The Good Story: Exchanges on Truth, Fiction and Psychotherapy

by J.M. Coetzee, Arabella Kurtz

J.M. Coetzee's latest novel,  The Schooldays of Jesus , is now available from Viking.  Late 2006-2016  will be available January 2018.

J.M. What relationship do I have with my life history? Am I its conscious author, or should I think of myself as simply a voice uttering with as little interference as possible a stream of words welling up from my interior?

Arabella One way of thinking about psychoanalysis is to say that it is aimed at setting free the narrative or autobiographical imagination.

The Good Story is a fascinating dialogue about psychotherapy and the art of storytelling between a writer with a long-standing interest in moral psychology and a psychotherapist with training in literary studies. Coetzee and Kurtz consider psychotherapy and its wider social context from different perspectives, but at the heart of both of their approaches is a concern with narrative. Working alone, the writer is in control of the story he or she tells. The therapist, on the other hand, collaborates with the patient in developing an account of the patient's life and identity that is both meaningful and true.

In a meeting of minds that is illuminating and thought-provoking, the authors discuss both individual psychology and the psychology of the the school classroom, gangs and the settler nation, in which the brutal deeds of ancestors are accommodated into a national story. Drawing on great writers like Cervantes and Dostoevsky and psychoanalysts like Freud and Melanie Klein, Coetzee and Kurtz explore the human capacity for self-examination, our wish to tell our own life stories and the resistances we encounter along the way.

Genres: Psychology, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Writing, Literature, South Africa

208 pages, Paperback

First published September 29, 2015

About the author

J. M. Coetzee is a South African writer, essayist, and translator, widely regarded as one of the most influential authors of contemporary literature. His works, often characterized by their austere prose and profound moral and philosophical depth, explore themes of colonialism, identity, power, and human suffering. Born and raised in South Africa, he later became an Australian citizen and has lived in Adelaide since 2002.
Coetzee’s breakthrough novel, Waiting for the Barbarians (1980), established him as a major literary voice, while Life & Times of Michael K (1983) won him the first of his two Booker Prizes. His best-known work, Disgrace (1999), a stark and unsettling examination of post-apartheid South Africa, secured his second Booker Prize, making him the first author to win the award twice. His other notable novels include Foe, Age of Iron, The Master of Petersburg, Elizabeth Costello, and The Childhood of Jesus, many of which incorporate allegorical and metafictional elements.
Beyond fiction, Coetzee has written numerous essays and literary critiques, contributing significantly to discussions on literature, ethics, and history. His autobiographical trilogy—Boyhood, Youth, and Summertime—blends memoir with fiction, offering a fragmented yet insightful reflection on his own life. His literary achievements were recognized with the Nobel Prize in Literature in 2003.
A deeply private individual, Coetzee avoids public life and rarely gives interviews, preferring to let his work speak for itself.

Reviews

[Antigone · Rating 2 out of 5]

A writer and a psychologist exchange e-mails. The writer seems to have a bee in his bonnet about the way the world works - particularly in the arenas of repression, regression, and group dynamics. The psychologist does her very best to respond to his arguments, constantly clarifying that she can speak only from her experience as a psychologist. The writer appears to feel his only limitation lies in the number of books he has yet to read on the subject of psychoanalysis. Which is amusing and annoying all at the same time.

[Eylül Görmüş · Rating 3 out of 5]

"Kurmacalarla rahat rahat ve baştan sona ayakta kalan birinin hayatından, alenen romana benzeyen bir roman çıkarmak zor ve belki imkânsız hatta. Bu kurmacaları ifşa ederek roman yapıyoruz ancak. Bir tür olarak romanın, şeylerin göründüğü gibi olmadığı, görünürdeki hayatlarımızın gerçek hayatlarımız olmadığı iddiasından yapısal bir çıkarı var sanki. Ve bence psikanaliz de benzer bir şeyden bahsediyor."

Güney Afrikalı / Avustralyalı yazar J.M. Coetzee ile İngiliz klinik psikolog Arabella Kurtz'un mailleşmelerinin kitaplaştırılmış hali "İyi Hikâye: Hakikat, Kurmaca ve Psikoterapi Üzerine Yazışmalar"ı okumaya büyük bir merakla başladım. Bu iki isim sanki çok net bir rol dağılımı yapmış gibi yazışıyorlar: Coetzee sanatçı, Kurtz ile bilim insanı. Dolayısıyla metinde şöyle bir ritm var: Coetzee'nin düşünceleri uçuyor, kaçıyor, oradan oraya atlıyor, keskinleşiyor, provokatifleşiyor; Kurtz da onu daha serinkanlı bir eksene çekiyor cevaplarıyla.

Muhtemelen bu iki disiplinden edebiyata daha meraklı oluşumdan mütevellit, ben Coetzee'nin e-postalarından daha çok keyif aldım. (Ve sanırım azınlıktayım zira kitabın eleştirilerine baktığımda herkes Coetzee'ye sinir olmuş!) Sorduğu cevapsız soruları çok sevdim, o soruların cevapsız olmalarının tam da edebiyatı mümkün kılan dinamik olduğunu düşünüyorum çünkü. Hem edebiyatın, hem psikanalizin işinin kendimize anlattığımız hikayelerle olduğuna, hakikatin tek bir biçimi olamayacağına, belleğin çalışma biçimlerinin nasıl manipüle edilebileceğine, grup psikolojisinin (en küçük grup olan aileden en büyüklerine, uluslara dek) anlaşılmasındaki yöntemsel eksikliklerimize dair konuştukları bölümler epey ilgi çekici olmakla beraber, biraz fazlaca tekrara düşen bir sohbet olduğunu söylemem lazım.

Edebiyattan yola çıktıkları kısımlar (Dostoyevski, Flaubert, Hardy ve W.G. Sebald bölümleri) bence nefisti, Kurtz'un uzmanlığından kopmadan bu konularda akıl yürütmesini de sevdim ama genel olarak sohbetin bir akışkanlık problemi var gibi de hissettim, tutuk ve bir çember etrafında dönüyor gibiydi maalesef, o nedenle beklentimin biraz altında kaldı bu kitap. Yine de parlak kısımları hatırına okunur bence.

[Russell · Rating 2 out of 5]

good snippets on psychoanalysis here and there from Kurtz. I genuinely appreciated her role in this novel as she brought the discussion back to utilitarian workings of the therapist in discussion with Coetzee's... things.

perhaps I do not appreciate Coetzee's style of writing, but throughout this exchange I found some of his comments not only irrelevant, but at times, rude. i was thoroughly unimpressed when it came to me that this was "the most celebrated living writer of the English language." thus, half of the novel as a result holds significantly less weight if any reader is in hope of reading slightly denser psychological material. sorry i'm not sorry, Coetzee, but the moralistic concerns that are continually raised are totally out of context to the situation in dealing with patients.

[Mariano Hortal · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me puede mi afán de completismo con el ilustre escritor sudafricano (ahora australiano). Y más en un libro formado por conversaciones del autor con la psicoanalista Arabella Kurtz donde se ahonda sobre todo en el método psicoanalítico y su relación con la literatura y la propia vida. Me suele aburrir bastante el tema y con este libro me ocurre, inevitablemente, cuando habla ella y remonta cuando, él, como de costumbre, consigue dar sentido a algo tan difuso. Da la impresión de que Coetzee consigue estar siempre por encima de sus conversadores, todavía me acuerdo de las cartas con Auster que comenté por este blog y que eran un ejemplo de sus virtudes conversadoras y su inteligencia en el análisis.

[Kent Winward · Rating 5 out of 5]

I'm constantly fascinated by how story and narrative play out in how we live and construct our lives and this issue becomes more fascinating when you insert fiction into the mix. Coetzee brings his experience as a fiction writer and a teacher to the conversation to contrast with Kurtz's clinical perspective and the deep topics of "truth vs. fiction" are explored.

Dostoyevsky, Dickens, Hardy (along with Coetzee's veiled suggestion that Hester Prynne's scarlet letter was describing all of the Puritans as "Assholes") and one author I didn't know, W.G. Sebald are all discussed with a flurry of new insights. I also enjoyed Coetzee's speculation that psychotherapy was secularism's answer to the confessional.

The book is also about living the good life or making a good story out of your life. The one place the book headed that was totally unexpected was group dynamics. Almost half of the book was on how stories, both fictional and psychotherapeutic, play out in groups. In hindsight, this could have been predicted due to Coetzee's constant struggle with his Afrikaners' background. Groups behaving badly are actually more frightening than individuals behaving badly.

The one drawback was this book was a dialogue and because of that sometimes left me wanting them to dwell more on a topic they were discussing instead of moving on, but this is why it is a book I will keep coming back to, so I can do what Coetzee said the written word can't really do and that is carry on a dialogue with these two fascinating people in my own head. I think I need to talk to my therapist about that.

[Lukasz Pruski · Rating 4 out of 5]

"... we can entertain the notion that we are continually engaging with constructions (fictions) of others, rather than with their 'real' selves [...] We can also entertain the more plausible (and more interesting) notion that our engagements are with a constantly changing interplay between shadows (fictions) and glimpses of the real."

The Good Story (2015) by J.M. Coetzee and Arabella Kurtz is based on a fascinating premise. This non-fiction volume is framed as a discussion between Mr. Coetzee, the Nobel Prize winning writer (and one of my most favorite authors), and Dr. Arabella Kurtz, a British psychotherapist. This combination of specialties is not as farfetched as it might seem: we read in the Authors' Note that literature and psychotherapy have a lot in common: for instance, the interest in human experience, the use of language as the "common working medium," and the analysis of "narrative structures."

The book is divided into chapters that focus on topics such as truth, memories and their repression, relationships between people, group experiences and mentality. The authors discuss issues of subjective truth, dynamic (evolving) truth, intersubjective truth and the closely related topics of malleability of memory, self invention, and psychotherapy as a scheme to create (reconstruct) a patient's memories.

I have found everything in the book interesting but the theme that I relate to most strongly is the one I refer to in the epigraph: human relationships as interactions between projected fictions. Here Mr. Coetzee even mentions the so-called Turing test for dialogue where one has to decide whether their interlocutor (who is not visible) is an actual human being or rather a computer program. Another of his key observations is:

"[...] relations between people as a matter of interlocking fictions. When the fictions interlock well, the relation works or seems to work (I am not sure that there is a difference between the two). When they don't interlock, conflict or disengagement follow."

When noting the human tendency toward creating fictions about themselves, Dr. Kurtz claims "We need the fictions of others to know ourselves", Mr. Coetzee clarifies the claim:

"We need the fictions of others about us in order to form our fictions of ourselves."

If it were proper to take sides in the discussion between Mr. Coetzee and Ms. Kurtz, I would certainly be on the author's side. I agree with most everything he says in the discussion and - more importantly - I believe that the ideas he puts forward are deeper and more fundamental. To me, Ms. Kurtz is too immersed in the Freudian canon with its limited and restrictive intellectual toolkit. To me her most important contributions are the fascinating insights into the practice of psychotherapy.

A captivating, illuminating, and deep read which I would rate with five stars if not for the fact that the authors too often talk past each other and not necessarily with each other. Still, a great book!

Four and a quarter stars.

[Sara Alexandra · Rating 5 out of 5]

Las conversaciones entre Coetzee y Kurz versan sobre interesantes temas que van desde el campo literario al psicoanalítico. Los autores debaten sobre los mecanismos de la memoria, la construcción de la identidad, el juego de la ficción... creando interesantes conexiones entre el campo de la literatura y del psicoanálisis... El título puede inducir a error, pues no se trata de un manual de escritura, sino más bien de las reflexiones que dos intelectuales mantienen sobre sus áreas y los puntos de intersección que existen.

La gran aportación de esta obra consiste en enriquecer al lector con la perspectiva del escritor y de la psicoanalista. El diálogo fluido permite disfrutar de la lectura al tiempo que se profundiza en cuestiones de índole filosófica y psicológica. No hace falta ser un experto en los términos del psicoanálisis ya que el libro aporta un glosario que sirve de introducción.

Una de las ideas esenciales es la de que como sujetos, construimos nuestra propia historia, nos encontramos en un proceso continuo de elaborar nuestra propia narrativa que se ve reforzada por los demás. Tanto Kurz como Coetzee se sienten atraídos por la psicología del autoengaño y el modo en que ciertos sujetos han construido ficciones falsas sobre sí mismos a las que deben enfrentarse a través del psicoanálisis, cuya idea es la de sacar a relucir la verdad, todo y que este concepto es acotado por lo autores, quienes diferencian entre la verdad histórica, filosófica o científica y la verdad emocional.

La cultura y las relaciones con los demás serán otro aspecto crucial a la hora de la construcción de la identidad del sujeto. También sobre este aspecto se resalta la relación entre la ficción y la construcción de la identidad: "El diálogo entre dos seres humanos como serie de interacciones entre ficciones proyectadas". No en vano una de las conclusiones es la de que debemos "aceptar con naturalidad el hecho de que nos ficcionalizamos a nosotros mismos y a los demás como parte de la vida misma".

[Noah · Rating 3 out of 5]

My heart goes out to anyone who read this without already being very fond of Coetzee. He's brilliant but(/and) he's so much of himself.

I love Coetzee's 'Elizabeth Costello,' which I think is a very personal writing (Costello is so much of him) and a commanding interpretation of what fiction is. I'm not as fond of 'secondary Coetzee,' person Coetzee, Coetzee out of his fictive shell. But he's about as sage, as analytic, as charming (he's very heavyhanded) as one can expect.

I knew that some ruminations on 'Austerlitz' were the ending of the book. It actually unfolds in a very funny way: Kurtz introducing the book because she sees it relating to narrative in one way; the novelist Coetzee countering this with his [and my] reality that the novel has a complicated, farcical, sinister?, detached, literally foggy relationship with narrative (events unfold in that book through the interpenetration of narrator and protagonist) and the world (it's history, it's people, it's beautiful, and I'm so tired).

[Sini · Rating 4 out of 5]

De romans van Coetzee heb ik allemaal gretig gelezen, sommige zelfs meerdere keren. Ik vind hem een bijzonder boeiende schrijver, en in zijn romans vaak ook een erg boeiende denker die heel tantaliserende filosofische vraagstukken opwerpt. Daarom was ik ook benieuwd naar zijn gedachtewisseling (al een aantal jaartjes geleden) met de psychoanalytica Arabella Kurtz over raakvlakken tussen literatuur en psychoanalytische therapie. En ik ben totaal niet ontevreden: ik vind het een intrigerende gedachtewisseling, waarin Coetzee goed in vorm is en waarin ook Arabella Kurtz een mooie inbrengt heeft. Het is overigens wel een gedachtewisseling in op elkaar reagerende geschreven stukken, zodat het niet de levendigheid heeft van een direct gesprek. Dat maakt het boek naar de smaak van sommigen wellicht wat droog, wat mogelijk nog versterkt wordt door het vele theoretische en technische jargon dat Coetzee en Kurtz gebruiken. Maar de op elkaar reagerende stukken hebben wel veel diepgang, omdat de auteurs duidelijk de tijd hebben genomen om goed te reflecteren op hun eigen gedachten en die van de ander. En daardoor heeft de gedachtewisseling een niveau van bezonkenheid dat je in een spontaan gesprek niet gauw ziet.

Coetzee en Kurtz vinden elkaar in de gemeenschappelijk fascinatie voor 'het goede verhaal': het verhaal over de menselijke psyche zoals dat wordt verteld in literatuur, en het verhaal dat degene die psychoanalyse ondergaat uiteindelijk -mede door de hulp van de aandachtig en actief luisterende psychoanalyticus- kan vertellen over zichzelf. Coetzee en Kurtz verschillen daarbij ook op meerdere punten op respectvolle wijze met elkaar van mening: het belangrijkste verschil lijkt mij dat Kurtz meer dan Coetzee vasthoudt aan de gedachte dat mensen kunnen leren zichzelf te zijn en hun innerlijke waarheid te ontdekken, terwijl we volgens Coetzee nooit verder komen dan "ficties over onszelf waarmee we min of meer comfortabel kunnen leven, ficties die zonder frictie interageren met de ficties over degenen om ons heen". Maar zowel Kurtz als Coetzee benadrukken sterk dat ons verhaal over onszelf altijd leemten vertoont, op afweermechanismen en verdringing berust, vaak vooral via metaforische omwegen 'iets' over onszelf zegt zonder dat we ooit definitief en uitputtend weten wat dit 'iets 'is, dat ons verhaal bovendien dynamisch en veranderlijk is, en met veel aandacht en creativiteit moet worden beluisterd en geanalyseerd.

Prachtig is wat beide gesprekspartners in dat verband zeggen over Dostojevski: over Dostojevski's gedachte dat elke biecht een valse biecht is en dat elk van zelfkennis getuigend verhaal tot in het oneindige door andere en nieuwe verhalen kan worden aangevuld of gecorrigeerd. Waarbij we ons, aldus Dostojevski, moeten verhouden tot het peilloze probleem dat er geen God is en dus geen hoogste waarheid, ook niet in moreel opzicht. Nog prachtiger is wat beide gesprekspartners zeggen over "Austerlitz" van Sebald en over de mechanismen van verdringing die in dat prachtige boek worden getoond. Waarbij Kurtz vooral let op de prachtige sprankjes van licht en inzicht die ondanks de verdringing toch mogelijk zijn, en Coetzee vooral aandacht heeft over de overweldigende vloed aan traumatische details die loskomt zodra er een kleine opening ontstaat in het vergetene en verdrongene. Reteboeiend is wat Kurtz en Coetzee zeggen over de ethische problemen van verdringing, bijvoorbeeld van de manier waarop in Amerika, Zuid- Afrika en Australië het vroegere en huidige racisme wordt geretoucheerd. En naar mijn smaak nog boeiender is de baaierd aan onbeantwoordbare vraagstukken die dat weer opent: immers, als je (zoals Coetzee denkt) genoegen moet nemen met ficties, en als (zoals Kurtz en Coetzee beiden denken) gelooft dat elk verhaal mede gebaseerd is op verdringing en afweermechanismen en dat (zoals Dostojevski zei) er geen hoogste morele waarheid bestaat, hoe bepaal je dan welk op verdringingen berustende verhaal wel ethische grenzen overschrijdt en welk niet? Zo doorlopen Kurtz en Coetzee met elkaar meerdere dilemma's, en exploreren ze meerdere interessante casussen: bijvoorbeeld de relatie leraar-leerling in een klassituatie, de dynamische collectieve psychologische processen in een groep, de reden waarom een jeugdbende een heel andere soort groep is met heel andere psychologische processen dan b.v. een projectgroep met een duidelijke taak, de overeenkomsten en verschillen tussen biecht en therapie, de creativiteit die onontbeerlijk is in de therapie. Enzovoort. Boeiend daarbij vind ik dat er nooit definitieve antwoorden gegeven worden, maar dat de vragen en dilemma's in al hun complexiteit worden belicht. En zo offreren Coetzee en Kurtz ons mooie en voor mij leerzame en verrassende perspectieven op psychoanalyse, literatuur, en de wijze waarop psychoanalyse en literatuur ons ingangen bieden in de onuitputtelijke geheimen van de menselijke geest.

Voor liefhebbers van Coetzee is dit een mooi boek, denk ik. Zelf vond ik het in elk geval heel aangenaam weer meer te weten over hoe de goede man denkt, en ook om bepaalde van zijn gedachten te vergelijken met zijn romans. Het is bijvoorbeeld best prikkelend om wat hij in dit boek zegt over de waarde van fantasie, en over de wijze waarop Don Quichot leeft in een zelfverzonnen fictie die mogelijk interessanter is dan de alledaagse werkelijkheid, te vergelijken met Coetzee's roman "De schooljaren van Christus", waarin hoofdpersoon David zich overgeeft aan de eigen fantasie en zeer gelooft in de Don Quichot. Ook staan er mooie uitspraken in over mijn geliefde schrijvers Dostojevski en Sebald. Misschien is het boek ook interessant voor mensen die Coetzee niet kennen maar wel geïnteresseerd zijn in psychoanalyse en literatuur. Hoe dan ook, ik heb het met plezier gelezen, en misschien waag ik mij binnenkort ook nog aan ander non-fictief werk van Coetzee.

[Murat Dural · Rating 3 out of 5]

Çok önemli bir yazar J.M. Coetzee ve klinik psikolog Arabella Kurtz'un iki disiplini bir ederek hikaye, anlatı üzerine tartışmalarını bize taşıyan bir kitap "İyi Hikaye". Öncelikle önemli bir duyuru yapma ihtiyacı hissediyorum; psikoloji, felsefe konusunda ilginiz ve bilginiz yoksa bu kitap sizi fazlasıyla zorlayacak ve yoracaktır. Okur, yazmaya yeni başlayanlar açısından da oldukça yüklü bir metin. Edebi tarafı zayıf kalıyor ama psikoloji, zaman zaman sosyoloji, felsefe ise çıtanın üstüne çıkıyor. Yazma çabasında bir insan olarak yararlanabileceğim şeyler buldum ama bunları kitabın, iki yazarının seçtiği yoldan verebilmem, aktarabilmem neredeyse imkansız. Bu anlamda yazmak konusunda büyük yol almış olanların, psikoloji, sosyoloji ve felsefe yapanların bu kitaba ilgi göstereceklerini, daha faydalı bulacaklarını düşünüyorum.

[Alex Linschoten · Rating 4 out of 5]

More Coetzee! (Good for the soul!)

This book is the written record of a dialogue between Coetzee and a psychotherapist (Arabella Kurtz). The subject matter is interesting if somewhat unfocused. The character and progression of their dialogue, the way they talk to and around each other, was to my mind the real hero of this book. I found their interaction highly stimulating, and it made me wonder why more books like this don't exist. We have the institution of the public discussion, on a stage with an audience, but having the dialogue take place on paper seems to my mind a better way of going about things. You can take time, you can review what was said, you can express yourself in the best way that reflects what you seek to explain, and so on.

Recommended for the above, and for two fascinating discussions of Dostoevsky and Sebald (and what they have to say about the nature of confession, and the extent to which we can know things and/or come to terms with our histor(ies)).

[German Sanchez Collado · Rating 1 out of 5]

No lo considero un gran libro. Pero destaco estos parrafos:

Del primer capítulo.

"... ¿acaso no son ficciones todas las autobiografías, las historias de una vida, por lo menos en el sentido de son constructos (ficción viene del latín fingere, que quiere decir "moldear" o "dar forma")? ... cuando nos inventamos nuestra autobiografía estamos ejerciendo la misma libertad que tenemos en los sueños, donde imponemos sobre los elementos de una realidad recordada una forma narrativa que es nuestra, por mucho que esté influida por fuerzas que apenas entendemos."

Del último capítulo.

"... ya bastaría con que pudiéramos decantarnos por unas ficciones de nosotros mismos en las que pudieramos habitar con relativa comodidad, unas ficciones que interactuaran sin fricción con las ficciones de quienes nos rodean. ..."

[Anne Goodwin · Rating 3 out of 5]

I’ve mentioned before that I think novelists and psychotherapists are in a similar business, yet the fictional therapists we encounter on the page sometimes fail to convince. So what better way for the writer bent on creating a credible fictional therapist than to eavesdrop on a conversation between a winner of the Nobel Prize for Literature and a clinical psychologist, lecturer and psychoanalytic psychotherapist? As JM Coetzee and Arabella Kurtz toss ideas back and forth about the intersection between truth, story and morality, the writer is afforded a remarkable insight into the workings of the therapist’s mind.
Full review: http://annegoodwin.weebly.com/annecdo...

[Javier Avilés · Rating 4 out of 5]

Una magnífica e inteligentísima conversación sobre narrativa y psicoanálisis. Lo mejor de todo, como Coetzee intenta reducir toda historia a relato y como Kurtz destaca la utilidad terapeútica del relato independientemente de la Verdad que muestra u oculta.
Creo que en parte de la conversación está la génesis de las últimas novelas de Coetzee, las que implican a un tal Jesús implícito unicamente en el título de ellas.
El análisis que hacen ambos de Austerlitz de Sebald ha conseguido que se despierte las ganas de leer esa no-novela.

[GONZA · Rating 4 out of 5]

Well written and interesting even if sometimes it was a little bit too easy, but ok, not everybody has a background studying this type of things.

Ben scritto ed interessante anche se a volte molte cose sono state ipersemplificate, ma immagino che non é che tutti possano avere alle spalle anni di studi sull'argomento.

[Ioana · Rating 2 out of 5]

Așa și așa. Ficțiunea rămâne pe primul loc

[Cristina Boncea · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fost prima carte despre psihanaliză pe care am citit-o după o perioadă de pauză de vreo doi ani. Majoritatea termenilor mi-au rămas familiari, însă subiectele dezbătute de Coetzee și Kurtz au fost unele inedite, probleme pe care nu mi le-am pus niciodată din perspectiva prezentată.

În primul rând, cartea este foarte bine structurată, având capitole scurte cu câte un abstract la începutul fiecăruia. Cei doi au comunicat prin scrisori, iar cele scrise de Coetzee sunt marcate prin text italic. Tema principală în baza căreia cei doi au ușoare divergențe este felul în care ne creăm ficțiuni proprii despre noi și lume; nu atât în sens literar (deși sunt trasate multe paralele între psihanaliză și scriere literară), ci mai degrabă cu privire la noi înșine, în mintea noastră – cum decidem să ne privim trecutul, ce poveste ne spunem despre noi și cum punem asta în raport cu Adevărul.

Desigur că cei doi au viziuni diferite în ceea ce privește semnificația adevărului. Coetzee se gândea în sens filosofic, platonician, la un Adevăr cu A, complet obiectiv și universal, pe când psihanalista punea mai mult accent pe adevărul relațional, mai întâi dintre terapeut și pacient și apoi dintre individ și cei din jurul său, susținând până la capăt că e mai important ca fiecare dintre noi să avem o ficțiune proprie care să ne mulțumească, din moment ce nimeni nu are cu adevărat acces la acel adevăr exterior de nestrămutat. Recunosc că pe alături m-a iritat scepticismul autorului și m-a făcut să mă întreb dacă aș fi „compatibilă” cu lucrările sale, dacă mi-ar putea plăcea având în vedere gândirea lui, însă, pe de altă parte, nu pot să spun că credințele mele sunt complet într-o parte sau alta față de viziunile celor doi. O altă temă abordată destul de pe larg în carte este psihologia grupurilor, care m-a interesat cel mai puțin, însă făcea referire atât la societate ca națiune, cât și grupurile precum o clasă de elevi (Coetzee a fost și profesor) sau o gașcă de prieteni.

Ca de obicei, în orice carte de psihanaliză, partea mea preferată au fost paralele cu personaje din literatură. Simt că cel mai bine înțeleg un exemplu dacă se bazează pe un personaj fictiv despre care am citit și am avut ocazia de a-mi crea propria perspectivă asupra lui. Cel mai la îndemână mi-a fost Hester Prynne din Litera Stacojie, carte pe care am citit-o acum destul de mulți ani, dar mi-a rămas bine fixată în minte. Cei doi au folosit-o drept exemplu pentru a vorbi despre refulare, cât și redobândirea controlului asupra propriei identități prin asumarea aspectelor „rușinoase” din viața noastră. Desigur, discuția a mers și mai departe, iar Coetzee a pus problema reabilitării deținuților, dacă acest lucru mai este posibil având în vedere că ei ajung să nu mai simtă nicio vină reală, de fapt.

Uneori mi s-a părut totuși că cei doi comunicau despre lucruri diferite, că psihanalista nu răspundea chiar la obiect problemelor propuse de autor și că fiecare încerca să-și apere domeniul de expertiză. Încă nu mi-e clar ce voia să spună Coetzee prin „negarea realității” sau preferința acută pentru ficțiune pe care a avut-o încă din copilărie, nu înțeleg exact de ce nu e clar că aceste două aspecte ale vieții se întrepătrund – nu doar pentru scriitori, ci pentru oameni în general; am rămas cu convingerea mea că realitatea obiectivă este reprezentată de fapte, iar „ficțiunea”, în sensul folosit de ei, de interpretări. Cartea se încheie tot cu o analiză literară, iar autorul are ultimul cuvânt. Am rămas totuși cu un gust ușor amar în urma negativismului (sau mai bine spus, limitările) susținut, cum că nu ne putem cunoaște niciodată până la capăt sau o putem face doar prin prisma altora. Nu sunt o fană a „absolutismelor” și mi se pare că adevărul despre care vorbesc și cei doi este mereu un mix de mai multe lucruri, o sinteză.

Pregătiți-vă să fiți trecuți și prin literatură psihanalitcă de bază și câteva exemple clinice. Pe mine mă interesa cel mai tare perspectiva despre scriere a unui laureat al premiului Nobel atunci când am ales această carte și nu pot spune că am fost dezamăgită, deoarece am rămas cu niște idei noi în urma lecturii și lucruri la care să cuget. Sunt sigură că multe observații și comentarii pertinente mi-au trecut pe sub ochi fără a le oferi atenția cuvenită, așadar, cel mai probabil la un moment dat voi vrea să recitesc cartea. Recomand pasionaților de psihanaliză și curioșilor care se întreabă ce e în mintea unui celebru scriitor cu privire la ficțiune.

[Nikki · Rating 3 out of 5]

Kurtz is wonderful to read, I could have happily skipped through and just read her parts. I found her description of early familial experience and object relations to be elegant and concise. In turn, I felt increasingly irritated with Coetzee due to his repeated challenging / ignoring of Kurtz's points, and psychoanalysis in general, in favour of an obstinate focus on the nature of Truth (capital T). In psychotherapy, the very idea of dismissing the subjective nature of the individual's truth is just absurd. What is even more absurd is Coetzee's proclamation in Chapter Nine;

"It barely needs mentioning that behind the outline you provide of how to think about early-life experience there lies a huge body of psychological literature. I know this literature only in the sketchiest of ways and at an amateurish level. But it has been our understanding from the beginning that an amateur like myself may possibly have a contribution to make."

Is he serious? I hardly think so! How insulting to the many professionals who dedicate a significant portion of their lives undertaking study of this 'huge body of psychological literature' only to have this 'amateur' suggest he has something ground-breaking to contribute. Grandiose much? Perhaps if Coetzee bothered to step outside of his own clever hypothesis and focused instead on engaging with the material offered up by Kurtz then he could have levelled up from his sketchy understanding. A fine writer he is but a not so fine pupil he has revealed himself to be.

[Billy Jepma · Rating 3 out of 5]

Reading this felt like reading the transcript for a very long, very intellectual podcast. If that appeals to you, then great! Because there is a lot of interesting ideas discussed here. However, those ideas are not as interconnected as I would have liked - since this entire book really is just one long conversation between two monologuing intellectuals 0 and for a book, I felt like this lacked the cohesive tissue needed to tie Coetzee and Kurtz's (admittedly compelling arguments and rationalizations) together. Instead, it comes across like two deeply intelligent thinkers talking past each other from the perspective of their respective fields. This leads to some fascinating content, to be sure, but there was a distance between the two sides that was never bridged, leaving the book to feel like two separate academic journals conversing with each other at a tangential distance. Again, there's some very good, very worthwhile material here, but the presentation and cohesion of it was lacking for me.

[Ana García Julio · Rating 3 out of 5]

Me interesó este libro porque admiro a Coetzee y me intrigaba el contraste de perspectivas entre un escritor y una terapeuta, partiendo de la intuición de lo que tendrían en común.

Aunque un tanto desorganizado para mis expectativas, es un material inspirador para pensar hasta qué punto podemos llegar a saber algo verdadero de nosotros mismos, de los demás y de nuestras relaciones. O bien, hasta qué punto es legítimo atrincherarse en las ficciones que nos ayudan a elaborar lo real para lidiar con ello (esas historias que nos contamos para sobrevivir). Para ello, Coetzee y Kurtz no se restringen a sus ámbitos de acción, también sacan a relucir cuestiones vinculadas con la historia, la política, la experiencia en grupos sociales y profesionales, la educación, etc.

Como discusión se desdibuja a ratos, pero en general su dinámica relativizadora puede ser estimulante y garantiza uno que otro insight valioso.

[Pablo]

Una correspondencia o un diálogo entre un escritor, John Maxwell Coetzee, el autor surafricano de Desgracia o Elizabeth Costello, y una psiconalista, la británica Arabella Kurtz que además tiene una amplia experiencia en psicoterapia. Hablan de un tema muy sexy, que es la intersección entre psicoanálisis (fundamentada en el paciente y el oyente, encargado de entender lo que en apariencia no sabe) y la literatura (fundamentada en el acto imaginativo de imaginar cómo se siente alguien en determinadas circunstancias). Empiezan con la idea de verdad y Coetzee tiende a buscar una distinción empecinadamente filosófica y Kurtz se mantiene en el pragmatismo que da mucha experiencia. Cierran con una interpretación muy sugerente de la novela de WG Sebald, Austerlitz. En pocas palabras, letraheridos de este mundo, aquí hay temita.

[Leslie · Rating 4 out of 5]

Coetzee and psychotherapist Arabella Kurtz discuss memory, repression and narrative in the context of both fiction and psychotherapy. The scope ranges from the individual level to societal. I especially liked the section where they discuss South Africa and Australia's colonial violence and how those memories are processed and repressed in the present. Interestingly, Kurtz seems more comfortable with the slipperiness of real "truth" than Coetzee the fiction writer.

The book ends with Coetzee positing that in both fiction and psychotherapy truth must be revealed for things to work out as they should. Why are there no stories about people who happily deceive themselves forever? This question is asked in several ways, but not definitively answered.

[YB · Rating 2 out of 5]

Worth reading only for Kurtz's insights into therapy, which are both illuminating and well written. Coetzee's interjections seem to misunderstand the point of therapy. They come across as unverified, baseless self-aggrandisement couched in grandiose language- the effect is someone showing off his own thoughts without truly engaging with the other speaker (no wonder he believes true conversation is rare). I wish someone would write a psychological analysis of Coetzee's responses in this book. Kurtz has made a valiant attempt at engaging with Coetzee, but the overall effect is of two writers passing each other in the night. A spurious collection of random thoughts, which is a shame because there are hints of true gems of insight that are never fully developed.

[Melek · Rating 3 out of 5]

Coetzee'nin ilk sekiz bölüm boyunca hakikatin terapidekine yeri ya da terapinin hakikate katkısına dair ayak dirediği, Kurtz'unsa terapinin doğasını bilen okura tanıdık gelecek sempati ve mantık dolu cevaplar yazdığı bu kitapta son üç bölüm bilhassa okuma keyfi açısından tatmin edici. İlk bölümler için aynı şeyi söylemekte zorlanıyorum, çünkü terapi deneyimi olmayan Coetzee'nin boşa kürek çektiği sayıklamaları okuyormuş hissiyatı biraz öfke uyandırıyor. Son cümlesinde de Coetzee başladığı yerden bir nokta ileri gidemediğini ifade etmiş oluyor. Sırf Kurtz'un insan doğasına, toplumun insanla, insanın toplumla ilişkisine dair belli ki bolca deneyimden damıtılmış cevapları için okumaya değer yine de. Çeviri ise tertemiz.

[Quike D-B · Rating 3 out of 5]

Un ensayo en forma de cartas entre Coetzee y Kurtz en las que se plantean dudas, reflexiones, divagaciones e interesantes conceptos psicológicos alrededor de la verdad, las ficciones (unas verdaderas, otras ficticias), el funcionamiento del individuo y de los grupos según el psicoanálisis y algunos (pocos, a mi parecer) ejemplos literarios para acercarnos a los temas tratados. Le pongo tres estrellas porque, aunque me ha resultado muy interesante, entretenido y hasta educativo, pedagógico, no era lo que esperaba. Porque este libro tiene algo malo que es muy grave: el título. Hace que te esperes otra cosa.

[Chinmaya Lal · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book doesn't always hold the reader's attention but the whole exchange between Kurtz and Coetzee is marked by moments of startling insight and humanity. Coetzee's comments reveal his keen, though obviously expected, investment in what it means to tell stories- in novels as well as in 'real' life. Kurtz's responses, strikingly original and fearless, not only refect a sharp intellect at work but also an individual who speaks with great eloquence and wisdom about the discipline that she studies and practices.

[Natania · Rating 5 out of 5]

Profound, important, thought-provoking at every turn. The dialogue format is part of the very point of the book, and works well--the two thinkers push against one another productively. I would like a sequel, and then another sequel, to this discussion of intra and inter-psychic processes, on individual and national levels.

[Callie Perry · Rating 4 out of 5]

The only reason I read this book was for class, although, I thoroughly enjoyed. It shows connections between what a real truth and a believed truth that we as people have. The way this book was written between the exchange of a normal curious person and a therapist opens eyes for both perspectives.

[Madalina · Rating 3 out of 5]

Deși este o carte cu rădăcini solide în psihologie și psihoterapie, modul în care este așezată pe pagină informația face lectura ușoară și liniară. Ținând cont că nu sunt mare fan subiecte filosofice, mă mai trezeam că îmi zbura mintea prin diferite părți în timpul lecturii, dar pentru un pasionat cred că va aduce plusvaloare.
Traducerea de Mihaela Buruiană este la superlativ.

[Edgar Trevizo · Rating 4 out of 5]

Dudé mucho entre 4 o 5 estrellas porque, bueno, es John. Y Arabella no se queda nada atrás: ambos elaboran unas discusiones inteligentísimas que son una delicia. Pero hay momentos en que se torna muy frío y abstracto, eso quizás le resta esa estrella.