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.
In several ways, this book goes beyond the ordinary scope of psychoanalysis. The first and most apparent way, is the fact that the author addresses himself to readers other than psychoanalysts. The potential reader, Crafoord surmises, is one who in one way or another talks to people as part of his or her job.
How to talk to people and how to learn to do it, is the theme of this book. However, Crafoord does not want to outline a technique or method: instead, he gives quite a pertinent critique of such ways of teaching people how to talk to another. The use of video, being a frequent method in such teaching, is the object of a well-founded critique.
To what extent Crafoord succeeds in reaching this audience, consisting for instance of lawyers, social workers, or policemen, I cannot tell. However, it seems to me that there is generosity on the part of the author, in the way he shares his experience within this field. And from my own experience in psychiatry, I think this book would be very welcome.
However, this book should evoke interest among psychoanalysts as well, although its character is primarily “extra-muros”. One interesting point is the relationship of psychoanalysis to literature; this may be counted as the second way this book goes beyond psychoanalysis.
As already mentioned above, Crafoord does not want to make a certain method or technique of talking, stand out. Hence one might ask, what kind of activity is then “talking to another”? Crafoord concludes, it is a form of art. I think that this answer raises an interesting discussion, and although it is not the major concern of the book, it might be justified to focus on this subject matter, when this book is reviewed in a psychoanalytic journal.
That talking is a form of art, is also implied in the subtitle of the book; the main title also has a similar ring to it; “Man is a story.” This statement is repeated several times through the book, but it remains unclear what kind of statement this is. Of course i