Customer Service | Help | FAQ | PEP-Easy | Report a Data Error | About
Tip: To see translations of this article…

PEP-Web Tip of the Day

When there are translations of the current article, you will see a flag/pennant icon next to the title, like this: 2015-11-06_11h14_24 For example:


Click on it and you will see a bibliographic list of papers that are published translations of the current article. Note that when no published translations are available, you can also translate an article on the fly using Google translate.


For the complete list of tips, see PEP-Web Tips on the PEP-Web support page.

Schachter, J. (2004). A Comment on Fernando. Canadian J. Psychoanal., 12(1):141-145.

(2004). Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, 12(1):141-145

A Comment on Fernando Related Papers

Joseph Schachter

I would like to formulate my response to Fernando's (fall 2003) review of my book Transference: Shibboleth or Albatross? by addressing three separate issues: the editorial policy involved in publishing this completely negative review, how this review compares to other reviews of the book, and my own responses to Fernando's substantive criticisms.

In terms of the editorial policy of the Canadian Journal of Psychoanalysis, the book review editor responded to my criticism of the intensely negative quality of the review by saying that she believed the reviewer had “balanced his concerns” about my book. In this case, the only counterpoint in the entire review to his numerous criticisms is the grudging comment that things improve near the end of the book, as Schachter discusses the case he has shared with us and presents his own ideas about transference, and on post-termination patient-analyst contacta topic he has studied and written about previously (p.253). From what baseline had things improved? Fernando decimated the book earlier by stating, There are problems with this book at many levelsin fact, so many problems that space is inadequate to list them all, much less describe them in detail rarely any detailed consideration of complex topics employs the shotgun approach method of argumentation is superficial the discussion involves the oversimplification and dichotomization of complex issues a one-dimensional alternate theory [and] I can find little to recommend in this book (pp.

[This is a summary or excerpt from the full text of the book or article. The full text of the document is available to subscribers.]

Copyright © 2020, Psychoanalytic Electronic Publishing, ISSN 2472-6982 Customer Service | Help | FAQ | Download PEP Bibliography | Report a Data Error | About

WARNING! This text is printed for personal use. It is copyright to the journal in which it originally appeared. It is illegal to redistribute it in any form.