Why Freud Was Wrong: Sin, Science and Psychoanalysis by Richard Webster
My rating: 1 of 5 stars

Rarely have I read a book where the author tries so hard to impress upon his readers the breadth of his study and knowledge of his subject. It's hard to believe that Webster would have intended to make his readers feel small and ignorant. But if he truly intended to write for a lay audience, surely he should have fleshed out some of his vast generalisations and explained the background and context for people who haven't already read everything by and about Freud, as he seems to have done.

Examples:
“The resemblances which Brown and Erikson found between Lutheran Protestantism and classical psychoanalysis can scarcely be disputed.” (Introduction, page 5: why )
“Sulloway’s book, like Roazen's, is a curious mixture of sceptical historicism and irrational piety.” (Prologue, page 21)

I gave up at Chapter One, entitled “Caul and cocaine”, where Webster writes: “[Freud] had been born in a caul …” In a 500-page book, where “caul” is in the title of a chapter, Webster does not deign to explain what it is. A phrase like “the amniotic sack in which a baby is held in the womb” would have been helpful. But no, the implied message (in my humble opinion) seems to be that if you are that ignorant you shouldn’t be reading this book.

I wish Webster could have explained in his Intro and Prologue why he thought Freud was wrong. What I got was mainly ‘Why Freud was Big-headed’ and ‘Why other people agreed with his high opinion of himself’.

Webster was recommended to me by a good friend and the book has a gushing endorsement from Dervla Murphy on the cover, so I had high expectations of this book, but they were not fulfilled. I look forward to hearing about a book that explains why Freud was wrong!

View all my reviews