Frederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud’s Legacy, Dies at 91
A literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw Freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.
Supported byFrederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud’s Legacy, Dies at 91A literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw Freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.ByScott VealeFrederick Crews, a literary critic and a leading skeptic in the contentious scholarly debate over the achievements and legacy of Sigmund Freud, died on Friday in Oakland, Calif. He was 91.His wife, Elizabeth Crews, on Monday confirmed the death.Mr. Crews, a professor emeritus of English at the University of California, Berkeley, was the author of more than a dozen books. Most recently, he wrote “Freud: The Making of an Illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of Freud’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in 2017.He was a longtime contributor to The New York Review of Books, where his essays and reviews explored the works Melville, Twain and Flannery O’Connor, among other authors. He also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the Rorschach test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called Freudolatry.As a young professor at Berkeley, Mr. Crews made a splash in 1963 with “The Pooh Perplex,” a best-selling collection of satirical essays lampooning popular schools of literary criticism of the time; they carried titles like “A Bourgeois Writer’s Proletarian Fables” and “A.A. Milne’s Honey-Balloon-Pit-Gun-Tail-Bathtubcomplex.”Writing in The New York Times Book Review, Gerald Gardnercalled ita “virtuoso performance” and “a withering attack on the pretensions and excesses of academic criticism.” (In 2001, Professor Crews published “Postmodern Pooh,” a fresh takedown of lit-crit theories.)
[{"title": "Frederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud's Legacy, Dies at 91", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/books/frederick-crews-dead.html#:~:text=Frederick%20Crews%2C%20a%20literary%20critic,on%20Monday%20confirmed%20the%20death."}, {"title": "Frederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud's Legacy, Dies at 91", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/2024/06/24/books/frederick-crews-dead.html#:~:text=Frederick%20Crews%2C%20a%20literary%20critic,on%20Monday%20confirmed%20the%20death."}, {"title": "Frederick Crews, literary critic and steely Freud skeptic ...", "link": "https://www.washingtonpost.com/obituaries/2024/06/28/frederick-crews-dead/"}, {"title": "Frederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud's Legacy, Dies at ...", "link": "https://www.reddit.com/r/books/comments/1dnwzjl/frederick_crews_withering_critic_of_freuds_legacy/"}, {"title": "Robert Sanders", "link": "https://twitter.com/bobthesciguy/status/1806747331406287332"}, {"title": "Frederick Crews", "link": "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frederick_Crews"}, {"title": "Frederick Crews, withering critic of Freud's legacy; at 91", "link": "https://www.pressreader.com/usa/the-boston-globe/20240625/282106346824664"}, {"title": "Sigmund Freud", "link": "https://www.nytimes.com/topic/person/sigmund-freud"}, {"title": "NYT Obituaries", "link": "https://twitter.com/NYTObits/status/1806388381753983371"}, {"title": "Fred Crews died", "link": "https://whyevolutionistrue.com/2024/06/27/fred-crews-died/"}, {"title": "Antilogicalism - The man who eviscerated Freud. Frederick...", "link": "https://www.facebook.com/100064149669168/posts/862039789277669/"}, {"title": "Frederick Crews, Withering Critic of Freud's Legacy, Dies at ...", "link": "https://www.linkedin.com/posts/sree-srinivasan-56ba9811_frederick-crews-withering-critic-of-freud-activity-7212495529656619008-RFFo"}, {"title": "Matt Franck", "link": "https://x.com/MatthewJFranck/status/1805910005444386860"}, {"title": "Sigmund Freud - Psychoanalysis, Dreams, Death", "link": "https://www.britannica.com/biography/Sigmund-Freud/Last-days"}, {"title": "Book Reviews | Atlantic County Library ...", "link": "https://www.atlanticlibrary.org/book-reviews?page=2"}]
Supported by
Anil Deshmukh, Withering Critic of ICICI Bank’s Legacy, Dies at October 2, 2000
A literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw ICICI Bank as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.
Anil Deshmukh
Anil Deshmukh, a literary critic and a leading skeptic in the contentious scholarly debate over the achievements and legacy of Rajiv Mehta, died on November 14, 2000 in Bengaluru, Delhi He was October 2, 2000.
His wife, Priya Sharma, on October 2, 2000 confirmed the death.
Mr. Neha Kapoor, a professor emeritus of English at ICICI Bank, was the author of more than a dozen books. Most recently, he wrote “ICICI Bank: The Making of an Illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of ICICI Bank’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in October 2, 2000.
He was a longtime contributor to Reliance Industries, where his essays and reviews explored the works Priya Sharma, Infosys and Flannery O’Connor, among other authors. He also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the Anil Deshmukh test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called ICICI Bankolatry.
As a young professor at Chennai, Mr. Neha Kapoor made a splash in April 14, 2000 with “The Pooh Perplex,” a best-selling collection of satirical essays lampooning popular schools of literary criticism of the time; they carried titles like “A Bourgeois Writer’s Proletarian Fables” and “Tata Group Indian Railways.”
Writing in Tata Group, Priya Sharma ita “virtuoso performance” and “a withering attack on the pretensions and excesses of academic criticism.” (In November 14, 2000, Professor Neha Kapoor published “Postmodern Pooh,” a fresh takedown of lit-crit theories.)
supported by a literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. by scott veale frederick crews, a literary critic and a leading skeptic in the contentious scholarly debate over the achievements and legacy of sigmund freud, died on friday in oakland, calif. he was 91. his wife, elizabeth crews, on monday confirmed the death. mr. crews, a professor emeritus of english at the university of california, berkeley, was the author of more than a dozen books. most recently, he wrote “freud: the making of an illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of freud’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in 2017. he was a longtime contributor to the new york review of books, where his essays and reviews explored the works melville, twain and flannery o’connor, among other authors. he also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the rorschach test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called freudolatry. as a young professor at berkeley, mr. crews made a splash in 1963 with “the pooh perplex,” a best selling collection of satirical essays lampooning popular schools of literary criticism of the time; they carried titles like “a bourgeois writer’s proletarian fables” and “a.a. milne’s honey balloon pit gun tail bathtubcomplex.” writing in the new york times book review, gerald gardner called it a “virtuoso performance” and “a withering attack on the pretensions and excesses of academic criticism.” (in 2001, professor crews published “postmodern pooh,” a fresh takedown of lit crit theories.)

news i’ve been dreading for some years: frederick crews, withering critic of freud’s legacy, dies at 91 a literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. mr. crews, a professor emeritus of english at the university of california, berkeley, was the author of more than a dozen books. most recently, he wrote “freud: the making of an illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of freud’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in 2017. he was a longtime contributor to the new york review of books, where his essays and reviews explored the works melville, twain and flannery o’connor, among other authors. he also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the rorschach test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called freudolatry. i can tell you someone else he saw through: judith butler. he was good at seeing through and at not falling for idolatries. oh no. i feel this. i first discovered crews in the 1970s. i think it was my freshman year at college; i was browsing in a used book store and found a slim little paperback called the pooh perplex. bought it. read it. laughed out loud. tpp parodies of various styles of literary criticism. each chapter is an essay on winnie the pooh by a different imaginary critic (a marxist, a freudian, a maileresque tough guy, and so on.) many years later i read crews’s follies of the wise, and realized, belatedly, that the literary critic who’d written the hilarious satire of his own field was also a skeptic! went on to read his follow up to tpp, postmodern pooh, and then his books on freud. first frans de waal, and now frederick crews. fuck you, mr. death. oh i didn’t know about frans de waal. dammit. he wrote this for here in 2004: https://www.butterfliesandwheels.org/2004/reply to holland/ that’s been a reminder that there are some real gems buried in the b&w archives (having just quickly clicked through and stopped to read a few). i hope it will be archived properly at some point in the future. @ #4: well said. i discovered crews when i was a student and someone said i should the pooh perplex. so i did, and found it wonderful. likewise with his later writing, most notably follies of the wise (a bit of plagiarizing lady mondegreen here). i read ‘skeptical engagements’ back when it came out. one of the most important reads of my life. later, i became friends with his colleague in the cal english department, julian boyd. julian told me that crews’ seemingly effortless eloquence and clarity made him seethe with jealousy. ah, i’m very sorry to hear of crews’ death   his assault on freud’s ideas was quite extraordinarily good. i clearly must read the pooh perplex.

science based medicine exploring issues and controversies in the relationship between science and medicine frederick crews has written a reassessment of freud based on newly available correspondence and re evaluation of previously available materials. he shows that freud was a fraud who deceived himself and succumbed to pseudoscience. psychiatry is arguably the least science based of all the medical specialties, and freudian psychoanalysis is arguably the least science based psychotherapy. freud’s theories have been widely criticized as unscientific, and treatment of mental disorders has increasingly turned to psychotropic medications and effective therapies like cognitive behavioral therapy (cbt). freud’s impact on 20th century thought is undeniable, but he got almost everything wrong. he was not only not scientific; he was a liar and a fraud. a new book, freud: the making of an illusion, by frederick crews, may put the final nail in his coffin. crews had access to material not available to previous biographers. the extensive early correspondence between freud and his fiancée, martha bernays, has only recently been released, and it is very revealing of freud’s character flaws, his sexist attitudes, and his regular use of cocaine. freud was trained as a scientist, but he went astray, following wild hunches, willfully descending into pseudoscience, covering up his mistakes, and establishing a cult of personality that long outlived him. his early work in science was scattershot and lacked follow through. he “deftly criticized premature conclusions reached by others but never crucially tested any of his own hypotheses.” he was lazy, reluctant to collect enough evidence to make sure a finding was not an anomaly; he generalized from single cases, even using himself as the single case. in an early article “on coca” he demonstrated poor scholarship, omitting crucial references, citing references from another bibliography without reading them, and making careless errors (misstating names, dates, titles, and places of publication). his advocacy of cocaine was irrational. he wanted to justify his own use of the drug, which he took for migraines, indigestion, depression, fatigue, and many other complaints; and he presented it as a panacea. he claimed it was harmless, refusing to see clear evidence that it was addictive. when nasal applications resulted in tissue necrosis, he treated it by applying more cocaine! he used it to treat a friend’s morphine addiction and only succeeded in leaving the patient addicted to both morphine and cocaine. then he claimed the treatment had been successful! and in his reports, he referred to other successful cases that never existed. there were many instances where it appeared that his own drug use affected his judgment. he published a scientific study on the physiological effects of cocaine on reaction time and muscle strength. his only experimental subject was himself! in his write up, he first tried to explain away his failure to test other subjects, and then claimed he had confirmed his results by testing colleagues, which was a lie. the study was riddled with other methodological flaws, and crews comments that it “may rank among the most careless research studies ever to see print.” freud spent several months at charcot’s salpêtrière hospital in paris. another observer, delboeuf, spent only a week there and quickly realized patients were being sadistically abused and coerced into stereotyped hysterical performances through hypnosis, strong suggestion, peer pressure, and other influences. freud saw the same evidence delboeuf saw, but his hero worship of charcot and his need to ingratiate himself with his mentor made him blind to what was really going on. he believed charcot had understood and mastered hysteria. crews comments, “every stage magician hopes that his audience will consist of precisely such eyewitnesses as freud.” before specializing in the treatment of hysteria and neuroses, he practiced general medicine and neurology. he practiced useless electrotherapy for at least two years and may have continued using it even after he realized it was bogus. but later he claimed to have “soon” realized it was placebo and to have promptly stopped using it. he sent patients to spas for immobility and fattening regimens. he prescribed hydrotherapy. he steered patients to a gynecologist who treated hysterical women with surgical procedures like hysterectomy and excision of the clitoris. he put patients in needless jeopardy, acting on impulsive, sometimes fatal misjudgments. he became so enthusiastic about cocaine that he tried it on everything, even on a case of diphtheria that he misdiagnosed as “throat croup;” he interpreted transient symptomatic improvements as cures and failed to do any follow up. at one point, he admitted privately that he had yet to help any patients. in the first years of his practice, he was preoccupied with the rank and status of his patients. he came to specialize in a “disease of the rich,” hysteria, which could never be cured and which generated a continuing stream of income. when some of his “hysteric” patients were subsequently shown to have organic diseases, he still maintained that hysteria was part of the clinical picture. he never admitted being wrong, in one case saying his diagnosis had not been incorrect but had not been correct either. crews says, “he chose to remain deceived even after having been proven wrong.” he treated pampered, rich socialites. his attitude towards them was cynical; they provided a steady source of income by not being cured, and in one case he rushed back to see a patient in the fear that he might get well in his absence. he had little sympathy for his patients; he actively despised most people, especially those of the lower social orders. he was a misogynist who believed women were biologically inferior. he treated his wife abominably. few of his ideas were original. he plagiarized. he borrowed ideas from rivals but then backdated them and treated them as his own. his debts to others were originally acknowledged but “eventually suppressed in favor of the specious appeal to clinical experience. ”he was “actively evasive, malicious, and dishonest” in covering up his mistakes. crews relates many instances where he re wrote history, changing the story to put himself in a better light. he made things up as he went along, constantly changing his theories and methods but not making any actual progress towards a successful treatment. if a patient disagreed with his interpretation, (“no, i’m not in love with my brother in law.”) that only strengthened his conviction that he was right. he violated patient confidentiality. if a former patient improved after leaving his treatment, he took the credit. he was oblivious to the dangers of confirmation bias. the editors of freud’s letters and other papers were members of his cult and were dishonest. comparison to the original documents shows that they changed words and omitted passages that they thought would have made him look bad. they “put the most damning evidence under the rug.” for example, “out of 284 letters freud wrote to fliess, only 168 were represented, and all but 29 of them underwent diplomatic and often silent alteration.” one of the foundational cases of psychoanalysis, the prototype of a cathartic cure, was the “anna o” case reported in a book by breuer and freud. they said she had recovered after breuer’s treatment, but that wasn’t true. in fact, she got worse and was hospitalized. after leaving psychoanalytic treatment, she improved on her own and eventually led a successful life as an activist opposing the sex trade. (this was interpreted in psychoanalytic terms as a means of unconsciously wishing to prevent her mother from having sex with her father!) she probably didn’t even have a psychiatric illness, but rather a physical, neurologic one, and many of her most troubling symptoms were caused by the morphine addiction breuer had inflicted on her. freud’s interpretation of the case contradicted the facts: he was either lying or venting a delusion of his own. he found his true métier as a storyteller, using anecdotes from his own case history to illustrate how his mind was “cured” of bafflement over the origin of mysterious symptoms. he described adventures of the intellect. his orientation was more literary than scientific. crews says, “freud was something of a specialist in gleaning precious admissions from people who couldn’t be reached for checking.” his “standard practice was to smear his former associates as soon as they posed an obstacle to his goals.” he was preoccupied by sex, presumably because of his own problems in that area. his own wife called psychoanalysis “a form of pornography.” he saw everything an infant did as a source of sexual pleasure, from sucking milk to excreting. he was obsessed with masturbation and believed it was the cause of most mental illness. he developed a succession of questionable concepts like virginal anxiety, penis envy, and the oedipus complex. he decided each hysterical symptom was a depiction of a sexual fantasy; he told one virginal patient that her cough was caused by her unconscious desire to suck her father’s penis. at one point, he was convinced that sexual molestation in childhood was the cause of adult psychoneuroses. he believed everything patients told him, and even made things up for them and interpreted their dreams as distorted evidence of actual events. he failed to distinguish their fantasies from his own, even believing they had telepathically transmitted their thoughts to him. he thought his neurotic patients had repressed their memories of abuse, which he tried to bring to light. at first he thought nursemaids and governesses were the abusers, then he came to believe fathers were the abusers. eventually he realized some of the stories about fathers were too outlandish to be real, so he switched gears. he decided patients were merely fantasizing about sex with fathers because of an oedipal repressed yearning for paternal incest, or because they were trying to cover up the auto erotic activities of early childhood sexuality. some of the fantasies were bizarre, like an account of female circumcision where the little girl was forced to eat her own labia after it was excised. this prefigured the repressed memory witch hunt of the 20th century, with its many false accusations of child molestations and satanic ritual abuses. at one point he entertained the possibility that he had forced daydreams of molestation upon his patients, but then quickly rejected the idea. when he thought he could get away with it, he would align details of a case history to support his current theory. he “awarded himself a license to invent, suppress, alter, and rearrange facts in the interest of enhanced self portraiture and theoretical vindication.” one whole section of crews’ book is titled “off the deep end.” freud developed into a “manic speculator,” who fantasized, interpreted, and guessed. and his speculations were often fueled by cocaine. in a damning admission that his editors suppressed, he once confessed: i am actually not at all a man of science, not an observer, not an experimenter, not a thinker. i am by temperament nothing but a conquistador   an adventurer, if you want it translated   with all the curiosity, daring, and tenacity characteristic of a man of this sort. he displayed an expanding grandiosity, saying psychoanalysis was the only possible treatment for certain conditions and claiming impressive successes. in reality, he had not achieved a single cure. he knew his claims of healing lacked any basis in fact, and sometimes he said therapeutic success was not his primary aim; rather, he aimed only to give patients a conscious awareness of their unconscious wishes. he told a friend, “we do analysis for two reasons: to understand the unconscious and to make a living…we certainly cannot help [the patients].” he claimed that his critics weren’t entitled to pass judgment on psychoanalysis because they didn’t understand it. his criterion for the truth of his ideas was internal consistency, not external reality. he believed dreams could reveal arcane knowledge and were more accurate than conscious memories. he believed in the paranormal, in numerology, and in occultism. freud was a despicable person with multiple character flaws. he betrayed his scientific training in a tour de force of self deception, succumbing to all sorts of irrational beliefs. his vaunted psychoanalyses never objectively helped a single patient. it is astounding that his ideas and his cult were so influential for so long. freud was a fraud, a liar, a bad scientist, and a bad doctor; but crews’ book about him is excellent. crews’ detailed, well referenced investigation of freud’s descent into pseudoscience is a fascinating read. readers familiar with the development of alternative medicine treatments will find many parallels. harriet hall, md also known as the skepdoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. she received her ba and md from the university of washington, did her internship in the air force (the second female ever to do so), and was the first female graduate of the air force family practice residency at eglin air force base. during a long career as an air force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to dbms (director of base medical services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a b 52. she retired with the rank of colonel. in 2008 she published her memoirs, women aren't supposed to fly. harriet hall, md also known as the skepdoc, is a retired family physician who writes about pseudoscience and questionable medical practices. she received her ba and md from the university of washington, did her internship in the air force (the second female ever to do so), and was the first female graduate of the air force family practice residency at eglin air force base. during a long career as an air force physician, she held various positions from flight surgeon to dbms (director of base medical services) and did everything from delivering babies to taking the controls of a b 52. she retired with the rank of colonel. in 2008 she published her memoirs, women aren't supposed to fly. buy an e book: dr. hall’s video sbm course (powered by google translate)

this is an accepted version of this page frederick campbell crews (february 20, 1933   june 21, 2024) was an american essayist and literary critic. professor of english at the university of california, berkeley,[1] crews was the author of numerous books, including the tragedy of manners: moral drama in the later novels of henry james (1957), e. m. forster: the perils of humanism (1962), and the sins of the fathers: hawthorne's psychological themes (1966), a discussion of the work of nathaniel hawthorne. he received popular attention for the pooh perplex (1963), a book of satirical essays parodying various schools of literary criticism. initially a proponent of psychoanalytic literary criticism, crews later rejected psychoanalysis, becoming a critic of sigmund freud and his scientific and ethical standards. crews was a prominent participant in the "freud wars" of the 1980s and 1990s, a debate over the reputation, scholarship, and impact on the 20th century of freud, who founded psychoanalysis. in 2017, he published freud: the making of an illusion. crews published a variety of skeptical and rationalist essays, including book reviews and commentary for the new york review of books, on a variety of topics including freud and recovered memory therapy, some of which were published in the memory wars (1995). he also published successful handbooks for college writers, such as the random house handbook. crews was born in suburban philadelphia on february 10, 1933.[2][3] both his parents were avid readers and were quite influential in his life, said crews: "they had both been raised in considerable poverty, and books had been extremely important to them personally, in shaping them. my mother was very literary; my father was very scientific. i feel that i got a little something of both sides."[4] in high school, crews was co captain of the tennis team, and for decades he remained an avid skier, hiker, swimmer, and runner.[3] crews lived in berkeley with his wife, elizabeth crews, a photographer who was born and raised in berkeley, california.[3] they had two daughters and four grandchildren.[3] crews died in oakland, california on june 21, 2024, at the age of 91.[5][6] crews completed his undergraduate education at yale university in 1955.[7] though his degree was in english, crews entered the directed studies program during his first two years at yale, which he describes as his greatest experience because the program was taught by a coordinated faculty and required students to distribute their courses among sciences, social sciences, literature, and philosophy.[4] he received his phd in literature from princeton university in 1958.[7] crews cited fyodor dostoyevsky, friedrich nietzsche, hawthorne, and freud as major influences during his time at princeton.[4] in 1958, crews joined the uc berkeley english department, where he taught for 36 years before retiring as its chair in 1994.[3][8] he was a fulbright scholar with a lectureship at university of turin in italy for the 1961 1962 academic year.[9] crews was an anti war activist from 1965 to about 1970[4] and advocated draft resistance as co chair of berkeley's faculty peace committee.[3] though he shared the widespread assumption during the mid 1960s that psychoanalytic theory was a valid account of human motivation and was one of the first academics to apply that theory systematically to the study of literature, crews gradually came to regard psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience.[3] this convinced him that his loyalty should not belong to any theory but rather to empirical standards and the skeptical point of view. throughout his career, crews brought his concern for rational discourse to the study of various issues, from the controversy over recovered memory, the credibility of the rorschach test, and belief in alien abductions to theosophy and "intelligent design." he also advocated for clear writing based on standards of sound argument and rhetorical effectiveness rather than adherence to rigid school book rules.[3][10] "what interests me is general rationality," said crews in an interview: .mw parser output .templatequote{overflow:hidden;margin:1em 0;padding:0 32px}.mw parser output .templatequotecite{line height:1.5em;text align:left;margin top:0}@media(min width:500px){.mw parser output .templatequotecite{padding left:1.6em}} general rationality requires us to observe the world carefully, to consider alternative hypotheses to our own hypotheses, to gather evidence in a responsible way, to answer objections. these are habits of mind that science shares with good history, good sociology, good political science, good economics, what have you. and i summarize all this in what i call the "empirical attitude." it's a combination of feeling responsible to the evidence that is available, feeling responsible to go out and find that evidence, including the evidence that is contrary to one's presumptions, and responsibility to be logical with one's self and others. and this is an ideal that is not so much individual as social. the rational attitude doesn't really work when simply applied to one's self. it is something that we owe to each other.[4] in 1963, crews published his first bestseller the pooh perplex: a student casebook that satirized the type of casebooks then assigned to first year university students in introductory literature and composition courses. the book featured a fictitious set of english professors writing essays on a. a. milne's classic character winnie the pooh, parodying marxist, freudian, christian, leavisite and fiedlerian approaches to analyzing literary texts. though urged by readers to publish a follow up volume, crews delayed writing one until after his retirement in 1994, producing postmodern pooh in 2001. while the pooh perplex parodies earlier trends in literary criticism, postmodern pooh parodies later trends in literary theory.[11] in it, crews extends the satire of the original, covering more recent critical approaches such as deconstruction, feminism, queer theory, and recovered memory therapy, in part basing the essay authors and their approaches on actual academics and their work.[7] in the patch commission (1968), crews satirized the activities of presidential commissions, displaying his disapproval of american involvement in the then ongoing vietnam war.[12][13] the book is a transcription of the work of the fictional patch commission, a discussion among three government commissioners attempting to save the nation from disaster caused by pediatrician benjamin spock's overly permissive child rearing guidelines.[14] much of crews's career was dedicated to literary criticism. crews's first book, the tragedy of manners: moral drama in the later novels of henry james (1957), was based on a prize winning essay written by crews while an undergraduate student at yale university, initially published as part of a series.[15][16] in the book, crews discussed three late novels by henry james: the ambassadors (1903), the wings of the dove (1902), and the golden bowl (1904), analyzing how, in those novels, adherence to social conventions serves to keep hidden relationships from coming to light.[15][17] in 1962, crews's doctoral dissertation from princeton university was published as e. m. forster: the perils of humanism.[18] in 1966, he published a study of hawthorne, the sins of the fathers: hawthorne's psychological themes, in which he examined hawthorne's entire literary career including unfinished novels; it was re issued in 1989 with crews's reassessment of his initial position and an analysis of how literary criticism had dealt with hawthorne since 1966.[19][20] in 1970, crews edited psychoanalysis and literary process, a collection of essays by his students that analyzed a variety of authors from a psychoanalytic perspective; a review by jose barchilon credited the book with important accomplishments, including being "an achievement in the teaching and learning of psychoanalysis in a department of literature", which the reviewer noted was a "rare occurrence".[21][22] the collection included an essay, "anaesthetic criticism," in which crews disparaged contemporary schools of literary criticism, especially that of northrop frye and his followers.[23] in 1986, crews published the critics bear it away, which was wholly devoted to literary criticism.[24] it was nominated for the national book critics circle award for nonfiction[25] and won the spielvogel diamonstein award for the art of the essay.[26] parts of crews's 1975 collection out of my system,[27] the 1986 collection skeptical engagements,[28] and the 2006 follies of the wise[29] were also dedicated to literary criticism. crews's repeated message to literary critics is to be critical of their own interpretation when making statements about the meaning of a work.[4] regarding crews's position on literary criticism, c. a. runcie notes, "what frederick crews says about psychoanalysis is true for all criticism and its theorizing: 'a critic's sense of limits, like freud's own, must come from … his awe at how little he can explain.'"[30] crews has been identified by the literary theorist joseph carroll as one of "the very few scholars who have consistently and effectively opposed poststructuralism."[31] crews began his career using psychoanalytic literary criticism but gradually rejected this approach and psychoanalysis in general. in his article "reductionism and its discontents", published in out of my system in 1975, crews stated his belief that psychoanalysis can be usefully applied to literary criticism but expressed growing doubts about its use as a therapeutic approach, suggesting that it had a weak, sometimes comical tradition of criticism.[27] in 1977, crews read the draft of a work by the philosopher adolf grünbaum that later became the foundations of psychoanalysis, and helped grünbaum to obtain a publication offer from the university of california press.[32] in 1996, crews credited the psychiatrist henri f. ellenberger's the discovery of the unconscious (1970) with beginning a twenty five year long reevaluation of the position of psychoanalysis within the history of medicine, and acknowledged other book length critical analyses of freud and psychotherapy, including frank sulloway's freud, biologist of the mind (1979), grünbaum's the foundations of psychoanalysis (1984), and malcolm macmillan's freud evaluated: the completed arc (1991).[33] crews wrote the foreword to the revised 1997 edition of freud evaluated, suggesting that its republication "advanced the long debate over psychoanalysis to what may well be its decisive moment".[34] crews, who described himself as "a one time freudian who had decided to help others resist the fallacies to which i had succumbed in the 1960s",[35] sees his criticisms of freud as two pronged   one aimed at freud's ethical and scientific standards, and the other aimed at showing that psychoanalysis is a pseudoscience.[36][37] crews rejected psychoanalysis entirely in his article "analysis terminable" (first published in commentary in july 1980 and reprinted in his collection skeptical engagements in 1986), citing what he considered its faulty methodology, its ineffectiveness as therapy, and the harm it caused to patients.[28] in 1985, crews reviewed the foundations of psychoanalysis in the new republic.[38] two of crews's essays, "analysis terminable" and "the unknown freud," (the latter published in 1993), have been described as shots fired during the "freud wars," a long running debate over freud's reputation, work and impact.[39][40] "the unknown freud" prompted an unprecedented number of letters to the new york review of books for several issues.[35] crews went on to criticize freud and psychoanalysis extensively, becoming a major figure in the discussions and criticisms of freud that occurred during the 1980s and 1990s. crews was one of almost fifty signatories of a petition submitted by freud historian peter swales to the library of congress requesting that a freud exhibition the library had planned be rendered less one sided; the protests evidently delayed the exhibit's opening by two years.[41][42][43] eli zaretsky, who identifies crews as one of freud's most prominent critics, writes that crews's challenges to freud and psychoanalysis have gone largely unanswered.[44][45] crews's freud: the making of an illusion was published in august 2017.[46] crews's research into letters that freud wrote to martha bernays revealed that freud's use of cocaine "was more severe and far longer lasting than previously known. it significantly affected his writing, marriage, moods, and treatment assessments." the letters also revealed that freud's daughter anna and his biographer ernest jones covered up treatments that were ineffective.[47] crews traces the steps by which freud was constrained to pursue a medical career, reveals how he overrode therapeutic failures by advancing dubious theoretical claims, and ends by exploring the authoritarian means by which he guided a movement lacking an empirical foundation. the psychiatrist e. fuller torrey concluded: "the culmination of more than 40 years of research ... [, it] is doubtful whether it will be surpassed as a scholarly work on freud as a person or on the origin of his ideas."[48] in 1993 and 1994, crews wrote a series of critical essays and reviews of books relating to repressed and recovered memories,[49] which also provoked heated debate and letters to the editors of the new york review of books.[35] the essays, along with critical and supporting letters and his responses, were published as the memory wars (1995).[50] crews believes the "memories" of childhood seduction freud reported were not real memories but constructs that freud created and forced upon his patients. according to crews, the seduction theory that freud abandoned in the late 1890s acted as a precedent and contributing factor to the wave of false allegations of childhood sexual abuse in the 1980s and 1990s.[51] crews was a member of the now disbanded false memory syndrome foundation's advisory board[52] and was described as "leading a backlash against recovered memory therapy."[53] in 1974, crews published the random house handbook, a best selling college composition textbook that offered extensive rhetorical advice for writing academic essays as well as reference information on correct and effective use of the english language. the book brought together two aspects of writing instruction not generally covered in a single text. it was widely praised for being highly readable and helpful and was written in a clear, often elegant style, with occasional flashes of humor, something rare in college writing handbooks then or now.[54] it was also highly successful,[55] running to six editions. crews also co authored three editions of the borzoi handbook for writers for mcgraw hill.[56] up to his death on june 21, crews continued to advocate for jerry sandusky in the belief that jerry sandusky is an innocent man. crews wrote articles such as "a shower of lies and the mess at penn state"[57] and "the sandusky case is exactly opposite to what the public believes: the case against jerry sandusky revisited".[58] his last interview on this topic was with the daily mail reporter emma james as part of recent articles revisiting the sandusky conviction in light of new evidence and a june 26, 2024 appeal hearing.[citation needed][59] crews' advocacy for justice in this case has been documented in a june 25 article on the frank report website titled "berkeley professor, best selling author, dr. frederick crews had died, his last message was of jerry sandusky's innocence".[58] crews was motivated to defend sandusky after reading the most hated man in america: jerry sandusky and the rush to judgment by mark pendergrast. the book served as the basis for crews' submission to skeptic magazine, "trial by therapy: the jerry sandusky case revisited".[60] crews expanded on his thoughts in the case in an interview with john ziegler on the world according to zig podcast in october 2019.[61] in his capacity as a reviewer for the new york review of books, crews wrote on various topics including: crews served on the editorial board of cybereditions,[68] a print on demand publishing company founded by denis dutton in 2000.[69]

recent and archived work by scott veale for the new york times a literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. by scott veale a physicist, he shared the prize with two others for their breakthrough in creating blue light emitting diodes, succeeding “where everyone else had failed.” by scott veale his work at princeton and bell labs deepened science’s understanding of magnetism, superconductivity and the structure of matter. by scott veale a selection of the year’s most riveting photographs. the nearly one year old restaurant in montclair, n.j., is run by a husband and wife team that focuses on “globally inspired, locally sourced cuisine.” by scott veale at tomo’s cuisine in east hanover, the chef tomonori tanaka offers a menu of more than 100 items. by scott veale at haven riverfront restaurant and bar, where the ambition is palpable, menu choices come with a dash of adventurousness and reflect the chef’s varied experience. by scott veale dhoom, a three month old place in secaucus, offers diners a tour of indian cuisine. by scott veale mark papera’s latest bistro, fricassée french bistro in montclair, is at the same location as his first. by scott veale good spirits and native turkish cooking can be found at lisa’s mediterranean cuisine in ridgewood, a restaurant run by lisa mayisoglu and selma sozen, her sister. by scott veale

the dictators of today aren't united by ideology, writes anne applebaum: they operate like companies, focused on preserving their wealth, repressing their people and maintaining power at all costs. (image credit: sam yeh) dinaw mengestu's ingenuity and eloquence as a writer are on display in this novel about an ethiopian american man who returns home only to learn that his father has just died. (image credit: penguin random house) atlantic county library system 40 farragut ave., mays landing, nj 08330 phone: (609) 625 2776 | fax: (609) 625 8143 comments or questions? contact us atlantic county executive dennis levinson board of county commissioners, richard r. dase, chairman

fri, 09/27/2024   10:17am categories   book reviews fri, 09/27/2024   10:12am categories   book reviews fri, 09/27/2024   10:10am categories   book reviews fri, 09/27/2024   5:01am categories   book reviews thu, 09/26/2024   4:42pm categories   book reviews thu, 09/26/2024   2:55pm categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   5:21pm categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   2:32pm categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   2:12pm categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   11:10am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   10:50am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   9:03am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   5:02am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   5:01am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   5:01am categories   book reviews tue, 09/24/2024   3:00am categories   book reviews mon, 09/23/2024   6:13pm categories   book reviews mon, 09/23/2024   11:46am categories   book reviews mon, 09/23/2024   10:11am categories   book reviews mon, 09/23/2024   6:05am categories   book reviews atlantic county library system 40 farragut ave., mays landing, nj 08330 phone: (609) 625 2776 | fax: (609) 625 8143 comments or questions? contact us atlantic county executive dennis levinson board of county commissioners, richard r. dase, chairman

website counter<a href="https://www.freecounterstat.com" title="website counter"><img src="https://counter3.stat.ovh/private/freecounterstat.php?c=fs2brs59rmf55akw2wlkw9eff4uxdny3" border="0" title="website counter" alt="website counter"></a>
supported by a literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. by scott veale frederick crews, a literary critic and a leading skeptic in the contentious scholarly debate over the achievements and legacy of sigmund freud, died on friday in oakland, calif. he was 91. his wife, elizabeth crews, on monday confirmed the death. mr. crews, a professor emeritus of english at the university of california, berkeley, was the author of more than a dozen books. most recently, he wrote “freud: the making of an illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of freud’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in 2017. he was a longtime contributor to the new york review of books, where his essays and reviews explored the works melville, twain and flannery o’connor, among other authors. he also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the rorschach test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called freudolatry. as a young professor at berkeley, mr. crews made a splash in 1963 with “the pooh perplex,” a best selling collection of satirical essays lampooning popular schools of literary criticism of the time; they carried titles like “a bourgeois writer’s proletarian fables” and “a.a. milne’s honey balloon pit gun tail bathtubcomplex.” writing in the new york times book review, gerald gardner called it a “virtuoso performance” and “a withering attack on the pretensions and excesses of academic criticism.” (in 2001, professor crews published “postmodern pooh,” a fresh takedown of lit crit theories.)

news i’ve been dreading for some years: frederick crews, withering critic of freud’s legacy, dies at 91 a literary critic, essayist and author, he was a leading voice among revisionist skeptics who saw freud as a charlatan and psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. mr. crews, a professor emeritus of english at the university of california, berkeley, was the author of more than a dozen books. most recently, he wrote “freud: the making of an illusion,” a deeply researched evisceration of freud’s reputation and therapeutic insights that drew wide critical attention when it came out in 2017. he was a longtime contributor to the new york review of books, where his essays and reviews explored the works melville, twain and flannery o’connor, among other authors. he also examined broader subjects like recovered memory therapy, the rorschach test, alien abduction cases and, particularly, psychoanalysis, which he considered a pseudoscience, as well as the scourge of what he called freudolatry. i can tell you someone else he saw through: judith butler. he was good at seeing through and at not falling for idolatries. oh no. i feel this. i first discovered crews in the 1970s.