In this discussion of Celenza's (this issue) article, I consider a paradox in our responses to psychoanalytic writing: from the same data, we expect both “clinical realism” and something more universal that expands psychoanalytic theory. So with Celenza's rich clinical material: from it, I argue, we may be able to make some universal claims about psychoanalytic process at the most general level. It is not, however, possible to make universal claims about what transpires in analyses in general based on the particular treatments she describes. Instead, I argue that the content of any given analysis inevitably varies with each individual patient and each analytic dyad. This discussion is greatly informed by the work of Edgar Levenson (1982) and Benjamin Wolstein (1981).