Dear Eric,
 
> Geoffrey Blowers correctly
>notes that, despite his faults as a scholar, Masson deserves a reasoned
>response.  If I understand Geoffrey correctly, however, he fails to point out
>that there was no such reasoned response until after Masson succeeded in
>sensationalizing his claims by going to the New York Times.
 
Yes, this is true. I did not feel the need to make the point about the
timing of the reaction as I was replying to slightly different questions
raised by Jim Knock. I would not want to condone the indifference of the Psa
establishment to
Masson's claims during the time he was first espousing them, but, in
fairness to them, most analysts would not have been in a position to respond
to Masson's specific claims about Freud's deliberately changing his mind
about the role of seduction because, prior to appearance of the book, unlike
Masson, they did not have access to the unpublished letters which were the
source of Masson's conjectures. Once the book appeared, and was heavily
talked up in the press, it became possible for a considered response, which
several scholars have since provided.
 
To your other point about being ignored, I sympathize. I have been away and
off this group for a few months. Earlier last year, as you will remember, I
and several others were quite happy to debate with you points of mutual
interest.
 
Best wishes
Geoffrey Blowers
 
Associate Professor
Dept of Psychology
University of Hong Kong
Tel: (852)-2859-2378(O) (852-2517-1885(H)
Fax: (852)-2858-3518
e-mail: [log in to unmask]
website: http://www.hku.hk/psychodp/blowers.html