everyone she meets, including Freud, is echoed even in contemporary pornography, which is not deemed literature. Why then is Freud privileged? His contempt of women, demonstrated by his treatment of not only Dora but every woman in the narrative, is a common thread in several of the novels in this syllabus, including those by Joyce, Camus, and Forster. Women, it would appear, are still subject to the Virgin/Whore dichotomy. That is, they can either be representations of good, as demonstrated by Conrad's 'Intended' the only woman in the book, who will grieve for Kurtz for the rest of her life. The only alternative is the representation of woman as whore, repeated over and over again, in The Rainbow, and The Outsider for example. In this selection of texts, women are lucky to get names, and even when they do they are still conceived in terms of their sexuality. Molly Bloom, Ursula, and Adela Quested, although very different representations of women are all conceived and presented through their sexuality. They are all presented in relation to their respective men, and end the books fundamentally changed through their sexual experiences. Unsurprisingly, it is the only woman writer of the syllabus who is able to present women in terms of their own subjectivity. Lily Briscoe is the only woman who completely fails to achieve anything through a man, and it is only through rejecting Mr Ramsey, that she is able to finish her painting.
I would suggest that it is the bluntness of Freud's contempt for Dora that alerts the reader to the possibility of other truths, which echoes in the other strongly autobiographical texts on the course. Like 'Dora,' Conrad's Heart of Darkness is based on fact, Conrad took the same journey that he portrays as Marlow's, and although he purports not to have encountered any Kurtz-like characters we only have his word for that. Given the myths that circulate and the facts concerning the activities of the colonial masters in the Belgian Congo, it seems far more likely that he did encounter a Kurtz, than that Dora was in love with everyone around her, (with the sole exclusion, perhaps, of her mother). Similarly, it can be assumed that Forster representations of the English in India is based on several that he encountered during his travels around that country. Woolf's diaries clearly show that To The Lighthouse is a eulogy to her parents and family -- an attempt to understand them. Given that Woolf is permitted to tell her own narrative, a privilege denied Dora, it is far more likely that hers is the accurate and factual representation, not 'Dora.' It becomes difficult to see why 'Dora' is classed as objective science, and the above not.
Aside from raising questions as to the division of fact and fiction, 'Dora' can also be used to demonstrate the challenge the author principle. Freud constructs himself as much as he constructs his character Dora. It is possible to hypothesise that the 'Freud' in the text, the narrator character, bears as little relation to the author Sigmund Freud as 'Dora' does to the historical person, Ida Bauer. If one removes the significance of Freud then Dora stands alone as fiction, similar physically to Heart of Darkness. Both Marlow and Freud are attempting to rescue another character, bring them back in to civilisation where they belong. Just as Dora is incapable of confirming Freud's ideology, putting herself beyond rescue, so Kurtz is also unable. Just as Dora is unable to accept Freud and through Freud society's expectations, so Meursault is similarly unable. Dora is lucky to escape with her life -- Kurtz and Meursault do not get off so lightly. Unlike Freud and Dora however, Camus appears to have no need to rescue Meursault.
Thus 'Dora' demonstrates the changing role of the narrator within a work of fiction. In the simplest sense the narrator has developed from a mimetic representation with a sense of wholeness -- a recognizable constructed human being -- to more fragmented characters who are less god-like, narrators who are only able to define what they know and feel, not tie up the text in an understandable whole for the reader. Narrators (and authors) no longer present a narrative that resolves all the problems within the text, but rather one that is left at the end of the text, without a coherent world, confused by what has happened throughout the text.
However, the role of the character has also changed throughout the twentieth century. The opposition that Forster created between flat and round characters has been deconstructed along with the requirement for characters to be god-like in their construction. Forster drew a distinction between two types of characters: flat and round. The rounded characters were those that were the main characters in the work, complex characters that developed as the plot progressed. Through a series of events they came to understand the world that they lived in, and altered in reaction to that understanding. Flat characters, on the other hand, are simple characters explained only in terms of the main character. They do not develop themselves, they merely provided the impetus and chance for the main characters to develop. Although Dora's story is explained throughout the narrative, she is unable to develop. Freud, on the other hand, is able to further his understanding. His character is able to develop both within himself as the passages on transference demonstrate, and also develop his science. However, in Joyce's Ulysses, Bloom, Molly, and Dedalus all develop throughout the course of the book. Their characters undergo fundamental changes over the course of the day, which it is assumed will continue after the snapshot of their lives that is the tenuous plot of Ulysses ends. For example Bloom begins the book as a cringing man, accepting and furthering his wife's infidelity, to a 'stronger' man, who ends the book with much more backbone, willing to stand up to Molly, and 'put his foot down.' The need for the character to develop is no longer a requirement for the main characters. Meursault, the anti-hero from Camus' The Outsider, does not undergo fundamental changes throughout the book. In fact, he is unable to undergo such changes, leading to his death within the text.
Further to this change in the role of the character is the diminishing of the importance of the character. In Heart of Darkness, the movement of the text depends on Marlow. Although Marlow is framed by an external narrator, who sets the scene and gives the description of Marlow that he is unable to do. Marlow takes over the narrative, and proceeds to inform the reader of his journey into the Belgian Congo. Conrad uses Marlow and his constructed traits of curiosity, and doggedness, to enthral the reader in the plot. The reader is expected to echo Marlow's curiosity about Kurtz, to become intrigued as Marlow becomes intrigued, and to follow Marlow's investigation, desperately waiting for Marlow to answer the reader's questions. Marlow is recognisable as a human being, he becomes the reader's friend, the reader his confidant. For Heart of Darkness to work as an intriguing narrative, the reader must join the sailors on the deck of the boat, in the opening chapter of the book. Marlow is constructed as the detective who has completed the journey, who holds the answer. The reader is well aware that Marlow knows what has happened to Kurtz, and that Marlow will inform the reader at a suitable point in the narrative. That is Marlow's role as the main character within a Modernist novel, in a way that it is not Oedipa's from Pynchon's The Crying of Lot 49. Pynchon's novel is not dependent on Oedipa, she is not responsible for the plot developing. Oedipa demonstrates how far the role of the character has come, in that the reader is aware that she will not present the key to understanding in a detective-like fashion. She may discover who or what Tristero is, and then again she may not. Similarly, she is not a whole character in the sense of Marlow, or Freud. Oedipa is fragmented, whereas Marlow is contained within the novel. Oedipa fulfils a role other than that of actor, she performs tasks that do not further the plot, she merely exists, in a much more human manner. Unlike Freud, however, Oedipa and Pynchon are able to accept her fragmentation. Freud assumes that since Dora is unable to fit in her designated role within society she is mad. Pynchon assumes that since Oedipa is unable to accept her role she is sane and the world that she inhabits is mad.
I feel that is the legacy that postmodernism will leave narrative fiction. The emphasis that postmodernism places on the legitimacy of many different truths, and on the ability to only be able to speak your own subjective truth places Freud on a par with Jackie Collins (although a far higher standard of writing!). Freud has created Dora, and a view of Victorian Vienna, in the same way that any other author creates their characters from their 'real' narrative. Freud challenges the validity of any one genre over another. The modernist notions of Science are largely deconstructed, and instead of erecting a new god to worship, postmodernism has erected many godlings that are each as valid as other, and each as opposable. The removal of privileged position of fact versus fiction is the challenge that the postmodernist writers have risen to. The Other is now permitted to speak for themself, as demonstrated by the post colonial writers such as Rushdie who are attempting to speak outside dominant ideologies. Freud started the need to round characters psychologically: that is his strong point. He also freed sex from the repressed corner in which Victorian morality placed it. However, he created a template for an entirely new set of repressions, and demonstrated that female characters are sexually mad. The challenge for fiction is to rise above his legacy, to create characters that can be fragmented, characters whose voices have just as much legitimacy as the authors' or the narrator's. The challenge he leaves for readers is to accept that the author is not privileged, that the text exists outside the author's control, and their ideology is not necessarily the only one.
Bibliography
Adams, R M, 1977, After Joyce: Studies in Fiction After Ulysses, Oxford University Press, New York.
Lodge, D 1988, Modern Criticism and Theory: A Reader, Longman, London.
Lynn, D H 1989, The Hero's Tale: Narrators in the Early Modern Novel Macmillan, London.
Rimmon-Kenan, S 1983, Narrative Fiction: Contemporary Poetics, Methuen, London.
Tambling, J 1991, Narrative and Ideology, Open University Press, Bristol USA.