My response to this article could be just as long as the article itself, but will stop myself. This is yet another piece full of subjective (self-protective?) observations, seeming to put most of the failure of therapy on the client's failures. Freudians were and sometimes still are far more fevered and furious in their patient bashing, so I'm glad this author toned it down.

Half a patient? That's an remote way to see another human being. I see the first omission is failing to view the transaction in everyday human terms and roles: the asymmetrical relationship, a seeker and the sage, the confessor and concealer, the sufferer and the authority. The structure doesn't work for everybody.

I was particularly struck by the ascription of the client's "aversion" to her defenses, assuming the entire transaction intrapsychic (in her head). I can envision other explanations why human beings might pull away from one another, but maybe I have a runaway imagination.

I wish mental health thinkers would ditch the theory momentarily and consider interactions in simple human terms. I experienced therapy as role play, an artificial construct. That pulls in a barge full of complications, potential hazards and impediments.