You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
October 1, 2002. I am sorry that Anna Aragno thinks my review does not do justice to her work. I will take most of her points in turn, but will mostly restrict myself to general points with examples, rather than offering a comprehensive rebuttal of each point, which would surely be of interest to only Aragno and myself.
I would like to state, first of all, that I am sorry she feels that the review leaves an acidic aftertaste “due to the subtle, yet unmistakable, flavor of ‘seniority’ with which it is imbibed.” I assume that the author means imbued (rather than imbibed), in which case I sincerely apologize for any air of condescension—probably caused by exactly the sort of suggested clarification I have just made! My students would probably agree that I can be pedantic in judging writing for its expression, as well as for what is being said. The comments on style did not, however, come from any sense whatever of seniority in relation to Aragno; I completed my Ph.D. at about the same time as she seems to have completed hers, and she may well be a more experienced clinician and writer. Furthermore, she knows far more philosophy than I do, which is much of what her book concerns. My commentary was aimed not from any lofty position at all, but from that of a peer struggling with similar issues within a neighboring discipline—I hope not, as Aragno asserts, from a different planet.
Let us get to specifics. Aragno takes me to task for misattributing to her a quotation from Freud, and for taking an example of style from