David comments elegantly on the resistance and counterresistance involved in the impulse to capture the events of an analysis in some written or recorded fashion. Given the uniqueness of the analytic process, he feels it is not possible to experience the same session twice by means of some recording process. Hence the most mechanical of analysts is forced into the role of a poet. The impulse to record is felt by both analyst and patient, and yet such recording ignores the creative effort of verbalizing the train of conscious associations. The analytic dialogue cannot be transcribed. The creative effect of the analytic process comes from the double psychical participation via the spoken (not the written) word. The spoken word is the instrument of the slow metamorphosis which takes place in analysis.