I have attempted to focus this discussion by looking at three interrelated matters. There is the issue of Sue's final dream - the enigma with which Don Kalsched leaves us. I first have a go at that, from my own, as well as some other, perspectives. Then, there is the question central to this presentation of the archetypal defense itself. What, in fact, are these defenses, and how is the author using the concept of the ‘archetypal’? Finally, I wouldn't be me if I didn't rise to the bait of Sue's shame, more prevalently peppered throughout the first draft than the present one.