ABSTRACT
When I first read the Dora case in 1956,l was a candidate in an analytic institute, and Freud's star was shining. His authority loomed over the psychoanalytic landscape, and his disciples were my teachers. For them, it is evidence of Freud's modesty that he admitted that the accuracy and completeness of his explanations of psychological symptoms are limited and partial, inviting belief in his conclusions
rather than skepticism. Dynamic narratives are represented as accurate steps on the way to a more complete explanation. As such, Freud's logically coherent formulations have surprising authority. Mahony (this issue) describes Freud's narrative style as one in which a brilliantly painted logical mask conceals inconsistencies and contradictions. In this view, Dora's objections to Freud's interpretations of her are well taken, but his interpretations of her motivation miss the mark. In short, Freud's inability to hear Dora requires an explanation.
