I realize on reflection that all I've ever seen of Lacan's work is metapsychology. And I never liked Freud's metapsychology, nor the social theory derived from it. But I did finally understand the appeal of Freud's thought when I read his case-histories, and then, working out from there into the pre-1905 work, I got a grasp on what seemed suggestive to me and what seemed off the beam. Whereas with Lacan, I'm still at the beginning: it all looks like useless glop.
It occurs to me that maybe I could finally work up some sympathy for Lacan in the same way, starting with case histories and seeing his ideas at work as psychology, analyzing symptoms and producing cures (or at least changes ;o) Then maybe his appeal would make more sense to me, especially as an amendation of Freud. And from sympathy might come understanding.
If Lacan didn't write any case histories, perhaps one of his many disciples has written one or two that have entered the Lacanian canon?
Thanks to all his fans,
__________________________________________________________________________ Michael Pollak................New York City..............mpollak at panix.com