By placing emphasis on what he calls the object of the session, Jean-Yves Tamet opens up a whole field of reflection on the representative potentiality of analysis and in analysis. This is the axis that the author has chosen to follow, based on the clinical material presented and on a certain number of questions that arise in the report. What is the destiny of the traces of the object? Which transformation in the subject’s functioning is indicated by the appearance of the object in the session? How can we show what in each analysis makes visible the obscure objects of desire which, hidden in a vibrant place from which they constantly make themselves heard, haunt the psyche? What is the internal function of writing that the author of the report utilizes as an instrument?