INTRODUCTION
What follows is a commentary on the novel that
I wrote as the creative component of my M.Phil
work. The novel, that I plan to publish as a book,
is called Pomegranate Flesh. It is a retelling
of the Greek myths of Demeter/Persephone and Narcissus
tangled up together. It is set in a mythic, ambiguously
ancient landscape but the issues the characters
face are modern issues. Demeter is faced with
‘empty nest’ syndrome. Kora, who during
the course of the story becomes Persephone, is
travelling through adolescence and learning how
to love without losing her sense of self. Narcissus
is searching for the meaning of his life. Around
these three characters other members of the old
pantheon appear as catalysts and cameos supporting
their processes and posing challenges.
This commentary is called Pomegranate Juice
because it is an extraction of issues that would
normally remain implicit and unsaid. Written after
the book was finished, the commentary seeks to
add to the existing body of knowledge about the
process of writing by documenting the many and
varied sources of information and inspiration
involved in the peculiar task of breathing new
life into the reconstructed fragments of an old
story.
Introducing his thesis on creativity and the
writing process, McLeod said:
| To my knowledge there has been no previous
full length study by a practicing writer of
the nexus between writing process and the
construct of creativity. This gap in the literature
exists despite considerable interest in the
study and practice of creative writing, both
at tertiary education level and in the wider
community. Perhaps a partial explanation of
this discrepancy lies in the relatively low
level of interaction between the disciplines
of literary studies (where creative writing
is usually positioned) and psychology (where
the empirical study of creativity is usually
positioned). |
| (2001, p.302-303) |
As a psychology graduate, a counsellor, an editor
and the author of Pomegranate Flesh,
I hope that this commentary will contribute to
bridging the gap described by McLeod (2001) between
the disciplines of psychology and literature,
and consequently shed light on the complexity
of the process of re-writing mythology.
The picture of the writing process that emerges
through the course of the commentary is one of
a series of intermeshing motivations. The writing
process was partially, but not purely, an academic
exercise involving the study and restatement of
the elements of the story as recorded in various
historic texts. It was also partially, but not
purely, an exercise in cultural psychotherapy,
deliberately seeking to provoke thought about
adolescent risk taking and empty nest syndrome.
It was also influenced by personal artistic sensibility,
and possibly subconscious or even meta-conscious
urges.
Rather than pointing at a single explanation
for why the text was written as it was, such as
suggesting that it grew from psychodynamic (Freudian)
urges, the commentary reveals the process to have
been organic and flexible and to have involved
simultaneous consideration of a number of factors.
A psychological theory that fits particularly
well with this view of the writing process is
Bronfenbrenner’s (1995) ecological systems
theory of human behaviour.
Through the course of his long career as a psychologist
and writer Urie Bronfenbrenner developed a theory
that describes the forces that motivate human
behaviour as complex and comparable to the forces
that operate within eco-systems. Put simply, he
described cases in terms of the way individuals’
behaviour was influenced by personal issues, family
issues, community issues and larger global/cultural
issues. Multiple influences such as these are
comparable to the historic, cultural, personal
psychological and artistic motivations that shaped
my text as it grew.
That said, what follows is an honest attempt
to describe the thinking processes behind Pomegranate
Flesh, written in the hope that it will illustrate,
to the limited extent that this is possible, the
impact that the many varied motivations had on
the text.
The commentary begins with a backward glance
at the old myths that make up what Clarissa Pinkola
Estes would call “the story bones”.
She says:
| Collecting stories is a paleontological
endeavour. The more story bones you have the
more likely you are to find a whole story.
The more whole the stories, the more subtle
twists and turns of the psyche are presented
to us and the better opportunity we have to
apprehend and evoke our soulwork. |
| (1992, p.17) |
Later she speaks about the need to “sing
over the bones” to breathe life back into
the old stories. Her advice was taken to heart
and the bones of the old myths were fleshed out
into the story now called Pomegranate Flesh.
Having looked back at the origins of the myths
in Chapter One, the commentary then, in Chapters
Two and Three, provides background on the approach
to combining myth and psychology taken by Pinkola
Estes and other writers influenced by Carl Jung’s
methods of psychotherapy. As Pinkola Estes says:
| There are many ways to approach stories.
The professional folklorist, the Jungian,
Freudian or other sort of analyst, the ethnologist,
anthropologist, theologian, archeologist,
each has a different method in collecting
tales and the use to which they are put. |
| (1992, p.17) |
The Jungian approach to myth posits that stories
can provide a blueprint for common human experience
and provide guidance and inspiration about ways
of reacting to circumstances. Chapter Three also
looks at the particular qualities of the Greek
mythic tradition and provides a rationale for
the selection of this particular story. Chapter
Four of the commentary draws together the broad
Jungian perspective and the specific Demeter/Persephone
myth and compares the writings of Jungian psychologist
Virginia Beane Rutter (2000) on the myth with
the text of Pomegranate Flesh. This process reveals
commonalities and contrasts between various versions
of the myth and encompasses discussion of many
of the contemporary issues the story covers, including
insights and opinions on how the myth can be useful
to people undergoing these life challenges.
The second half of Pomegranate Juice
discusses the writing process from the seed ideas
through to the final polish. Examples are given
of specific decisions made in the unfolding of
the text, including considerations of the spelling
of various characters’ names, the logic
behind the presentation of the process the soul
undergoes after death and the delicate handling
of the homosexuality of Ameinias. While considered
separately each of these issues may not seem important,
presented together they illustrate the care involved
in the construction of the manuscript and the
deliberate nature of the brushstrokes involved
in its creation.
Throughout the commentary, references are made
to the work of scholars and authors who have worked
with Greek mythology and psychology and attempted
to make sense of what is a vast literary and psychological
field. All references in the essay are cited in
the style prescribed by the Publication Manual
of the American Psychological Association (1991).
It is hoped that these comments will contribute
to the evolving understanding of the creative
writing process and its relationship, in this
case, to a number of constructs from the field
of psychology. However it is understood that an
exploration of this kind can only partly account
for the writing process. As Perth-based Gestalt
and art therapist Tarquam McKenna who says: “The
artist can never fully see his or her own work.
It is hidden by a veil.” (Personal Communication,
July 14, 1996).
While every attempt has been made to honestly
acknowledge and express the motivations behind
the text, much of what follows is, of necessity,
based on speculation and exploration.
|