Interpretation is a product of compromise formation that requires optimal use of the analyst's aggression to be an effective analytic intervention. Aggressive aims useful for the interpretive act are problematic for analysts and have led both to clinical difficulties and to various theoretical reactions against considering interpretation essential for analytic progress. In analysis, diverging aims of analyst and patient are highlighted in connection with the analyst's function as interpreter. The interactions between patient and analyst pertaining to interpretation provide insights into the patient's intrapsychic conflicts that may be less apparent in other material.