Anthony Storr (1920–2001)

In our logos-dominated society, music (not possessing any discernible relation to the external world) often seems a meaningless indulgence ('auditory cheesecake', as Steven Pinker once scathingly observed) - but this is profoundly untrue, especially for those love music.

But this latter group of people are often clueless when it comes to describing why music moves them so profoundly - after all, they are just tones, sounds - arranged in a particular sequence and perceived through the hearing show more apparatus of homo sapiens..

But like, that famous haiku goes "but yet, but yet.."

The search for this elusive 'more' that music provides to its supplicants is basically at the heart of this fairly dense book. The writing is like quicksilver, dense and light at the same time, as the author (a psychiatrist by profession) wears his erudition lightly, weaving a tapestry of informed speculation drawn from the coils of anthropology, ethnomusicology, psychoanalysis (of course), and philosophy. This exploration is conducted through several pointed chapters, each a dense article in itself, dealing with questions that only a music obsessive would ponder : where exactly does music come from? (possibly from our primate heritage) is it true, as freud suspected, that the fundamental attraction of music is that it represents an escape from depressing reality? (sort of, but not entirely) He even takes a gander at the speculation that solitary listening to music (an evolutionarily novel, and historically very recent phenomenon) can be construed as neurotic phenomenon.

The conclusion that the author arrives at (after several detours and pitstops) is that music is meaningful precisely because we are, by necessity, meaning-making creatures - we do not grasp individual phenomena as they are by themselves, but their relations. In this, music's well-known affinity with mathematics is made clear, both are concerned with the implicit ordering of abstract phenomena (the relation between tones in music, and the process of ordering itself in mathematics), but mathematics does not have the bodily component that music does. We are inescapably bodily creatures, and music is inescapably bodily. Music thus manages to be both abstract and concrete, mind and body, at the same time - it moves us so profoundly and at our whole being, because it is a synthesis and a re-unity of aspects of ourselves that are very often divided. It is the ur-phenomenon of the primal human process of meaning-making, the crystalline model of our intuitively-felt flow of life.

The author quotes Nietzsche (who has a chapter devoted to him) approvingly, "If not for music, existence would most certainly be considered a mistake." - and the author himself, ends his treatise with the expansive declaration that "music is an unasked-for, and undeserved blessing - transcendent."

I feel as though the author, given the opportunity to write about the love of his life, has just thrown the kitchen sink at it - like all love letters, it is passionate, a bit messy, and a tour-de-force of intellectual synthesis (OK, maybe not the last one) - strongly recommended for anyone who has heard a song.

I would be remiss if I didn't mention that while the author's specialty and focus is the tradition known as Western classical music, a knowledge of music theory is not really required (except for the chapter "Basic Patterns" which purports to investigate the claim for the supposed objective basis for the Western harmonic system), given that the book is written at a sufficiently general level - an achievement I feel is of real credit to the author. show less

This is a brief overview of the main facets of Freud's thought and legacy. It is written with an unusual lucidity for the subject, although sometimes I found myself wanting more detail. Most of Freud's concepts are only given a very general outline. The book is also pretty dated when it comes to questions of sex and sexuality. The author, for instance, talks of their own practice as a therapist and his attempt to "cure" a man of transvestism. Really, OUP ought to commission a new Brief show more Introduction to Freud that is more reflective of where psychoanalytical thought currently is. show less

What drive scientists and artists to create? Anthony Storr was a psychiatrist, so it's no wonder he is approaching the problem here from a psychodynamic perspective. As such, I personally found 'The Dynamics of Creation' quite a tough read, as I am quite unfamiliar with psychoanalysis and its share of jargon and abstract meanderings. Yet, insightful, it wasn't difficult to the point of being inaccessible and, considering its punchy conclusion, I was happy to have followed the author's show more reasoning. It may seem hard (even dull at times!) but the journey worth it. Here's indeed a ground breaking book which, published in 1972, shattered many misconceptions about creativity, and in so doing redefined our view of what it means to engage with art especially.

In fact, what used to set the author apart from his predecessors and colleagues in the field is that, he didn't reduce creativity as being solely wish-fulfilment and sublimation of primitive drives, and work of art the by-product and reflection only of neurosis of some sort (sexual in particular, since it's what Freud seemed to have been mostly concerned about). Not that he disagreed with such view; but, as with psychoanalysis as a whole, such approach had its limit that he clearly acknowledged.

Here was indeed the problem: because it tended to focus on creation as a result, psychoanalysis as applied in a purely Freudian tradition completely ignored it as a process. Hence, it couldn't explain fully what motivate the drive to create nor why, for that matter, creativity is such an important human endeavour.

Now, sure, he too uses psychiatry and focuses on schizoid and depressive temperaments to try and find some sort of explanation (is there a link between some mental illnesses and creativity?) since, among unusually highly creative people, many suffered from personality disorders of some sorts. But, what he actually does by taking the extreme examples of such creative and mentally ill personalities is to connect their reasons to create with the working psyche of everyone else. His claim indeed (again, ground breaking for his time) is that their work resonate within us all because, the psychodynamic forces that motivate them are also present within us all.

'Creativity is one mode adopted by gifted people of coming to terms with, or finding symbolic solutions for, the internal tensions and dissociations from which all human beings suffer in varying degree. The less gifted find other, less obviously creative, solutions (…)'

'(…) highly creative people are just extreme examples of a general human phenomenon.'

This may seem obvious now, but at the time it made for a new and staggering conclusion that is, creativity is adaptative. It is not a trait apart from other human behaviours those evolutionary purpose is more evident (whole chapters are dedicated to play). It also is, itself, a behaviour that serves an evolutionary purpose. Which one? That's where Anthony Storr concludes, with a brilliant discussion of Carl Jung's concept of 'individuation'.

Here's a tough and challenging read for those unfamiliar with the psychoanalytic intricacies. Yet, once surmounted the jargon and dull (and often dry) writing style of the author, unfolds an exciting view of creation. It took a psychiatrist having himself a deep appreciation for science and art (it shows in his portrait of various personalities) to extirpate creativity from the grip of those who just wanted to see it as solely 'neurotic'.

Ground breaking and significant. show less

Introducing Freud and his work, Anthony Storr delivers here 'an attempt to evaluate his more important theories in the light of modern knowledge'. When it comes to 'evaluating', I honestly can't tell if he has failed or succeeded -at the time of reading this I was too ignorant of psychoanalysis and Freud's work (I still haven't read any of his original papers!) and of the debates and controversies it has been stirring, ever since he first put forward some of his most famous assumptions, to show more have a valid opinion on the matter. What I wanted here was an introduction to the man and his theories. I got it. I would therefore recommend this brief little book to anyone who, like me, is interested yet clueless.

In fact, as a trained analyst who taught psychotherapy at Oxford, you would expect the author to be highly sympathetic to Freud. To some extent he is, acknowledging his overall positive heritage (more tolerance and understanding towards neurosis, sexual deviations, emotional maladaptation...), although I found him trying a bit too hard to make sense of some of Freud's still most dumbfounding claims (the Oedipus Complex is a case in point; as far as I was concerned it still sounds like the mumbo-jumbo from a crank, no matter how he tries to rephrase and reconceptualise it... -but, again: don't take my word for it; I am ignorant of psychoanalysis, here are just my own prejudices). To an other extent, though, he can be critical. After all, Freud wasn't professing in a cultural vacuum. He was a man of his time, and so his theories were also influenced by the morality prevalent in late 19th-early 20th century Europe. It's particularly true when it comes to his opinion on women, and, so, his views on neurosis, hysteria, or, again, the Oedipus Complex. Freud was also working with a very small sample of the population (upper/middle class), he never dealt first hand with mentally ill people (his field of study was neurosis, not psychosis) and, he certainly was an armchair intellectual. What's left of his speculations on the human psyche, then?

Well, if I trust Anthony Storr, his main mistake was to narrow everything down to our libido. If I trust Anthony Storr again, sex is only part of the picture; and many of his disciples will have to challenge this restricted view to offer a better picture. He particularly refers to John Bowlby, which I found quite nice since Bowlby is one of my favourite thinker (I used to work with children, so I always had a soft spot for his impact).

All in all, then, here's a great introduction to a man and his ideas; still controversial to this day despite Freud being hailed as a pioneer. Does he deserves as much credit as he is given, or, has he just happened to stumble upon great insights while formulating dubious assumptions? This book here is too simplistic (or sympathetic) to properly address such debate. At least, this is a great starting point! show less