Within the depth-psychology corpus, grief therapy occupies a position distinct from—and more clinically demanding than—grief counseling proper. J. William Worden establishes the foundational distinction with characteristic precision: counseling facilitates uncomplicated, normal grief toward adaptive mourning, while grief therapy designates the specialized techniques reserved for abnormal or complicated presentations where standard support proves insufficient. This categorical separation carries significant theoretical weight, orienting the entire clinical enterprise around the concept of complicated bereavement and its diagnostic correlates—chronic grief, masked grief, delayed reactions, and what the DSM framework has progressively refined as prolonged grief disorder. Robert Neimeyer’s constructivist contribution extends the field considerably, positioning grief therapy as a narrative and meaning-reconstructive endeavor in which the role of self-narratives, discursive frames, and relational selfhood become primary therapeutic levers. The tension between these orientations—Worden’s task-based, time-limited protocol versus Neimeyer’s open-ended, narrative co-construction—defines a central productive fault line in the literature. Across both traditions, the shared conviction holds that unresolved grief, left unaddressed, migrates into somatic symptom, affective disorder, or behavioral dysfunction. The corpus also attends to technique: role-playing, linking objects, dream work, psychodrama, homework assignments, and letter-writing each appear as instruments calibrated to the specific obstacles impeding mourning’s natural trajectory.