Reply

Before I reply to the content of the readers' commentary, I want to talk about context. When I submitted the paper to the editor, I warned him that what was attached was unusual for psychoanalytic journal: a work of applied psychoanalytic fiction. He might wish to save himself time by not bothering with such a crossbreed. “Bring it on,” or words to such effect, was his reply, and he sent it on to the readers, a clear statement that this journal privileged novel ideas and approaches rather than adhering to mere convention. The readers endorsed this attitude by recommending acceptance of the “case report,” and then took it a step further by asking that their commentary accompany the article. This discussion then ensued. What an advance over letters to the editor buried in the back pages, long after the original essay had been forgotten! And here I confess to a secret desire: Even as I wrote this paper, I hoped that this effort might stimulate discussion of important theoretical issues confronting psychoanalysis, with all the case material available verbatim but in manageable size. Here my wish is realized.

As to content, among the many salient points made by both readers I will content myself with the issues raised in both commentaries. Both readers point out that Beatrice called me “Dr. Krims” while I addressed her as, well, “Beatrice.” Was this a manifestation of a power imbalance in the analysis? Would Beatrice, bold enough to outwit Benedict, courageous enough to defy her culture by participating in an analysis, tolerate such an inequity, the readers asked? And, more important, was this a reexperiencing in the analysis of the traumatizing effect of her condescending, patriarchal culture?

Let us start with the surface. My technical reason for calling