Many people found Hobson to be snobbish and Hartmann to be more of the everyman type, due in part to Hobson's assuming that people had a familiarty with the language and subject matter he was using and referencing, respectively. We have to remember that not every author writes for the same audience.
Due to my backgorund as a science major, from the past, I found Hobson's language and addressing of the subject matter to be quite informative---and yes, interesting---since it seemed to me that this was primarily his intended audience; It just happened to be that way for me, even though I'm aware that I'm in the minority in our class. I might even reference him because I'm thinking about writing my paper on the affect of drugs on dreams as evidenced in literature.
Now, I am NOT indicting Hartmann as being a simlpeton in any way shape or form. He wasn't as didactic in his writing style as Hobson was, but we must remember that people coming from Hobson's background as a Neurobiologist tend to be determinists, as Prof Croll pointed out to the class, during her visit (things are "cut and dry" to them). Hartmann was not as preachy and was able to appeal to many more people because of his approach to his audience. He also made the general point that dreaming is more focused, as evidenced by the idea of "the nets of the mind" at the beginning of the book on pages 3-4, & spoke less about facts and more about his theories based on his clinical experience in the field of Medicine/Psychiatry.
Comments (3)
I happen to agree with you that Hobson was interesting. Hartmann's theories may be a more enjoyable read but I do think that if someone is presenting a dream theory -a topic which can be vague and subjective and I appreciate very difficult to prove- however, if you are presenting some kind of "answer" I much prefer, if like Hobson they have some evidence to back up their theory. Hobson theory is pretty convincing, when he gets into the details of the chemicals in the brain and how they work during sleep.
He has in Chapter 4, starting on page 82, some info about drugs used as treatment for psychosis which may help if you are discussing drugs and dreams in your papaer.
Posted by silent partner | November 7, 2006 12:46 AM
Posted on November 7, 2006 00:46
I wish it was possible to edit comments! My long second sentence of the comment above is grammatically wrong and a but confusing to read - sorry ! Here it is slightly improved :
Hartmann's theories may be a more enjoyable read but I do think that when theorist are presenting dream theories -
(which by their nature can be vague, subjective and very difficult to prove)- I much prefer, if like Hobson they have some evidence to back up those theories.
Posted by silent partner | November 7, 2006 12:53 AM
Posted on November 7, 2006 00:53
I,too, think that Hobson was interesting. I found the hardest thing to comprehend regarding Hobson was the explainations to the theory. I found Hartmann to explicate more of his theory. I had an easier time articulating Hartmanns points in my own words, which I find is most important to display my knowledge of the area.
Posted by english teacher | November 9, 2006 10:36 PM
Posted on November 9, 2006 22:36