Sir, - John Banville wrote (Book Reviews, November 18th) that I "was for many years a convinced Freudian . . . . In the 1990s, however, he underwent a Damascene conversion, and is today one of the most virulent opponents of Freud and his teachings. Hell hath no fury like a disciple turned apostate".
The facts are that my Freudian period lasted just five years, from 1965 to 1970. In the 1970s I published several articles (and a book, Out of My System) in which I tried rather lamely to salvage something from what I increasingly perceived to be the indefensible Freudian system of thought. In 1980 I published an article called "Analysis Terminable" (reprinted in my 1986 book Skeptical Engagements) that expressed the total disillusionment with psychoanalysis that I have steadily maintained over the subsequent 20 years.
Your reviewer's phrase "Damascene conversion" hints at a kind of psychological collapse or attack, a sudden flipflop whose outcome deserves, prima facie, to be distrusted. And yet I gather that Mr Banville's assessment of the scientific and therapeutic claims of psychoanalysis is quite close to my own.
Unfortunately, his references to "fury" and "virulence" echo the armchair psychoanalysing to which I am continually submitted by the Freudian faithful. That's what they do instead of attempting to answer any of the arguments that I and a number of other commentators have put forward. I call the attention of interested readers to a critical anthology I recently edited, Unauthorized Freud (Penguin, 1999). It marshals a whole tradition of sceptical scholarship forming a rational - not an emotional - basis for the judgments I have been expressing for the past two decades. - Yours, etc.,
Frederick Crews, Vincente Avenue, Berkeley, CA 94707-1524.
John Banville replies: I regret the error in claiming that Prof Crews remained a "convinced Freudian" until the 1990s, and accept that his disenchantment began much earlier. However, I think it not unfair to describe his turn away from Freudianism, honest and courageous as it was, as a "Damascene conversion", and certainly in employing the phrase I had no intention of hinting that Prof Crews suffered "a kind of psychological collapse or attack"; what St Paul underwent on the road to Damascus was a reversal of intellectual and spiritual conviction, surely something very like Prof Crews's experience in the 1970s? As to my use of the words "virulence" and "fury", I believe anyone reading Prof Crews's post-1970s writings on Freud and the legacy of psychoanalysis would not accuse me of over-statement; nor do I consider it an insult to describe in this way the very strong views which Prof Crews expresses, many of which I wholly agree with. Lastly, may I join Prof Crews in calling attention to his excellent collection of anti-Freudian writings, Unauthorized Freud, which should be read by anyone interested in this important and increasingly contentious issue.