There are a couple of challenges in writing this blog that occur regardless of the object I review, whether book, movie, or experience. One is trying to boil down a very complex subject into a summary that can be evocative to someone who is familiar to the work or quickly enough sketch the work without restating it – necessarily losing the richness of the work. The second is that I can only use one nugget or maybe two from the vast array of psychoanalytic insights that are available – and it is not like these nuggets are sitting on a shelf and I pull them down in some kind of organized fashion – there are a variety of analytic perspectives that seem relevant to most of the works, and I choose to write from the one(s) that seems most compelling at the moment.
Also that day, I went to a discussion of a case – a case with an impasse in it. What was interesting about the conversation about the case is that two seemingly mutually exclusive threads emerged. One was the breadth of reactions that the members of the group had to the case material that was presented. Each analyst in the room that spoke, and there were about twenty of them, had a unique perspective on the case. At the same time, there was a shared view of the case, and each of these disparate observations contributed to an overarching view that partook of each of the different perspectives, and that seemed to pull them together into a narrative that each of these disparate views both contributed to and that reflected some aspect of it.
To access a narrative description of other posts on this site, link here. For a subject based index, link here.