Allegory and Psychology in Multi-authorship Writing. The cases of Fuoco grande by C. Pavese and B. Garufi and Pelle d’asino by A. Giuliani and E. Pagliarani

This essay focuses on the critical analysis and comparison of Fuoco grande by C. Pavese and B. Garufi and Pelle d’asino by A. Giuliani and E. Pagliarani as examples of co-authored literature. I define co-authored literature as a literary practice that entails the active and conscious co-operation of two or more authors. This approach leads to an innovative, argumentative and unpredictable interpenetration (compensation), which is the result of the various authorial contributions. In particular, I aim to investigate the links between allegory and psychoanalytical techniques used in co-authored literature. On the one hand, studying these approaches in relation to literary practice helps to reveal the relationship between co-authored writing and the contemporary world; on the other hand, it allows to verify the validity of this very analytical methodology when applied to co-authored texts. This can help to underline both the relationship between the concept of multi-authorship and Modernity, as well as the way dreams and fantasies influence both novels under scrutiny. I found that the psychoanalytic approach could not provide any fruitful results, as it appeared to nullify the creolising process that takes place during co-authored writing, because it is mostly apt to reveal the individual self. In contrast, the allegoric approach (be it intentio operis, or premeditate construction) demonstrated to be useful for the analysis of both works as it is more flexible.