Two critics of Freud and psychoanalysis: The Memory Wars: Freud's Legacy in Dispute by Frederick Crews. New York: A New York Review Book, 1995 Why Freud was Wrong by Richard Webster. New York: Basic Books, 1995

Nothing could be easier than to argue that psychoanalysis as a method of treatment and tradition of thought, is both weak and poorly founded. It does not take much of an effort to find passages in Freud's voluminous work that make his theory appear unreasonable and contradictory. Today, we also have sufficient historical knowledge of Freud and his time to be able to paint a convincing picture of his human and scholarly failings. During the last few decades, several historical scholars have felt called upon to take on the intellectual giant Sigmund Freud, one of the most influental figures of our century, and furthermore, the author of a method of treatment that is still vigorous and developing.

There seem to be two different kinds of Freud historians. On one hand, there are those who pursue a critical investigation based on a respect for psychoanalysis as a theory and a mode of treatment. On the other, we find those inimical to Freud, such as Webster, Crews, Esterson and Macmillan, who offhandedly dismiss psychoanalysis as a pseudoscience. I am amazed by the categorical formulations that I have encountered in their texts. Several argue that psychoanalysis should be ranked in the same category as astrology; that it is harmful and completely worthless. According