{"content":{"sharePage":{"page":0,"digests":[{"id":"8061079","dateCreated":"1230936791","smartDate":"Jan 2, 2009","userCreated":{"username":"ChristyRieger","url":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/view\/ChristyRieger","imageUrl":"https:\/\/www.wikispaces.com\/user\/pic\/1230934755\/ChristyRieger-lg.jpg"},"monitored":false,"locked":false,"links":{"self":"https:\/\/johnladdsep.wikispaces.com\/share\/view\/8061079"},"dateDigested":1531976632,"startDate":null,"sharedType":"discussion","title":"proposal thoughts","description":"John,<br \/>\nThis project looks very promising and interesting, and I'm looking forward to seeing it develop on this space. One issue that does occur to me regards your critical lens. When I read &quot;psychoanalytic approach&quot; to literary works, I immediately think of Freud and Jacques Lacan, who have dominated this school in literary criticism for the past decades. But you don't seem as interested in their writings on mourning and mortality and rather want more contemporary psychoanalytic (or perhaps more broadly psychological?) theories that critics have overlooked. This could be a refreshing and original approach, but I think that you should defend why you chose these psychologists over Freud and Lacan. It would also be helpful if you had some descriptor or umbrella term for the psychological critics that you use. What do they have in common? Why are they more useful for understanding Milton than all the people out there thinking about grief, death, and mortality? It seems that Rob Hoff may be a good person to ask about this.<br \/>\nBest wishes,<br \/>\nC. Rieger","replyPages":[{"page":0,"digests":[],"more":0}]}],"more":false},"comments":[]},"http":{"code":200,"status":"OK"},"redirectUrl":null,"javascript":null,"notices":{"warning":[],"error":[],"info":[],"success":[]}}