You do not currently have permission to view the full text for this document. Please sign in to an account with an active subscription or contact support.
This book grew out of a study group on introjects conducted at the Institute for Psychoanalytic Training and Research. Bond presented nineteen dreams of “John Henry Jones” to this group because in them “a powerful introject figures prominently” (p. 1).
During the seminar, one of the participants (Franco) felt that the third dream of the series indicated that the patient was ready to begin termination. Bond expressed surprise at Franco's prediction of impending termination. Upon returning to the analysis, Bond found that Franco had been correct, for John “slipped almost imperceptibly into the termination process shortly after the dream series concluded” (p. 2). A second group was convened to study the nineteen dreams. It met monthly for three years “to determine what enabled Franco to make her prediction” (p. 2).
The book begins with a review of recent (since 1972) literature on termination and the criteria for it, intertwined with a review of the use of dreams to make inferences about the patient, including readiness for termination. The discussion of criteria is clear and cites earlier work that proposes a pretermination phase and the use of dreams to detect it. The discussion of the use of dreams to make inferences is sketchy and disorganized. Because the entire thesis of the book rests on this controversial method, a full and careful discussion of it should have been a part of the presentation.
The data for the study included a “sketchy case history” (p. 20) provided by Bond and her clinical notes on the dreams. “These brief memoranda were jotted down … in the course of each session and were amplified shortly thereafter. They contain the manifest dream, the patient's associations …, the day residue when available, his dream thoughts, and spontaneous comments preceding the dream. They include comments about the dream by the analyst which led to further associations by the patient” (pp. 20-21). The authors note that they did not have “the fullness of totally record