A Comment on Fernando

I would like to formulate my response to Fernando's (fall 2003) review of my book Transference: Shibboleth or Albatross? by addressing three separate issues: the editorial policy involved in publishing this completely negative review, how this review compares to other reviews of the book, and my own responses to Fernando's substantive criticisms.

In terms of the editorial policy of the Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, the book review editor responded to my criticism of the intensely negative quality of the review by saying that she believed the reviewer had “balanced his concerns” about my book. In this case, the only counterpoint in the entire review to his numerous criticisms is the grudging comment that “things improve near the end of the book, as Schachter discusses the case he has shared with us and presents his own ideas about transference, and on post-termination patient-analyst contact—a topic he has studied and written about previously” (p.253). From what baseline had things improved? Fernando decimated the book earlier by stating, “There are problems with this book at many levels—in fact, so many problems that space is inadequate to list them all, much less describe them in detail … rarely any detailed consideration of complex topics … employs the shotgun approach … method of argumentation is superficial … the discussion involves the oversimplification and dichotomization of complex issues … a one-dimensional alternate theory [and] I can find little to recommend in this book” (pp. 252,253). I hope that readers will return to the full review and judge for themselves whether it can be considered a balanced review.

I question whether Fernando's review was reasonably objective, fair, and collegial. Why would someone write a review that was entirely critical and pejorative? The alternative to writing such a review, when faced with intensely negative feelings about a book, is to recuse oneself, return the book, and refrain from writing the review, as I and othe