> all forms of psychoanalysis seem to make. The best critique I
> know of is Timpanaro's *The Freudian Slip.*
actually, it--or at least half of it--is pretty silly, imo.
his demonstrations that there are well-established methods for analyzing parapraxes (e.g., phonetic devolutions) is a great contribution, both to analytic practice and maybe to providing some decent empirical grounds for the application of psychoanalytic theories to earlier periods.
but aside from that, he pretty much misses the point. the fact that so-and-so mangled this line as opposed to that line, and that one could arrive at the same conclusion had so-and-so mangled *that* line--great. criticizing psycho- analytic practice in the specific doesn't make its object, in this (non-exhaustive) case parapraxes as such, vanish.
basically, he could have written pretty much the same book *in support of* psychoanalysis. but he's one of those marx- ists who just doesn't like psychoanalysis.
better get your digs in fast, because this is one damned tiresome twentieth-century 'debate,' and it'll expire in a few days. I Can't Wait.
cheers, t