What do you think?
Rate this book
A Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud & Sabina Spielrein
In 1907, Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung began what promised to be both a momentous collaboration and the deepest friendship of each man’s life. Six years later they were bitter antagonists, locked in a savage struggle that was as much personal and emotional as it was theoretical and professional. Between them stood a young woman named Sabina Spielrein, who had been both patient and lover to Jung and colleague and confidante to Freud before going on to become an innovative psychoanalyst herself.
With the narrative power and emotional impact of great tragedy, "A Dangerous Method" is impossible to put down.
With the narrative power and emotional impact of great tragedy, "A Dangerous Method" is impossible to put down.
607 pages, Paperback
First published August 24, 1993
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews
March 11, 2026
Having seen the film of this a few years back, I vaguely assumed that it would be a slim popular science book, a jaunty footnote in the history of psychology. In fact, it's a serious tome of more than six hundred pages, and a considerable work of research and synthesis. Which for all I know is how Keira Knightley chooses all her projects.
If you're up for that kind of thing, though, this is one of the most riveting and consequential intellectual histories I've read, about a relationship that would have an extraordinary afterlife in the culture. Its subject is the bafflingly fraught collaboration between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, who met in 1907 (apparently talking for thirteen hours straight) and who by 1913 were refusing to exchange a single word with each other. Yet within those six years, as John Kerr says, they had ‘decisively altered the course of human thought’.
Their story, he warns at the outset,
Freud needed Jung, at least at the beginning. ‘Psychoanalysis’ was just one theory among hundreds, until Jung backed it: he was a real, practising clinician, attached to one of the most prestigious psychiatric hospitals in the world. With his imprimatur, Freud's system would become an international juggernaut, accessing whole new vistas on the influence of childhood, the effects of trauma, the importance of sex, and the sources of disturbed behaviour.
Unfortunately, the two men disagreed almost immediately on the implications of psychoanalysis. And Freud brooked no disagreements: it was his way, or heresy. ‘He wants to give me love,’ Jung wrote; ‘I want understanding. I want to be a friend on an equal footing; he wants to have me as a son. That is why he condemns everything I do, and ascribes to a complex everything I do that does not fit the framework of his doctrine.’
This from a letter to the third subject of Kerr's biography, the elusive Sabina Spielrein. She was first Jung's patient, then his protegee, and then his lover. In her diaries, she talked of their physical relationship allusively as ‘poetry’, though the cipher is fairly transparent:
Yes, it's the same old depressing story. Jung's wife, Emma, was a watch heiress, one of the richest bachelorettes in Switzerland, whose fortune Jung was now using to build his own independent career while making ‘poetry’ with a girl he'd once treated for compulsive masturbation. ‘Naturally the women are all in love with him,’ Emma wrote to Freud behind her husband's back. ‘Carl too says I should stop concentrating on him and the children, but what on earth am I to do?…I can never compete with Carl. In order to emphasize this I usually have to talk extra stupidly when in company.’
In fairness, all involved were aware of how tawdry the whole situation was, and desperately looking for ways to redeem themselves and it. But Jung and Spielrein had genuinely found a deep connection in each other, and though they would drag themselves apart for the sake of their mental and moral health, they both remained obsessed with each other for the rest of their lives. Through Spielrein, Jung discovered his own ideas about psychoanalysis which differed from the master's.
But that was exactly where Jung was heading – away from sex, and towards the occult. He realised he no longer believed, with Freud, that sex was behind everything. He was also turning away from medicine and towards mythology and the paranormal: indeed after the separation from Spielrein and the split with Freud, he went into something like an extended psychotic break, having vivid hallucinations, communing with the dead, and losing touch with objective reality.
Spielrein was a talented psychologist whose theories in many ways synthesised those of Freud and Jung; her contributions were – not exactly erased, but certainly forgotten. It was more convenient that way – for professional reasons, in the case of Freud, and personal ones in the case of Jung. She might have disappeared from history altogether, had a cache of her papers not fortuitously turned up in the 1970s. ‘The relationship had to be “sublimated” because otherwise it would have led him to delusion and madness,’ Jung wrote to her years later, speaking in the third person for added distance. ‘Occasionally one must be unworthy, simply in order to continue living.’
It's a moving, if unedifying, tale. You finish the book blindsided by the extraordinary insights that can come from such flawed people and such unhealthy interactions. To that extent I disagree with Kerr: this isn't a ghost story but, on the contrary, a very human one. Which is perhaps fitting for psychoanalysis, a science that, in the end, is not a science at all, but rather a subtle, unjudgmental, interpretive worldview. What ‘science’ could ever capture the complexity of human nature?
If you're up for that kind of thing, though, this is one of the most riveting and consequential intellectual histories I've read, about a relationship that would have an extraordinary afterlife in the culture. Its subject is the bafflingly fraught collaboration between Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung, who met in 1907 (apparently talking for thirteen hours straight) and who by 1913 were refusing to exchange a single word with each other. Yet within those six years, as John Kerr says, they had ‘decisively altered the course of human thought’.
Their story, he warns at the outset,
is not a nice one. It is not a love story. Nor is it one of those edifying stories about how a few intrepid men and women made a scientific breakthrough. If I could characterize it in a single phrase I would say that it is an unusually gruesome ghost story…
Freud needed Jung, at least at the beginning. ‘Psychoanalysis’ was just one theory among hundreds, until Jung backed it: he was a real, practising clinician, attached to one of the most prestigious psychiatric hospitals in the world. With his imprimatur, Freud's system would become an international juggernaut, accessing whole new vistas on the influence of childhood, the effects of trauma, the importance of sex, and the sources of disturbed behaviour.
Unfortunately, the two men disagreed almost immediately on the implications of psychoanalysis. And Freud brooked no disagreements: it was his way, or heresy. ‘He wants to give me love,’ Jung wrote; ‘I want understanding. I want to be a friend on an equal footing; he wants to have me as a son. That is why he condemns everything I do, and ascribes to a complex everything I do that does not fit the framework of his doctrine.’
This from a letter to the third subject of Kerr's biography, the elusive Sabina Spielrein. She was first Jung's patient, then his protegee, and then his lover. In her diaries, she talked of their physical relationship allusively as ‘poetry’, though the cipher is fairly transparent:
Four and a half years ago Dr. Jung was my doctor, then he became my friend and finally my “poet”, i.e. my beloved. Eventually he came to me and things went as they usually do with “poetry”. He preached polygamy; his wife was supposed to have no objection, etc., etc.
Yes, it's the same old depressing story. Jung's wife, Emma, was a watch heiress, one of the richest bachelorettes in Switzerland, whose fortune Jung was now using to build his own independent career while making ‘poetry’ with a girl he'd once treated for compulsive masturbation. ‘Naturally the women are all in love with him,’ Emma wrote to Freud behind her husband's back. ‘Carl too says I should stop concentrating on him and the children, but what on earth am I to do?…I can never compete with Carl. In order to emphasize this I usually have to talk extra stupidly when in company.’
In fairness, all involved were aware of how tawdry the whole situation was, and desperately looking for ways to redeem themselves and it. But Jung and Spielrein had genuinely found a deep connection in each other, and though they would drag themselves apart for the sake of their mental and moral health, they both remained obsessed with each other for the rest of their lives. Through Spielrein, Jung discovered his own ideas about psychoanalysis which differed from the master's.
I can still vividly recall [he wrote in his memoirs] how Freud said to me, “My dear Jung, promise me never to abandon the sexual theory. This is the most essential thing of all. You see, we must make a dogma of it, an unshakable bulwark.” He said that to me with great emotion, in the tone of a father saying, “And promise me this one thing, my dear son; that you will go to church every Sunday.” In some astonishment I asked him, “A bulwark—against what?” To which he replied, “Against the black tide of mud”—and here he hesitated for a moment, then added—“of occultism.”
But that was exactly where Jung was heading – away from sex, and towards the occult. He realised he no longer believed, with Freud, that sex was behind everything. He was also turning away from medicine and towards mythology and the paranormal: indeed after the separation from Spielrein and the split with Freud, he went into something like an extended psychotic break, having vivid hallucinations, communing with the dead, and losing touch with objective reality.
Spielrein was a talented psychologist whose theories in many ways synthesised those of Freud and Jung; her contributions were – not exactly erased, but certainly forgotten. It was more convenient that way – for professional reasons, in the case of Freud, and personal ones in the case of Jung. She might have disappeared from history altogether, had a cache of her papers not fortuitously turned up in the 1970s. ‘The relationship had to be “sublimated” because otherwise it would have led him to delusion and madness,’ Jung wrote to her years later, speaking in the third person for added distance. ‘Occasionally one must be unworthy, simply in order to continue living.’
It's a moving, if unedifying, tale. You finish the book blindsided by the extraordinary insights that can come from such flawed people and such unhealthy interactions. To that extent I disagree with Kerr: this isn't a ghost story but, on the contrary, a very human one. Which is perhaps fitting for psychoanalysis, a science that, in the end, is not a science at all, but rather a subtle, unjudgmental, interpretive worldview. What ‘science’ could ever capture the complexity of human nature?
November 27, 2023
This is a tome. And it’s a formidable one at that. I browsed quite a few options prior to plunging in to this one, and none seem to capture the full rise and fall of the relationship between Freud and Jung as well as this one. It is long, so it does justice to adequate biographies and a deep dive into the letters between the two. It masterfully weaves in a cast of secondary characters that were associated with the psychoanalytic movement. Most importantly, perhaps, it shows the rise and fall of the relationship through a neglected primary character of the drama: Sabina Spielrein, a figure who went on to be a giant in her own right, training the likes of Lev Vygotsky.
Sabina was a patient of Jung’s at the Burghölzli, later becoming his assistant and then his lover (?) – who needs ethics, right folks? They may have stopped just short of sexual intercourse in their run-ins – certainly Kerr leaves some latency in his interpretation of the available material. David Cronenberg is a lot more concrete in his cringy adaptation of the book, showing Jung taking Spielrein’s virginity, focusing on her blood-soaked sheets and staying there for a few seconds. Cheers David. [As an aside, the cringe does not stop there. One of the famous moments that every enthusiast knows about Fred and Jung is the fact that during their first meeting, they talked nonstop for somewhere in the ballpark of 13 hours. In the movie, Freud, played by Viggo Mortensen, abruptly turns to Jung, played by Michael Fassbender, and says “I wonder if you know that we have been talking for 13 hours!” Nice man. You did it.] Either way, Spielrein’s presence was a weapon to Jung’s credibility (he was very obviously aware of the unethical acts he was engaging in) and may even have been implicitly turned against him by Freud.
Over and over, no matter what source you consult, be it the most cultish of Jung followers to the most devout believers of the “fact” that toilet training issues lead to stinginess, you hear one thing: Freud was open-minded until he settled on something he thought to be right. After that? Good luck boss. Agree with him or go home. This was the soil on which the flimsy tower of the friendship between Freud and Jung was made, and it was almost immediately put under structural pressure through the clash of personalities.
The end seems abrupt, but it comes after a year of swapping subliminal shots back and forth. Freud tosses out the following:
Jung does something that is so insanely baller that I cannot speak of it highly enough: he writes the shortest letter that he can, and ends the relationship between the two mammoths by quoting Hamlet.
And the rest is is (almost) silence. Some official, very dry, very short back and forth (with the energy of “No Admittance Except on Party Business”). And that is it.
So. Freud vs. Jung. Who won?
The behaviorists.
Sabina was a patient of Jung’s at the Burghölzli, later becoming his assistant and then his lover (?) – who needs ethics, right folks? They may have stopped just short of sexual intercourse in their run-ins – certainly Kerr leaves some latency in his interpretation of the available material. David Cronenberg is a lot more concrete in his cringy adaptation of the book, showing Jung taking Spielrein’s virginity, focusing on her blood-soaked sheets and staying there for a few seconds. Cheers David. [As an aside, the cringe does not stop there. One of the famous moments that every enthusiast knows about Fred and Jung is the fact that during their first meeting, they talked nonstop for somewhere in the ballpark of 13 hours. In the movie, Freud, played by Viggo Mortensen, abruptly turns to Jung, played by Michael Fassbender, and says “I wonder if you know that we have been talking for 13 hours!” Nice man. You did it.] Either way, Spielrein’s presence was a weapon to Jung’s credibility (he was very obviously aware of the unethical acts he was engaging in) and may even have been implicitly turned against him by Freud.
Over and over, no matter what source you consult, be it the most cultish of Jung followers to the most devout believers of the “fact” that toilet training issues lead to stinginess, you hear one thing: Freud was open-minded until he settled on something he thought to be right. After that? Good luck boss. Agree with him or go home. This was the soil on which the flimsy tower of the friendship between Freud and Jung was made, and it was almost immediately put under structural pressure through the clash of personalities.
The end seems abrupt, but it comes after a year of swapping subliminal shots back and forth. Freud tosses out the following:
“One who while behaving abnormally keeps shouting that he is normal gives ground for the suspicion that he lacks insight into his illness. Accordingly, I propose that we abandon our personal relations entirely. I shall lose nothing by it, for my only emotional tie with you has long been a thin thread–the lingering effect of past disappointments–and you have everything to gain… I therefore say, take your full freedom and spare me your supposed “tokens of friendship.””
Jung does something that is so insanely baller that I cannot speak of it highly enough: he writes the shortest letter that he can, and ends the relationship between the two mammoths by quoting Hamlet.
“I accede to your wish that we abandon our personal relations, for I never thrust my friendship on anyone. You yourself are the best judge of what this moment means to you. “The rest is silence.””
And the rest is is (almost) silence. Some official, very dry, very short back and forth (with the energy of “No Admittance Except on Party Business”). And that is it.
So. Freud vs. Jung. Who won?
The behaviorists.
December 30, 2012
This was not what I was expecting. I was under the impression that this would be a book in plain english that would discuss in detail the affair between Spielrein and Jung as well as their relationship with Freud. Instead, it read like a 500+ page essay written in psych jargon. Reading it was arduous as I had to put it down many times to think about what author John Kerr had written. in addition, there are many other psychologists mentioned and the text drifts to their stories. The book becomes less about Jung, Freud and Spielein and just about the history of sexual psychology and it's development in the early twentieth century.
That said, the book is very well researched and John Kerr is passionate about the subject. Clearly, Mr. Kerr sympathizes with Ms. Spielrein and the other women who were under the care of Mr. Jung and Mr. Freud as well as the other founding fathers of modern psychology and how their stories were used to advance the careers and fame of the men who were treating them. He also questions the Jung's ethics; the affair with Spielrein was not only a violation of the code of ethics between a therapist and their patient, but was also taking advantage of a mentally unstable young woman.
Though the founding of modern psychology changed the world, understanding of the human mind, and has helped people, how it came to be was due to in part to exploitation and the clash of egos. All were men looking for greatness, often by using their patients for glory. But it was their egos that really got in the way of their greatness.
That said, the book is very well researched and John Kerr is passionate about the subject. Clearly, Mr. Kerr sympathizes with Ms. Spielrein and the other women who were under the care of Mr. Jung and Mr. Freud as well as the other founding fathers of modern psychology and how their stories were used to advance the careers and fame of the men who were treating them. He also questions the Jung's ethics; the affair with Spielrein was not only a violation of the code of ethics between a therapist and their patient, but was also taking advantage of a mentally unstable young woman.
Though the founding of modern psychology changed the world, understanding of the human mind, and has helped people, how it came to be was due to in part to exploitation and the clash of egos. All were men looking for greatness, often by using their patients for glory. But it was their egos that really got in the way of their greatness.
April 28, 2012
I'm not sure exactly how to review this book. Honestly, since Goodreads corresponds their stars to how much "I" liked it, as opposed to how "good" I thought it was (i.e. 4 stars means I "really liked it" as opposed to "very good"), I'm almost tempted to give it three stars, even though I also thought "it was amazing."
But perhaps I'm over-thinking the star thing.
Anyway, the book is amazing. The author is knowledgeable to an almost frightening degree, and the background he provides on both Jung and Freud's lives, as well as Speilrein's, is breathtaking in its thoroughness. In fact, it's probably the best history lesson I've ever had on the turn of the century in Europe.
That said, this is not an easy book by any definition, and I know a fair amount about psychology--at least, above average for a non-psychologist--and I have a high tolerance for non-narrative nonfiction. It was more like reading a very, very worthwhile textbook than anything else, and while I love that about it, I also began to see it as something of an assignment.
But perhaps I'm over-thinking the star thing.
Anyway, the book is amazing. The author is knowledgeable to an almost frightening degree, and the background he provides on both Jung and Freud's lives, as well as Speilrein's, is breathtaking in its thoroughness. In fact, it's probably the best history lesson I've ever had on the turn of the century in Europe.
That said, this is not an easy book by any definition, and I know a fair amount about psychology--at least, above average for a non-psychologist--and I have a high tolerance for non-narrative nonfiction. It was more like reading a very, very worthwhile textbook than anything else, and while I love that about it, I also began to see it as something of an assignment.
December 27, 2012
This book will fascinate anyone interested in the personal biographies of Freud or Jung, most particularly in reference to their breakup. It will also be of interest to psychotherapists who will encounter transferences and counter-transferences in their practices as it is a case study of the phenomenon which Freud judged the sine qua non of successful therapy. Finally, it should be of interest to medical ethicists.
For over a decade I saw myself as training for a career as a psychotherapist, obtaining three degrees in the process and related job and internship placements. Depth psychology was my theoretical predilection. Talking-therapy was my preferred method. Issues of meaning and purpose were the "psychological" problems I was most interested in. This overall orientation substantially abides, but I never became a psychotherapist.
The reason for this failure, I usually tell myself and others, was that the clinical aegis I had intended to work under, the pastoral counseling programs of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, were given up by the Church owing to financial constraints while I was still in seminary under the care of Donald Szantho Harrington. The UUA program would have allowed me to do therapy without the intrustion of money concerns. I would receive a modest, but adequate, salary. Clients would pay according to their abilities, the indigent paying nothing at all. Like Freud, I strongly believe that both analyst and analysand must be motivated for therapy to work. They must care, the analyst for the client, the client for him or herself. Therapy for a person is not like repair of an appliance.
This book brought into relief the possibility that it may have been more than my aversion to money matters that caused me to drift away from my intended career after the UUA option fell through. It may also have had something to do with what Freud called "the transference", what I just termed "care" and what others in day-to-day life call "love".
In the case of Freud, Jung and Spielrein this business of caring got way out of hand. Jung fell in love with his young, attractively intelligent patient. Spielrein fell in love with her psychiatrist. He betrayed his wedding vows, family obligations and, hopefully, conscience. Then, thinking better of it, he retracted his affections, betraying Spielrein. She, being much his junior and having no such obligations, would appear to be less at fault, but still was culpable for threatening his marriage. Freud, two decades older than Jung, probably repeated the configuration with the disappointed woman in his heart, but did not or could not act on it, sexually speaking, and actually served her in the sense of initially promoting her own career in psychiatry. But he also, according to Kerr, used the intimate secrets pertaining to her and Jung in his struggles for control of the psychoanalytic movement just as Jung used what he knew of Freud's own secrets to resist this control. All in all, not a pretty picture...But all of it understandable...
From this sordid, pathetic story I mostly focused on the sexual aspect at the time of reading and this because sexual infidelities hurt my own family and its members when I was growing up. If I was a therapist and if someone like the impressive Ms. Spielrein fell for me, would I be able to maintain objective distance while still effectively--which, of course, means truly--caring for her? Given the fact that I, unlike Jung, would have no wedding vows or family obligations to worry about, it seemed uncertain that I would. But, obviously, if I as a therapist became sexually involved with a client, then matters would become serious. Sex means the possiblity of pregnancy and pregnancy is entirely in the hands of the female. I would have to be open to this eventuality, ready to assume paternal responsiblity, open to marriage or its equivalent. Meanwhile, were I to continue to practice, I would be encountering this kind of temptation again and again in the transference. I would be in Jung's situation and the moral consequences of a lapse in such a future circumstance would be unconscienceable.
These considerations also obtain in everyday life. Indeed, I think--I inevitably feel--friendships ought have a therapeutic component. But in ordinary circumstances power relations are not distorted by titles, degrees, shows of special insight or expertise. Therapeutic concern between friends is a two-way street, the offices of friendship exchanged back and forth as appropriate to the circumstances. Relationships of such effective equality I could, I was reasonably certain, handle. Like most everyone else, I'd been managing pretty well for my entire adult life.
Romantic entanglements were extremely common in the early years of depth psychology. Professionally forbidden, virtually taboo, in contemporary American practice, they still occur, albeit even more furtively. The problematic remains and is probably insufficiently admitted and discussed with frank honesty. Obviously, there is a parallel here with the relations between clergy and laity, a matter which is currently being discussed quite a lot with great heat and little clarity.
The solution would appear to be obtainable with the removal of inequitous power relations and the numinosity associated with presumed powers, virtues and abilities presumed to be associated with titles and degrees. To be completely successful, such a solution would require a radical redistribution of wealth and democratization of society. Partial improvements would be found, however, in the demystification of the professions and of higher education, in the diminuation of the remuneration held appropriate for professionals, in the ethos of co-therapeutics whereby no hard and fast distinctions are made between roles and in, as stated, ongoing critical examination of cultural taboos.
For over a decade I saw myself as training for a career as a psychotherapist, obtaining three degrees in the process and related job and internship placements. Depth psychology was my theoretical predilection. Talking-therapy was my preferred method. Issues of meaning and purpose were the "psychological" problems I was most interested in. This overall orientation substantially abides, but I never became a psychotherapist.
The reason for this failure, I usually tell myself and others, was that the clinical aegis I had intended to work under, the pastoral counseling programs of the Unitarian-Universalist Association, were given up by the Church owing to financial constraints while I was still in seminary under the care of Donald Szantho Harrington. The UUA program would have allowed me to do therapy without the intrustion of money concerns. I would receive a modest, but adequate, salary. Clients would pay according to their abilities, the indigent paying nothing at all. Like Freud, I strongly believe that both analyst and analysand must be motivated for therapy to work. They must care, the analyst for the client, the client for him or herself. Therapy for a person is not like repair of an appliance.
This book brought into relief the possibility that it may have been more than my aversion to money matters that caused me to drift away from my intended career after the UUA option fell through. It may also have had something to do with what Freud called "the transference", what I just termed "care" and what others in day-to-day life call "love".
In the case of Freud, Jung and Spielrein this business of caring got way out of hand. Jung fell in love with his young, attractively intelligent patient. Spielrein fell in love with her psychiatrist. He betrayed his wedding vows, family obligations and, hopefully, conscience. Then, thinking better of it, he retracted his affections, betraying Spielrein. She, being much his junior and having no such obligations, would appear to be less at fault, but still was culpable for threatening his marriage. Freud, two decades older than Jung, probably repeated the configuration with the disappointed woman in his heart, but did not or could not act on it, sexually speaking, and actually served her in the sense of initially promoting her own career in psychiatry. But he also, according to Kerr, used the intimate secrets pertaining to her and Jung in his struggles for control of the psychoanalytic movement just as Jung used what he knew of Freud's own secrets to resist this control. All in all, not a pretty picture...But all of it understandable...
From this sordid, pathetic story I mostly focused on the sexual aspect at the time of reading and this because sexual infidelities hurt my own family and its members when I was growing up. If I was a therapist and if someone like the impressive Ms. Spielrein fell for me, would I be able to maintain objective distance while still effectively--which, of course, means truly--caring for her? Given the fact that I, unlike Jung, would have no wedding vows or family obligations to worry about, it seemed uncertain that I would. But, obviously, if I as a therapist became sexually involved with a client, then matters would become serious. Sex means the possiblity of pregnancy and pregnancy is entirely in the hands of the female. I would have to be open to this eventuality, ready to assume paternal responsiblity, open to marriage or its equivalent. Meanwhile, were I to continue to practice, I would be encountering this kind of temptation again and again in the transference. I would be in Jung's situation and the moral consequences of a lapse in such a future circumstance would be unconscienceable.
These considerations also obtain in everyday life. Indeed, I think--I inevitably feel--friendships ought have a therapeutic component. But in ordinary circumstances power relations are not distorted by titles, degrees, shows of special insight or expertise. Therapeutic concern between friends is a two-way street, the offices of friendship exchanged back and forth as appropriate to the circumstances. Relationships of such effective equality I could, I was reasonably certain, handle. Like most everyone else, I'd been managing pretty well for my entire adult life.
Romantic entanglements were extremely common in the early years of depth psychology. Professionally forbidden, virtually taboo, in contemporary American practice, they still occur, albeit even more furtively. The problematic remains and is probably insufficiently admitted and discussed with frank honesty. Obviously, there is a parallel here with the relations between clergy and laity, a matter which is currently being discussed quite a lot with great heat and little clarity.
The solution would appear to be obtainable with the removal of inequitous power relations and the numinosity associated with presumed powers, virtues and abilities presumed to be associated with titles and degrees. To be completely successful, such a solution would require a radical redistribution of wealth and democratization of society. Partial improvements would be found, however, in the demystification of the professions and of higher education, in the diminuation of the remuneration held appropriate for professionals, in the ethos of co-therapeutics whereby no hard and fast distinctions are made between roles and in, as stated, ongoing critical examination of cultural taboos.
January 15, 2015
If you're fascinated by the idea of an unconscious mind, as I am, then this is a book for you. You’ll need that fascination to sustain you through some 600 pages of detailed and painstaking chronicling of the Freud-Jung relationship and the early development of the psychoanalytic movement just after the turn of the 20th century.
Historian John Kerr views the father of psychoanalysis and his designated heir as two corners of a triangle with the brilliant Sabina Spielrein, daughter of a Russian merchant, who was a patient and student of both, and ultimately even a colleague, becoming one of the first female psychoanalysts. Complicating the matter was her romantic involvement with Jung, with whom she may or may not have had a sexual relationship. But the personal and the historical levels are not merely presented here as figure and ground or close-up and background; rather the former is thoroughly embedded within the latter and cannot be seen apart from it, as the shallow, decontextualized movie version would have us believe. Kerr knots the two levels together in the fascinating figure of Spielrein, whose deep self-insight and quasi-mystical sensibility gave her two mentors the intellectual seeds for some of their most important theories, including Freud’s theory of the death instinct. Since Spielrein provided the two men with inspiration on so many levels, Kerr argues, persuasively, that no history of the psychoanalytic movement can be complete that fails to take her fully into account.
It seems, however, that each of the two men had his own ways of keeping Spielrein “under wraps,” so to speak, both sexually and intellectually. One particularly compelling instance of the latter was Freud’s failure in his own work to give due recognition to Spielrein’s theory of sexual repression as outlined in one of her early psychoanalytic papers. In this paper, which both Freud and Jung read, she argues against Freud in theorizing that such repression has less to do with familial and social taboos than with the ego’s need for self-preservation: in other words, the ego blocks the sexual instinct because it knows that the ecstasy of orgasm is the one moment in ordinary life during which it (the ego) is transcended, in union with the other. The ego fears this obliteration and its implied possibility of expansion to a wider consciousness. Since this ties in so well with the claims of mystics in all religious traditions to just such transcendence in the unio mystica, Spielrein’s theory becomes all the more compelling. Both Freud and Jung were impressed by the original thought displayed by Spielrein in her paper, but, according to Kerr, the only public evidence of their admiration—grudging and indirect as it was—was Freud’s introduction in 1920 of his “new discovery” of a death instinct in Beyond the Pleasure Principle: he gives Spielrein one brief footnote.
The book also shows Freud and Jung in the setting of their own growing circles of colleagues, adherents and dissenters: Forel, Bleuler, Riklin, Adler, Abraham, Sachs, Ferenczi and so many others, whose names today ring only the faintest of bells even in the minds of enthusiasts of analysis. Kerr deftly individualizes all these supporting players, mainly by presenting Freud and Jung’s exchanges of opinion of them in their busy correspondence as they negotiated one feud or falling-out or minor crisis in the movement after another. And there was certainly no paucity of bickering and infighting both within and between the Vienna and Zurich camps. It is astonishing how petty and childish these larger-than-life custodians of our psychic health could be with one another. But alas, with great genius comes great ego (in the Buddhist sense), and it was the need to keep a burnished self-image for the ages that eventually caused the partnership’s break-up in 1911. Kerr allows himself to speculate briefly on what psychoanalysis might have become, had Freud and Jung been able to work through their personal grievances and continue their collaboration.
Historian John Kerr views the father of psychoanalysis and his designated heir as two corners of a triangle with the brilliant Sabina Spielrein, daughter of a Russian merchant, who was a patient and student of both, and ultimately even a colleague, becoming one of the first female psychoanalysts. Complicating the matter was her romantic involvement with Jung, with whom she may or may not have had a sexual relationship. But the personal and the historical levels are not merely presented here as figure and ground or close-up and background; rather the former is thoroughly embedded within the latter and cannot be seen apart from it, as the shallow, decontextualized movie version would have us believe. Kerr knots the two levels together in the fascinating figure of Spielrein, whose deep self-insight and quasi-mystical sensibility gave her two mentors the intellectual seeds for some of their most important theories, including Freud’s theory of the death instinct. Since Spielrein provided the two men with inspiration on so many levels, Kerr argues, persuasively, that no history of the psychoanalytic movement can be complete that fails to take her fully into account.
It seems, however, that each of the two men had his own ways of keeping Spielrein “under wraps,” so to speak, both sexually and intellectually. One particularly compelling instance of the latter was Freud’s failure in his own work to give due recognition to Spielrein’s theory of sexual repression as outlined in one of her early psychoanalytic papers. In this paper, which both Freud and Jung read, she argues against Freud in theorizing that such repression has less to do with familial and social taboos than with the ego’s need for self-preservation: in other words, the ego blocks the sexual instinct because it knows that the ecstasy of orgasm is the one moment in ordinary life during which it (the ego) is transcended, in union with the other. The ego fears this obliteration and its implied possibility of expansion to a wider consciousness. Since this ties in so well with the claims of mystics in all religious traditions to just such transcendence in the unio mystica, Spielrein’s theory becomes all the more compelling. Both Freud and Jung were impressed by the original thought displayed by Spielrein in her paper, but, according to Kerr, the only public evidence of their admiration—grudging and indirect as it was—was Freud’s introduction in 1920 of his “new discovery” of a death instinct in Beyond the Pleasure Principle: he gives Spielrein one brief footnote.
The book also shows Freud and Jung in the setting of their own growing circles of colleagues, adherents and dissenters: Forel, Bleuler, Riklin, Adler, Abraham, Sachs, Ferenczi and so many others, whose names today ring only the faintest of bells even in the minds of enthusiasts of analysis. Kerr deftly individualizes all these supporting players, mainly by presenting Freud and Jung’s exchanges of opinion of them in their busy correspondence as they negotiated one feud or falling-out or minor crisis in the movement after another. And there was certainly no paucity of bickering and infighting both within and between the Vienna and Zurich camps. It is astonishing how petty and childish these larger-than-life custodians of our psychic health could be with one another. But alas, with great genius comes great ego (in the Buddhist sense), and it was the need to keep a burnished self-image for the ages that eventually caused the partnership’s break-up in 1911. Kerr allows himself to speculate briefly on what psychoanalysis might have become, had Freud and Jung been able to work through their personal grievances and continue their collaboration.
May 30, 2024
"Algumas vezes, quando uma pessoa não consegue se fazer entender, é possível que a culpa seja dela própria. Talvez por estar falando de forma obscura; talvez por reclamar demais; talvez por falar de forma muito pessoal. E, talvez, Spielrein pudesse ser incluída nos três casos. Mas, analisando bem, não se pode culpá-la por sua incapacidade de conquistar o reconhecimento para suas conclusões sobre a repressão; os culpados foram Freud e Jung. Preocupados com suas próprias teorias, e cada um com o outro, os dois simplesmente não se dispuseram a acolher as idéias dessa jovem colega, e muito menos a oferecer ajuda para que ela encontrasse uma expressão apropriada para seus pensamentos. Pior ainda, ambos em particular justificaram seu descaso, recolocando-a implicitamente no papel de paciente, como se isso de alguma forma impedisse alguém de ter sua própria opinião ou visão. O fato de uma manobra retórica tão desleal, tão em desacordo com a vocação essencial do novo método terapêutico, ter sido empregada tão facilmente, foi e ainda é um aspecto negativo na história da evolução da psicanálise. Na grande disputa entre Freud e Jung para sistematizar a teoria psicanalítica, para codificá-la de uma vez por todas, perdeu-se de vista uma verdade mais simples: algumas vezes, uma pessoa não é entendida porque não recebe a devida atenção." - John Kerr
November 21, 2012
An interesting account of Freud and Jung and "the woman who came between them!" Except she didn't. Not REALLY. I haven't seen the film but they always try to sex these things up don't they? With some fascinating insights into the world of psycho-analysis, I was intrigued by this book, and although a bit dry at times, think it would appeal to lovers of psychology.
October 29, 2019
This is interesting and important history, but Kerr unfortunately seems to think that his historical research also qualifies him to declare absolutely which theories are objectively “correct” or “true”, on the basis of their author’s “genius”, with no reference to current scientific understanding and progress is psychology. Furthermore, although he does present most of Spielrein’s side (at least of what is known) he has no self awareness or reflection on his own biases, which leads to some very odd omissions and emphases in his discussion of various texts and events.
If you ware interested in the history of our understanding of the human mind or women in academia and science then I recommend this book, but with the caveat that you will have to put up with unjustified pretensions and blunders.
If you ware interested in the history of our understanding of the human mind or women in academia and science then I recommend this book, but with the caveat that you will have to put up with unjustified pretensions and blunders.
October 1, 2025
3.5/5: This was a good book about psychoanalysis and the life and relationships between Jung, Freud, and the woman Sabina Spielrein. Great narration from Peter berkrot on the audiobook and character voices of the story. Synopsis: A Most Dangerous Method: The Story of Jung, Freud, and Sabina Spielrein is the result of an eight-year examination of the relationship between Sigmund Freud, Carl Jung, and Sabina Spielrein, and creates a new narrative of the birth of psychoanalysis. John Kerr not only gives Spielrein her proper recognition for contributions to analytic theory but gives a fresh perspective on the Freud-Jung stalemate that resulted in the two parting ways. Random House published a Most Dangerous Method in 6 the outrage of the psychoanalytical community. A few months later, the critic and academic Frederick Crews reviewed A Most Dangerous Method and other books on Freud, using the review to attack Freud's methods and practices. The essay would result in the largest influx of letters to the editor in the history of The New York Review of Books. I have been trying to get more into psychology for my own benefit and understanding of my own depression and anxiety as I cope with stress and life. This is a good midpoint view between the two well-known historical psychoanalysts and also learn of some new ones I have not heard about yet. Overall, as a general story, it was enjoyable; but the technical jargon gets pretty dry and grating as you go for the length, but it wasn't bad at all. I was able to listen through. I will have to look into more of their studies from both opposing viewpoints as it were eventually. Trauma and abuse will definitely fuck up your life, and I definitely need to get some dream analysis soon.
January 5, 2014
Incredibly difficult to read, not because it's not good, because it really _is_ very good. But wow is it an ugly story. The sheer amount of research that had to be involved in writing this must have been astounding. The author Kerr must have had walls covered in post-it notes as he trails detective like three people through the changes of psychiatry into psychoanalysis during the early 1900s. I was fascinated and horrified as he tells their stories. I don't think I've ever seen a clearer image of historical Europe at that time, and it makes totally clear how completely the wars turned civilization tragically upside down. It explains all kinds of cultural aspects of that time that I have never seen in print anywhere else. (for example - just what WAS 'hysteria' back then.) And it does not make any of the main players look good. Freud was a dogmatic suspicious and bitter old man. Jung was a womanizing ass focused on his navel. Spielrein was so idealistic and foolish, it is occasionally really painful just reading about it. The two men ended up destroying possibilities as they jockey for control of psychoanalysis, and Sabrina gets jettisoned off not just the ship but clear off the page of the history concerned with psychology. This is a monster of a book, huge and detailed and well written, full of dark ugly things. Very educating.
May 26, 2019
I am someone who studied psychoanalysis for a very long time, so of course, I'm very familiar with most of what is said in this book, and the events that the author wanted to research and talk about.
But it was a really difficult and long read to me, mostly due to the fact that he is a poor writer, it's very difficult to read more than a couple of pages at the time. And he is unable to decide if he is writing a nonfiction book or a fictional one. While he does a lot of researches and uses that to form a narrative, what he cannot find he just goes on with what he thinks must have happened or what he thinks motivates the people he is talking about, and that to me is just plain fiction.
Added to that, he is someone who clearly doesn't understand psychoanalyses, and all his attempts to explain the theory are just ludicrous. He doesn't understand what it means, or even how it's viewed today. I knew nothing about him before picking up the book but it becomes clear to me that he is a North American man.
What I do like about all of this is that he talks a lot about Sabina Spielrein, who is very rarely remembered; and that this mess became a movie who understands a lot more what the movement meant and means today than this man could ever understand.
But it was a really difficult and long read to me, mostly due to the fact that he is a poor writer, it's very difficult to read more than a couple of pages at the time. And he is unable to decide if he is writing a nonfiction book or a fictional one. While he does a lot of researches and uses that to form a narrative, what he cannot find he just goes on with what he thinks must have happened or what he thinks motivates the people he is talking about, and that to me is just plain fiction.
Added to that, he is someone who clearly doesn't understand psychoanalyses, and all his attempts to explain the theory are just ludicrous. He doesn't understand what it means, or even how it's viewed today. I knew nothing about him before picking up the book but it becomes clear to me that he is a North American man.
What I do like about all of this is that he talks a lot about Sabina Spielrein, who is very rarely remembered; and that this mess became a movie who understands a lot more what the movement meant and means today than this man could ever understand.
June 5, 2012
This is a phenomenal work of intellectual history, strongly feminist in both its rehabilitation of a forgotten woman psychoanalyst and in its persistent uncovering of the roots of supposedly universal theories in particular historical and personal experiences.
An amazing story and an intensively demanding read. I was especially thrilled by Kerr's interpretations of Jung and Spielrein's private symbolism and of certain signs and symptoms evinced by each theorist's various public writings and private letters.
Viewers of Cronenberg's excellent film, the book has both much (much much) more detail and a wider and longer scope (and, er, no sex scenes). I suspect the book would have a higher average rating but for those readers who were not anticipating something so demanding (I see one reviewer is annoyed at having to stop reading and think every now and then, while another was expecting "plain English").
An amazing story and an intensively demanding read. I was especially thrilled by Kerr's interpretations of Jung and Spielrein's private symbolism and of certain signs and symptoms evinced by each theorist's various public writings and private letters.
Viewers of Cronenberg's excellent film, the book has both much (much much) more detail and a wider and longer scope (and, er, no sex scenes). I suspect the book would have a higher average rating but for those readers who were not anticipating something so demanding (I see one reviewer is annoyed at having to stop reading and think every now and then, while another was expecting "plain English").
June 21, 2014
While this book told me a lot about Freud and Jung that I never knew, it often seemed like the author was jumping into speculation and assumption. At times it seemed he fell into the same trap that his subjects did--seeing something there because he wanted it to be there, interpreting events to fit his worldview. This book is not for the casual reader. It is long, detailed, and dense. If you're not in the field or a Freud/Jung buff this book is not for you.
April 10, 2012
I just cannot continue reading this book. The back and forth between the two protagonists is not particularly engaging and the author fails to put this into a larger context. I still really do not know what the role of the woman is in the whole story. It has just degenerated into a series of minutia from letters written back and forth.
February 26, 2017
It appears that that those who are suppose to fix our crazies are just as crazy! The good news is it make me feel more normal or less crazy!
March 31, 2019
Knihe by prispelo keby má o 150 strán menej. Veľa postáv, termínov a odborných názorov. Autor predpokladá, že sa čitateľ vyzná aspoň trochu v psychológii. Pred zaverom som už menami, udalosťami a kto je proti komu presýtená. A tak mám knihu už pol roka pri posteli a neviem tých posledných 100 strán dočítať. Ale do leta to hádam dorazím!!!
February 17, 2026
They did her dirty…
I read this book expecting a deep dive into Sabina Spielrein her life, and her relationship with Jung. What I got instead was a very "psychology-heavy" book on the massive egos of Freud and Jung and their endless ethical "bro-code" drama.
The disappointing part is Sabina constantly sidelined in her own story. The book focuses way more on the men than I expected. It’s a perfect and frustrating example of how women in that era were treated in the professional field:
- Intellectual theft they did when Sabina pioneered the "Death Drive" theory, but Freud and Jung basically "borrowed" it and left her in the footnotes yess only in the footnotes.
- Jung the gaslighter you are! When things got messy Jung used his "doctor" status to paint her as the "crazy” “hysteria” one to save his own reputation. Bro you’re not cool!
But at least this book introduced me to Sabina’s existence and revealed how much she actually influenced the "fathers" of psychoanalysis. Without her, half of their famous theories probably wouldn't exist and I realized how hard it was as a woman to be recognized at that time.
ps. She also has connection and influence Jean Piaget. Love how brilliant Sabina is.
I read this book expecting a deep dive into Sabina Spielrein her life, and her relationship with Jung. What I got instead was a very "psychology-heavy" book on the massive egos of Freud and Jung and their endless ethical "bro-code" drama.
The disappointing part is Sabina constantly sidelined in her own story. The book focuses way more on the men than I expected. It’s a perfect and frustrating example of how women in that era were treated in the professional field:
- Intellectual theft they did when Sabina pioneered the "Death Drive" theory, but Freud and Jung basically "borrowed" it and left her in the footnotes yess only in the footnotes.
- Jung the gaslighter you are! When things got messy Jung used his "doctor" status to paint her as the "crazy” “hysteria” one to save his own reputation. Bro you’re not cool!
But at least this book introduced me to Sabina’s existence and revealed how much she actually influenced the "fathers" of psychoanalysis. Without her, half of their famous theories probably wouldn't exist and I realized how hard it was as a woman to be recognized at that time.
ps. She also has connection and influence Jean Piaget. Love how brilliant Sabina is.
June 28, 2012
This is an enjoyable, very readable history of the early days of the psychoanalytical movement. It targets the “Intelligent general reader”. Kerr’s style is informal, conversational, and he manages to keep moving through the mass of material he has gathered. It is not a novel, or a love story. And how it was made into a film is an interesting question the trailer on youtube doesn't really answer.
Ironically Sabina Speilrein seems “off stage” even when she’s on it. This may be partially the result of trying to reconstruct a life from such scanty sources it might also be due to trying to push an argument the evidence won't support.
Experts in Psychoanalysis and its history can judge whether or not his thesis is accurate, and whether or not Speilrein deserves the praise he gives her. (The blurb on the back of my copy describes her as "One of the greatest minds in Modern Psychiatry".)
In the best tradition of psychoanalysis though, the title may be an unconscious admission. Kerr’s method , which makes the book so easily readable, seems a most dangerous one.
Quoting the end of a Freud essay:
‘The truth is these people have picked out a few cultural overtones from the symphony of life and have once more failed to hear the primordial melody of the instincts. ‘
Kerr comments:
‘The closing metaphor would seem to invoke Wagner’s operas above all, where the themes representing the characters’ feelings are played by the orchestra beneath the stage while the performers are required to sing against them.
The questionable “above all” allows him to continue:
‘Speilrein’s “Siegrfreid” the reader may recall, had first come to her while she was listening to the Wagnerian theme which bears his name. Freud’s was a very lovely metaphor.”
Kerr asserts that Freud was quietly reminding Jung of what he knew of the latter’s past. (p276)
Although it's typical for the book, I’m not sure such a chain of reasoning holds up. For one thing Freud’s phrase, (in translation admittedly), is “the symphonies of life” and not “the operas of life”.
Literary critics have contested the usefulness of Psychoanalysis in literary criticism, but it’s a pity Kerr doesn’t stop and consider the formal cautions that might attend the literary critic. At times the difference between reading in and reading into gets so strained it requires a good deal of readerly faith to accept. It’s one thing to assume that every vague reference can be interpreted in terms of a master symbolism and and a meta narrative of hidden sexual guilt, it’s another to prove it.
Ironically Sabina Speilrein seems “off stage” even when she’s on it. This may be partially the result of trying to reconstruct a life from such scanty sources it might also be due to trying to push an argument the evidence won't support.
Experts in Psychoanalysis and its history can judge whether or not his thesis is accurate, and whether or not Speilrein deserves the praise he gives her. (The blurb on the back of my copy describes her as "One of the greatest minds in Modern Psychiatry".)
In the best tradition of psychoanalysis though, the title may be an unconscious admission. Kerr’s method , which makes the book so easily readable, seems a most dangerous one.
Quoting the end of a Freud essay:
‘The truth is these people have picked out a few cultural overtones from the symphony of life and have once more failed to hear the primordial melody of the instincts. ‘
Kerr comments:
‘The closing metaphor would seem to invoke Wagner’s operas above all, where the themes representing the characters’ feelings are played by the orchestra beneath the stage while the performers are required to sing against them.
The questionable “above all” allows him to continue:
‘Speilrein’s “Siegrfreid” the reader may recall, had first come to her while she was listening to the Wagnerian theme which bears his name. Freud’s was a very lovely metaphor.”
Kerr asserts that Freud was quietly reminding Jung of what he knew of the latter’s past. (p276)
Although it's typical for the book, I’m not sure such a chain of reasoning holds up. For one thing Freud’s phrase, (in translation admittedly), is “the symphonies of life” and not “the operas of life”.
Literary critics have contested the usefulness of Psychoanalysis in literary criticism, but it’s a pity Kerr doesn’t stop and consider the formal cautions that might attend the literary critic. At times the difference between reading in and reading into gets so strained it requires a good deal of readerly faith to accept. It’s one thing to assume that every vague reference can be interpreted in terms of a master symbolism and and a meta narrative of hidden sexual guilt, it’s another to prove it.
November 5, 2025
I want to put a disclaimer that history is generally not my preferred genre, so I'm not sure exactly how this book compares with its peers. I read this book because I am a psychotherapist and am interested in psychoanalytic theory.
Based on the book's description, I thought I was going into a more novelized approach than a historical dissertation. It was nonetheless interesting, especially to explore the strange and sometimes childish-seeming politics of the early psychoanalytic communities. I also did appreciate how the book was very intentional about explaining the theory to the reader, in addition to the history and politics.
But, it was just so tangential. The introduction and first few chapters clearly laid out that the purpose of the book was to argue for Sabina Spielrein's role in the prominence and breakdown of the Freud-Jung relationship. While this was certainly present, the book read more like a wide-arcing summary of the relationship between Freud and Jung. Huge swaths of the book passed with Spielrein only being mentioned in passing because she was not highly relevant. Again, perhaps this is just because of my lack of experience with the genre of history books of this kind, but it made the story less interesting because much of it was just a summary of events that were only tangentially related to the stated thesis.
Based on the book's description, I thought I was going into a more novelized approach than a historical dissertation. It was nonetheless interesting, especially to explore the strange and sometimes childish-seeming politics of the early psychoanalytic communities. I also did appreciate how the book was very intentional about explaining the theory to the reader, in addition to the history and politics.
But, it was just so tangential. The introduction and first few chapters clearly laid out that the purpose of the book was to argue for Sabina Spielrein's role in the prominence and breakdown of the Freud-Jung relationship. While this was certainly present, the book read more like a wide-arcing summary of the relationship between Freud and Jung. Huge swaths of the book passed with Spielrein only being mentioned in passing because she was not highly relevant. Again, perhaps this is just because of my lack of experience with the genre of history books of this kind, but it made the story less interesting because much of it was just a summary of events that were only tangentially related to the stated thesis.
March 3, 2013
A dense plodding difficult read whch demands much of its reader but offers much to those who stick it out. I came at this book from the wrong direction. Having seen Cronenberg's film A Dangerous Method (LOOSELY based on this book and the play the Talking Cure) I expected this book to be mostly about the troika of Jung-Freud-Spielrein relationship and only tangentially about pyschoanalysis(what the movie was more or less). The ratio in the book is much the reverse- mostly about the birth of pyschoanalysis(through the prism of Jung Freud and especially through the forgotten works of former Jung Patient/Lover Speilrein)with dashes of the troika as a flavoring akin to strong spices.
A hard book to read but worth it in bringing the beginnings of Modern pyschoanalysis to light and re-humanizing two of the giants of the field back into what we all are- flawed fully human beings.
A hard book to read but worth it in bringing the beginnings of Modern pyschoanalysis to light and re-humanizing two of the giants of the field back into what we all are- flawed fully human beings.
March 31, 2023
To begin, if you have merely a passing interest in the lives and work of Sigmund Freud and Carl Jung may I suggest that in this instance you just watch the movie. You will get what you want from the book but in a much shorter time frame.
If despite that you still want to put yourself through over 500 pages of a classic (viz. difficult to parse) psychological history paper, then go for it. You'll probably learn something.
I walked away from this book knowing a bit more about two men who helped pioneer one of my favourite areas of psychology and I learnt of a woman who deserved more from life than what she got.
So that was worth it...I guess. Still,... the movie is only 90 minutes.
Edit: The movie isn't that great either.
If despite that you still want to put yourself through over 500 pages of a classic (viz. difficult to parse) psychological history paper, then go for it. You'll probably learn something.
I walked away from this book knowing a bit more about two men who helped pioneer one of my favourite areas of psychology and I learnt of a woman who deserved more from life than what she got.
So that was worth it...I guess. Still,... the movie is only 90 minutes.
Edit: The movie isn't that great either.
April 1, 2026
Read this on and off for a few days before the semester started. It does read like a dense but scintillating textbook, so I’m not ashamed to say I jumped around, focusing on a few of the less sleep-inducing arcs in the course of what is ostensibly a history of early psychoanalysis. I couldn’t put the book down for the final hundred or so pages, though, and I feel like the material overall just begs to be appreciated. Spielrein, of course, and the other orbiting characters are fascinating figures in their own right, and I love the absurdity of Jung and Freud bickering over nebulous “Siegfried” symbolism (among other things) so desperately that it destroys psychoanalysis as a viable scientific field. A hard read but a fun one.
February 6, 2012
Fascinating look at the personalities of Freud and Jung, and at the place and time and milieu which gave us their theories. Reads like a PhD thesis - a very well written one- but the rigorous documentation used to bolster the story and the conclusions gets in the way of a "good read," and gives the book a tedious, repetitive feel. Worth it for the reader who wants to better understand the way ideas germinate and spread. Three stars may be a little low for the amount of information and education presented and the way it was written, but I didn't love the book as much as I endured the process of getting to the end.
June 20, 2012
I began this book thinking how incredible it would be to know so much about these influential men of their time. I was also incredibly intrigued by Spielrein's role and subsequent professional life having known each man so personally on professional and intimate levels. However, as I kept reading, I was bogged down by the verbiage and the minutiae of details and people incorporated into the history. While I am impressed by Kerr's devotion to accuracy, I was too overwhelmed to finish the book. About 200 pages into it, I realized I was only reading the book to read the book, and was no longer enjoying it. Disappointing.
September 19, 2014
This was a long slog. At first, I was impressed by the author's clear writing style, but it became clear that his strength was in crafting small sections of a few pages. The overall narrative lacked momentum and structure. Also, I was curious that this was aimed at a lay readership, since he examines the minutia of individual psychoanalytic meetings and conferences, but without contextualizing his reports. What, for example, is still deemed correct or useful by the psychoanalytic community? I can recommend only the introduction and the conclusion.
January 4, 2013
Having seen the movie I now must know how much was fact and how much fiction. However, had I known (before ordering online) there were 511 pages of small print to navigate, I would have been willing to stay in the dark....this is certainly going to take some getting through and likely to stay "currently-reading" for some time to come.
July 9, 2012
I've read a number of books about Jung, and this is the best by far. It also casts a bright light on Freud. There was a 2012 film based on this book but it left out 90% of what's in the book, plus added a bunch of sensational/sensual stuff that's not in the book. I liked the movie but don't let it influence whether you decided to read this book.
September 14, 2013
Let's be honest, this is basically someone's Master's or PhD thesis with Keira Knightley on the cover. It is well researched, but it is tedious, and I've been slogging through it for two years now. I keep hoping a narrative will take hold, but it never does. I was hoping for something I grab me, to make me want to dig deeper, but in the end it is a textbook.
September 6, 2015
This book is a long read, but a fantastic one if you are interested in the beginning of modern psychology. Come for the scandalous love story involving Speilrein, stay for the terrible breakup between Freud and Jung.
This book is impeccably researched. It is a credit to the author (as well as the dramatic actions of his subjects) that it is so gripping.
This book is impeccably researched. It is a credit to the author (as well as the dramatic actions of his subjects) that it is so gripping.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 82 reviews