Discussion

This contribution by Edelson actually consists of three distinct, but nonetheless related, streams of ideas that finally merge as an exposition of the author's principles of technique. First, although he specifically disclaims any such intention, the author offers a detailed critique of Dr. Silverman's technical interventions (Silverman, 1987). For this reader at least, the mode of presentation was quite confusing. To begin with, Silverman presented a record of his patient's productions, interlaced with his own reflections, personal doubts, recollections, and possible interpretations, etc. These were followed by his articulated interventions and a record of the patient's responses. However, before we have an opportunity to identify with the patient and the analyst so as to get immersed in the therapeutic interaction, we begin to hear the questions, the doubts, and the suggestions that Edelson calls to our attention. To me, at least, the result was somewhat confusing and I found it advisable to get the text of Dr. Silverman's original presentation and to read it for myself. This is not to suggest that in any way the record of the therapeutic interaction was not accurately reported in this paper. It was accurate, but nonetheless, the mode of presentation proved distracting. At one and the same time, the reader has to orient himself to several different levels of experience. First, we follow the record of the patient's productions, inhibitions, doubts, and defenses and how she responds to Dr. Silverman's interventions. At the same time, we have the record of the analyst processing her material, as well as his own reflections, his uncertainties, and misgivings. And then there is Dr. Edelson, surveying what the patient had said, what Dr. Silverman had said and thought, and what he himself had observed about the therapeutic interaction, together with his own reflections and observations of