I am giving this book a 3, simply because I don’t know what to make of it. It’s a description of 16 psychotherapeutic/psychoanalytic sessions of Gabrielle, nicknamed The Piggle, with the pioneering child psychiatrist Donald W. Winnicott. The sixteen sessions are spread out between 1964, when Gabrielle is 2 years old, and 1966, when she is 5 years old. Her parents, who seem to know D.W.W. personally, ask him to see their daughter, who has developed nightmares and strange anxieties since the birth of her sister Susan. D.W.W. describes each session in detail, with verbatim transcriptions of their exchanges and much attention to the minutiae of little Gabrielle’s interactions with the toys and other objects in his office. Interspersed are copies of letters from the parents to DWW and his replies. They regularly request further sessions and he accepts or postpones, depending on his schedule and his assessment of Gabrielle’s needs. At the end of the 16th session, he describes Gabrielle as a “really natural and psychiatrically normal girl of 5 years”.
Here is where the confusion comes in. When I read the interactions, I see places where DWW is simply brilliant in his understanding of how children use play and metaphor to express their feelings and fears. And then there are instances where all I can see is Freud-colored glasses. It seems that every other sentence that DWW utters must have something to do with daddies and mommies making babies. For instance, when The Piggle puts a stick through a truck window, his comment is that daddies stick something in mommies to make babies. Do 2-year olds know that? And is that what they are thinking of when, for instance, they rub two trucks together? And when they talk of snakes, why does DWW ask if it is “a big daddy thing”? I am sure that pediatric psychoanalysts will say that yes, this is what is going on in children’s unconscious during such types of play, but I just have a hard time believing it. And when I read The Piggle’s responses after such a comment, I just get the impression of a child ignoring a comment it didn’t understand. (I guess that psychoanalysts will tell me that’s resistance ?!). Anyway, all of this interpretation seems so narrow, so focused on penis envy and Freudian this and that, the stuff of New Yorker cartoons. Was this just a sign of the times? But as recently as 1993, there was an exchange in a psychiatry journal where one author claimed that The Piggle might have been sexually abused and another disagreed. The book is also sometimes referred to as a classic teaching tool about how to analyze children. But how? What is taught? DWW obligingly made notes in the margins pointing out in psychoanalytical terms what was going on, but to me it sounded just like anything might have fitted.
It will be clear that I have no psychoanalytical training and read this book feeling completely out of my depth. If any pediatric psychiatrists or therapists read my review, please feel free to comment and to let me know what contemporary professionals think about this.