I appreciate Nathan Kravis's responding to my paper, as well as the opportunity to reply. I trust that our exchange will not only demonstrate the differences in our viewpoints but will also direct continuing attention to the experience of analyzing.

I am concerned that Kravis begins with a basic misrepresentation of my argument. My argument is not, as he asserts, that because of the relatively unambiguous datum of the experience of pleasure, therefore the problematizing of the pleasure of analytic work is unnecessary. When I describe why I think it useful to refer specifically to the analyst's pleasure rather than to his joy or satisfaction, my aim is to clarify the paper's focus. I do this not because I logically link the unambiguousness of the pleasure