I hope I am asking this question in the right place. In her reading of Duras's Hiroshima mon amour, Julia Kristeva, the analyst and philosopher, refers to Duras as a melancholic. Anne Juranville, also an analyst and a professor of literature, however, believes, in Kelly Oliver's words, that "
Duras is too depressed to be melancholic Oliver, 2001, 152
Can anyone explain what she means by this? Isn't the melancholic, in the last analysis, the same as the depressed?
What does she mean by saying that
the melancholic “subject,” and in particular the feminine one, maintains an immediate, traumatic relation to the real qua maternal Thing. Ibid
Here's part of the paragraph cited from Kelly Oliver's Psychoanalysis, Aesthetics, and Politics in the Work of Kristeva (2009):
Anne Juranville, also an analyst and professor of literature, disagrees with Kristeva’s clinical diagnosis, arguing that Duras is too depressed to be melancholic, but does agree that the melancholic “subject,” and in particular the feminine one, maintains an immediate, traumatic relation to the real qua maternal Thing. This nostalgic denial of individuation, as for Kristeva, positions the melancholic beyond the pale of symbolic intervention, unable to access in any way the historical reality of the social: “Stupefied, horrified, [the melancholic] fixes himself in an inhuman zone beyond death where, lacking the least symbolic recourse, he is condemned to remain eternally and passively concentrated on this gaping wound that he himself is” (1993, 54). ibid