> As for catharsis, the purging of the emotions through certain types of art:
>
> I can only remember it happening twice--for the book "Gone With The Wind" and the movie "Braveheart."
>
> I bawled like a baby with a rash. And I remember it felt good, and I even re-read/re-watched the sad parts just to keep the waterworks up. Afterwards, I felt drained, but in a good way.
>
> Both times that this occured were during difficult parts of my life, and I'm sure that I needed to cry without thinking "you're so selfish...so immature...grow up and stop crying over your meaningless problems."
>
> So yes, catharsis can happen. I think it occurs when a person doesn't usually allow themselves to cry, because they for some reason think crying over their own problems is inappropriate. So they vent by sobbing over "Where The Red Fern Grows" or "Beaches" or whatever.
>

Mmmm... I don't think that is "catharsis." What you're describing sounds more like engagement of the emotions by vicarious experience. If you're crying not because of your own hurt, but through means of the actions and events portrayed by someone else: then you are vicariously experiencing and 'venting' *that person's* perceived emotions... not your own.

This isn't to belittle the pleasure of having a good cry. As Darien has implied, a truly great artist engages the audience as an active participant in the story and drama that s/he is telling. So if the novel "Gone With the Wind" turns on the waterworks for you, and having done so feels REALLY GOOD afterwards -- then by all means the author has succeeded in fullest measure. :-)

Wolfspirit