ABSTRACT
The suggestion of the writer to both the reader and the analyst to become smaller is indeed complex. It might not necessarily be derived from clinical practice, but rather from a deep understanding that whatever truly extends from one psyche to another and creates the O is the analyst's profound presencing. Moreover, the writer claims that a reduction in interpretation is required to a greater extent in trauma cases, when emotional overflow is inevitable and the analyst must constantly assess the patient's capacity to contain and endure the analyst's words. When do the analyst's words envelop the patient and become a kind of a sonorous bath, and when do they remind the patient of the analyst's painful otherness and separateness? These distinctions may aid us in discerning when it is suitable to employ the minimalist interpretation.
