What struck me from this week’s reading was from The Anatomy of Melville’s Fame. Riegel mentions on page 200 that the recent revival of Moby Dick has been in the context of modern psychology and philosophy. He goes on to discuss debates over whether Melville is a conscious or unconscious writer, which I think is an interesting topic. This is something I’ve considered a lot; how much of creative work is conscious effort toward an idea/motif/lesson etc, versus how much is a projection of the subconscious. These ideas of the conscious and subconscious are popular in psychology (partially why this part interests me so, since psychology is my major), and are often discussed in many other classes in regards to biology, philosophy etc. However, none of these ideas were strongly present when Melville wrote this book, and I always wonder how much of books are purposefully written in a historical context. It seems Melville did write with intention in some chapters (like Fast-Fish and Loose-Fish), yet others are just abstract ideas of the ocean. Yet, from these chapters too, we can glean insight into Melville, or the political state of the U.S. at the time. This also makes me wonder how Melville wanted this book to be read. Did he write this as a political commentary? Did he write it as a love letter? This type of context would influence the conscious versus unconscious debate; if written as political commentary then perhaps all about Hawthorne is irrelevant. But if written as a love letter (since it is dedicated to Hawthorne), then what is the context of all the political commentary? Even then, is all of this analysis necessary? I think most writers don’t write to have their own lives analyzed, it is the book they want read, not themselves. Yet who a person is makes a book all the more interesting. So should we read this novel as a conscious, intentional novel? Or as a subconscious, projective novel? Does it matter, if we are just projecting our own selves onto the writing?