Is psychoanalytic theory useful for the study of literature? If so, from what position we, literary critics and theorists, start talking about the relation between the two? What is the nature of the relation between literature and psychoanalysis? Or what is the "proper" question that we are supposed to ask? Do we have the right questioning method? What do we see and what do we hear when we study literature? Do we see and hear what we are supposed to see and hear? Do we listen to the authorial voice or to the impersonal voice in the text? Do we gaze at the unseeable object in the text? Do we enjoy the text we are listening to and gaze at? Borrowing and appropriating Lacanian insights in reading literary texts gives us pleasure and pain simultaneously. However, Lacan`s insight from his Ecrits, Four Fundamental Concepts of Psycho-Analysis, his Seminars, and Television "teach and delight" us, as far as we are moderately disciplined in his obscure and open style. Would it be too early to understand his "jouissance" in terms of intellectual ecstasy? The purpose of this essay is to construct a Lacanian poetics in terms of structurality and function, and to appropriate and expropriate Lacanian psychoanalytic theory in an attempt to project it into Gerard Manley Hopkins`s poem "The Windhover." First, I will synchronize Hopkins`s unconscious text from early "light sonnets" and late "dark sonnets" so that I could adumbrate a Lacanian "future anterior." Then, I want to listen to and gaze at the manifest text, I mean, the text proper, "The Windhover," so that I can exercise a Lacantan Gaze. Translation of the poem into Korean will provide such opportunity. Then, I want to enjoy myself to be indulged in interpretation and transference or countertransference while I listen to and gaze at the open text proper. In the "Dissemination of Lacanian Poetics" section, I want to open the close door to the anti-postmodern perception which results from insufficient attention to the questioning processes of our critical literary potentiality, by suggesting four kinds of questioning.