The Interpretation of Dreams

This book probably gets a perfect score from all psychoanalysts everywhere. But for the rest of us living in the real world this book serves better as the thoughts of a poet in action than any actual psychological applications. Nearly all of Sigmund Freud's findings have been refuted with good evidence. For example, Freud thought Fyodor Dostoyevsky's epilepsy was caused by guilt over his father's death when in fact his sons exhibited the same epilepsy,

Nevertheless these ideas are highly tempting and extremely fun to work with. In fact, for the artist they are helpful to one of the highest degrees. It is a highly compelling idea, to take one of the book's biggest conceits, that all dreams are wish fulfillment dreams. The fact that it show more takes much teasing to bring out that tendency doesn't detract from the thought because we honestly have no idea what dreams are. Some say dreams reflect wish fulfillments and fears, and this seems to be closest to the truth since mankind's first emotion is fear, but dreams are so grotesque, non-sensical, and emotionally charging that it seems so much more is involved with them than beats the eye. Indeed, when Freud is not over-complicating things he is actually over-simplifying them. But this may be the trapping of every person who studies dreams.

Freud's views are heavily rooted in scientific observation so that lends a lot of credence to his theories. In that sense it's easy to see why his views took off in America where they didn't take off in Europe. It's also easy to explain his ascension in America by the fact that Americans don't want to take responsibility for their actions and would rather blame "supernatural" forces such as the id and the super-ego (as opposed to just the ego). Indeed, it's easy to see how some of Freud's more ridiculous ideas stemmed from this simple seed of a book. He did not form his Oedipal Complex theory yet when this book came out, which was probably his most famous theory, but it's only too easy to see how much bullshit could spring from this one book, which was his first. Sigmund Freud may have ultimately been a charlatan, but I personally believe that he was genuinely on the search for truth. "Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar." Indeed, and so sometimes humans are utterly flawed and it's a wonder we can cipher out the truth in any instance at all, let alone the least likely of instances. show less

Warning: This is an impressionistic rant rather than a true review.

This is the hardest slog through a book I've ever had, and for the least reward.

The Interpretation of Dreams is contradictory, repetitious and confusing. Moreover, in it the author is revealed as immature (that is not having outgrown the adolescent obsession with sex), arrogant if not megalomaniac, misogynistic, bullying and, in general, thoroughly unpleasant.He seems to believe quite genuinely that everything that he has felt and experienced can and indeed must be of general applicability, that it can be extrapolated to apply to _all_ men in all times and places.

Thus, for instance, because in infancy he wanted to displace his father (kill him) and replace him as the show more object of his mother's sexual attention, he blithely assumes that all male children have such feelings towards their parents. Similarly, he extrapolates that all female children want to kill their mother and have sex with their father.

Freud further sets forth as an invariable rule that anxiety and other mental problems such as neuroses are always and only caused by a sexual experience in infancy or childhood. Similarly, much of the content of dreams, especially the latent content, is of a sexual nature. The latent dream content is what the dream is *really* about, as opposed to the manifest content, that which the dreamer actually experiences and relates to the annalist. The latent content is the important part of the dream, usually meaning something totally foreign to the manifest content. This latent content can only be teased out by the annalist by dint of close questioning of the patient and, one gathers from Freud's own discussions, very frequently through bullying.

It may be appropriate to mention in this connection that the introducer of this volume points out that several of Freud's women patients were intimidated by him and at least one accused him of improper conduct, what we would call today "sexual harassment." In the course of relating example dreams and his interpretations of them, Freud shows a preference for dreams told him by women, and he takes great pleasure in showing that even the most unlikely-seeming of these dreams display the patient's sexual desires and behavior. I was not previously aware that the annalist's job was to humiliate and harass his, presumably very vulnerable, patients, especially those of the opposite sex. Seems to me a most peculiar way to cure them. But, what do I know?

Two more of Freud's dogmas which he asserts as truth that must be universally acknowledged are that all dreams are wish fulfillments and that they all draw their material from the occurrences of the day just past. He does allow in a few places that childhood memories may also contribute to the dream material, provided of course such memories are of a traumatic sexual nature. As I suggested at the beginning, the book is contradictory and confusing.

Freud's conception of brain physiology and of what one might call the physics of thought are per force only of historical interest; though it should be noted that even at the time of writing, late 1890's, he mentions that applying the insights of Physics to the mysteries of the mind might well prove highly instructive. Still, for all his protestations, rather loud and insistent, that he himself is a scientist, his methods and attitudes seem to this reader as primitive and crude as those of the Medieval leaches for whom bleeding was the universal remedy for all illnesses, ailments and complaints. He claims to have affected some cures, and I suppose he must have done so or he wouldn't have achieved his professorship. Still, it remains astonishing to me that his ideas ever gained respectability, and far more astonishing that they still hold sway today, over one hundred years after he proposed them.

No doubt he was a pioneer - Jung acknowledges him as such- but pioneers normally yield their place of preeminence to later persons of worth in their field. Henry Ford was a pioneer, and yet we don't still drive around in Tin Lizzies. The Wright Brothers were pioneers, yet we don't still fly around in biplanes. And though Marconi was a pioneer, we don't still listen to Cristal sets. Science, technology, the world grow and develop. They progress. Yet in the field of Psychology, at least in the United States, practitioners are still driving the Model T, flying the biplane, tuning in the Cristal set. They cling to their master's dictum that sex and sex alone lies at the root of all human problems.

Jung was mature enough, secure enough in who he was to acknowledge Freud's status as a pioneer, a master yet at the same time to state clearly that Freud was mistaken on several points, among them the privileged place of sex as the exclusive cause of stress, anxiety, etc. Though Freud was a well educated man, his world view seems to have been rather narrow. Jung's world view is far broader; his ideas have far greater claim to be regarded as having universal applicability. Why then is Freudian Psychology still considered normative while Jungian Psychology is considered fringe? I can't imagine. Certainly this state of things is unhealthy, not to say destructive.

I am very interested in Jung, and read The Interpretation of Dreams simply to gain some idea of where Jung is coming from, what he has to contend with and struggle against. For that reason, I am not sorry I read the book. Beyond question, however, I will never read another book by Freud.

This translation is excellent. Yet, IMO the translator could have employed her time and talent much better. Don't read this book unless you absolutely have to. Even then, skim or see if they have Cliff Notes for it. show less

At a hefty 664 pages, this was hard work at times, and I did skip the last forty pages or so because it was dragging and I was excited about my next book. The bits that dragged for me were the highly theoretical bits. What I liked best were the case histories and the analyses of Freud’s own dreams and those of his friends and family. This book was most enjoyable when Freud put most of himself into it. He seems to have been a peculiar but ultimately rather endearing man.

As the blurb promised, ‘The Interpretation of Dreams’ did change the way I think about dreams. I’ve been able to look over records kept of old dreams with a fresh perspective. What I got most out of it was the idea that dreams are wish fulfilments. I would argue show more that they are other things too, but I see elements of wish fulfilment in almost all of my dreams. It’s sort of how we reconcile ourselves to the gap between reality and all that we desire. I didn’t accept all of Freud’s claims – I would have been very surprised if I had done. I started the book a bit ironically: Freud is well-known for his theory that everyone wants to shag their parents and pretty much anything else that moves. In short, he’s known for being obsessed with sex. This element of his thinking wasn’t really apparent until about half way through through this book, in which there’s a hilarious chapter on symbolism. Everything represents genitals, apparently: umbrellas, nail-files, boxes, cupboards, ships, keys, staircases, tables, hats, coats, neckties, ploughing, bridges, children, animals, relatives, luggage, all other body parts… we had a jolly good laugh about this in bed. show less

As a layman, I like Freud’s oeuvre beyond its scientific content for being excellent literature. Many of his theories ever have been controversially considered and often he contradicts himself. For example, in his work about dreams: Every dream, he posits, has a sexual background. But in the reported case studies only little sexual content is to be found.

After finishing "The Interpretation of Dreams,” I found myself saying “wow.” Very few authors have really bowled me over with their ability to think and write analytically, I now see with greater clarity why people look on this work with such fondness and verve. If you are like me and want to achieve a greater understanding of the psyche, by all means read Freud. However, be prepared for dense writing and know your literature.

Fascinating. I never know what to make of Freud, monumental genius or self-deceiving doofus. Interesting discussion of his children's dreams, including his later to be famous daughter. Interesting review of previous 19th century work on dreams in the first chapter. Basically, he describes the dream, then he states that it seems meaningless without analysis. Then he gives the analysis. Reminds me of one of my favorite quotes: "Thus we can see that these authors had worked out their conclusions far better than their arguments."

Ifrah. The Universal History of Numbers. p. 402

Jeffrey Moussaieff Masson's edition is the most beautiful new publication of a scholarly work I've ever seen. Masson carefully curated art from across the centuries to compliment and provoke reaction to Freud's work. To be honest, I enjoyed the illustration more than I enjoyed the writing. Masson also includes scholarly essays to contextualize Freud -- essays presented in folded paper hidden inside artwork that evokes the uncovering of a dream itself.