Peter Brooks has written a relatively brilliant if somewhat repetitious book. The question is: what does it have to do with psychoanalysis? The answer: very little. In fact, I want to argue that the book is implicitly anti-psychoanalytic. Freud, corrected by Lacan, is reduced to an extended footnote on literature. (And not very extended at that.) Thus Brooks treats psychoanalysis as it supposedly treats literature. The whole unconscious point is to preserve literature's traditionally privileged relationship to life, its supposedly sweeping (if intuitive) understanding of the psyche, which psychoanalysis threatens with its more cautious, scientific understanding. Something similar motivates Frederick Crews's (1993) review of various books on Freud. But where Crews responds aggressively, Brooks, more subtly, assimilates and neutralizes the enemy. Both are literati who are disillusioned by