Å·±¦ÓéÀÖ

It might be just about time for a pro-Freud reading of Freud to take off again, now that the utter failure of drug-dependent psychiatry has become obvious. I'm not sure we need this one, though, which is extraordinarily long, includes masses of pretty much irrelevant detail, and mostly fails to clarify ideas that really aren't all that complicated. Gay's sentences are very nice in isolation, but they're not all that helpful when it comes to understanding what Freud was doing.

What lesson should we learn from this book? I got a hard cover from the first edition (not worth anything, of course). It is a beautiful object. It lies flat when open. The case is not glued, willy nilly, to the spine of the book. It has a full cloth cover. The paper might actually last into the next decade. Let's bring that back, and get someone to write a new, more concise, very slightly less, positive biography of Freud to go between the boards.