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.
4th April 1952
My dear Hoffer:
I want to write you about two things.
The first is I want to thank you myself, although I know others have done so, for the very great trouble you took over the Melanie Klein number of the Journal. My regret at not having an article in it is very great, but I have been rather busy re-arranging my private life,1 which I thought was more important. If the number comes out in book form I hope to have my little bit in it. In any case I feel that the number as it stands is an extremely good birthday present for Melanie, and as I am fond of her as well as deeply appreciating her work I am glad.
I would like also to write a word about what you said at the meeting, partly to agree and partly not. I do agree that Associate Members who are reading membership papers are in a state in which they cannot easily stand criticism. I say that in spite of the fact that I recently wrote a letter which caused a good deal of trouble.2 If you have heard of this letter I hope you have also heard that I have expressed very deep grief that it was written as it was a thoroughly bad letter. It hurt the reader of the paper but it also hurt me because it obscured the point that I was trying to make which was that I thought the paper was too tidy, not giving away enough of the analyst's way of carrying on.
…
What I really want to say is this, that there is a great deal to be said for giving the reader of a membership paper every encouragement that can be given. I would not feel, however, that we