Talk:Rat Man

On the criticism section

The first paragraph of the criticism section does not really seem to be related to criticism:

"The only known case in which Freud's notes survive is that of Ernst Lanzer, the Rat-Man, where they exist for the first third of the treatment.[20] Freud treated him for obsessions, particularly the dread that something terrible would happen to his father and his fiancée. His fear of rats, Freud concluded after elaborate interpretations, was based on disguised anal erotic fantasies.[21] Mr. Stadlen tracked down relatives of Mr. Lanzer who said the account handed down by the family was that Freud had helped him overcome shyness so that he could marry. "

It also repeats the myth, that the rat man was afraid of rats. This was not the case and is not mentioned anywhere in the publication. Freuds interpretations of the "rat-torture" focus the patients desires to punishing those that are dear to him, what he calls a "love-hate complex" and its relationship to sexual desire. The anal erotic fantasies are just a shape that this takes and are only once in the whole text explicitly named as such. I would therefore propose to remove the whole paragraph. I am, of course, open to other forms of dealing with it. Metamer (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC)

Plagarized portion

The 'rat man' portion seems to be lifted from the NYTimes article linked. Should it be summarized or deleted? Dmenet (talk) 20:18, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion would be that you summarize it, pending a thorough re-write (which it needs for more than one reason). I'll make a start at a re-write, but don't have much time right now... Pfistermeister (talk) 22:02, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Is 'Criticism' neutral?

Article currently reads: "After publishing the case notes in 1909, Freud wrote a letter to Carl Jung, indicating that the Rat Man's problems still remained, despite Freud claiming in the case-history that "the patient's rat delirium had disappeared"."

Checking the source (McGuire), F actually says: "he is facing life with courage and ability. The one point that still gives him trouble (father-complex and transference) has shown up clearly in my conversations". I am concerned that the article's current construction of this letter may shade WP:NOR and WP:NPOV, and propose hiving off discussion of the success of the treatment to a separate subsection and tagging it accordingly. Jacobisq (talk) 09:34, 24 October 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate information in "History of the Analysis"?

The body of the text here summarises: "Freud encouraged Lanzer to discuss details of his sex life (such as his first efforts at masturbation at age 21)". The source text as translated by Louise Huish for Penguin, however, reads as follows: "His (Lanzer's) sex life has been altogether wretched, and masturbation has played only a minor role, when he was 16 or 17. His potency is normal, he claims; he first had intercourse at the age of 26." This is elaborated upon later (Ibid p.56) as "The urge to masturbatory activity manifested itself, on the other hand, in his twenty-first year, a short time after his father’s death."

It would therefore be more accurate to say that Lanzer's "first efforts" at masturbation occurred aged 16 or 17, but that the clinically relevant desire to masturbate (in relation to the death of his father) resurfaced aged 21. I propose editing this sentence to read:

"Freud encouraged Lanzer to discuss details of his sex life (such as his first interest in masturbation at age 21 following the death of his father)."

This would be more accurate and would also include the clinical relevancy of Lanzer's masturbatory activity as it pertains to the analysis of his neurosis. The community may, however, feel this is pedantic, so I leave it up to the mods.