In discussing analytic technique, Fink recommends "providing interpretations that are enigmatic and polyvalent" (p. 46). These are the sort of Lacanian statements that one either accepts or rejects, probably on the basis of one's own personality, and there is no point to criticizing or arguing with him in a book review. There are some really interesting aspects of the Lacanian system that should cause every psychoanalyst to stop and think, however. One of my favorites is Lacan's very vague, esoteric, and continuously changing concept of "object a." Fink says, "`Object a' can take on many different guises. It may be a certain kind of look someone gives you, the timber of someone's voice, the whiteness, feel, or smell of someone's skin, the color of someone's eyes, the attitude someone manifests when he or she speaksWhatever an individual's characteristic cause may be, it is highly specific and nothing is easily put in its place. Desire is fixated on this cause, and this cause alone" (p. 52). He also reminds us of the importance of how our parents' desire becomes a mainspring of our own; however, he then begins to focus on Lacan's adaptation of Freud's emphasis on childhood sexuality (the so-called primal scene, for example) as the cause of all neuroses. Fink points out that Lacan, like the early Freud, emphasizes the role of the father in the formation of the neuroses, the psychoses, and the perversions, and so Lacan, in my opinion, neglects the pregenital and preverbal era. Psychoanalytic thought has shifted away from this early Freudian attitude, at least in the United States, where the preoedipal period and the role of the mother are increasingly seen as fundamental in providing the soil on which neuroses grow. In this sense, Lacan does return to the early Freudian theory as he claims to do.