Never mind those tales that Lacan's seminars are a lot easier to understand that his Ecrits, his Seminar X is tough enough. I am bound to be somewhat inaccurate (and tragically, I am not sure to what extent) in summarizing the argument as follows. Lacan builds his seminar on Freud's Inhibition, Symptom and Anxiety. Not having read that book is not helping. Anyway, Lacan contests the claim that anxiety is without an object. He gives a new reading of Freud to bolster that claim. It remains to be seen what that object is but, knowing Lacan, it is no surprise that the object has to do with "object a". But how? Lacan explains that Freud did not see the difference between mourning and anxiety correctly although, in retrospect, Freud was not wrong either. Mourning, to paraphrase Lacan wildly, is to have lost an object (probably a loved one) but to be able to go on with one's life anyway because one understands that it is more important to know what (or whom) one wants than to actually have it/him/her/them (the latter being impossible in the state of mourning anyway). A maniac, on the other hand, cannot mourn correctly because instead of building more resolve he or she destroys him or herself in search of that object that he or she wants (to the point of eventually committing suicide). Anxiety, on the other hand, has nothing to do with what one wants (obviously, the opposite is true) but that does not mean it has no object, Lacan says. It has everything to do with the desire of the Other, which one is supposed to satisfy. Hence the anxiety.
Anxiety, in all its forms, comes down to the sexual act more or less remotely - and, more accurately, to castration anxiety. From the man's point of view, one loses, in a sense, one's organ in the act itself by burying it inside someone else. Sorry for the graphic content but this is what I gleaned from Lacan. It does not matter whether the organ is lost or not for good (and of course it is not, usually) because one can have anxiety of losing something (in this case, being castrated) only as long as one actually has it.
Lacan insists that anxiety is between desire and "jouissance". The vehicle for sexual desire (what it thus comes down to) is the phallus which will be lost in a sense anyway during the act because the male organ actually becomes part of the woman's body. However, that mini-castration has a "happy ending" and leads to jouissance. A woman gets her jouissance from having "it" as part of her - but also from participating in the man's victory over his castration anxiety in addition to any jouissance proper she might have (insofar as Lacan speaks about it at all). I am not quite sure how Lacan sees a woman's castration anxiety, though he does say it exists.
As I said, tough. There is no dearth of information in this book but, as always, the trouble with Lacan is that the reader has to connect the dots. I did it my way. But, as always, Lacan is a classic and deserving of five stars
Is Price's translation good? Yes, it is okay. I found the profusion of the word "disquisition" a bit disorienting, though. Neither does the translation really stand out, either, I thought, in terms of making the stuff easier to understand.