Kay Redfield Jamison: Classic or Dud?

1) It must take guts to be a mad psychiatrist!

2) She writes beautifully and perceptively.

Classic.

Didn't she say something in one of her books to the effect that she was ultimately glad she had bipolar disorder (because she was able to harness its 'advantages' like increased energy, decreased need for sleep, etc.)? I think that's a pretty sketchy thing to say, myself...

Apart from that, though, I certainly think Jamison has more to say that is substantive than another author on a concurrent thread about mood disorders whom I won't name! :-)

classic - and she did write one about suicide as well, yes - which was very good.

I'd be sincerely interested to know why you think Jamison's positive comments about Bipolar disorder are "sketchy", Joe.

"Substantive" is a bit of an arid, legalistic, meaningless, arguably poncey word to use when describing the experience of the mentally ill isn't it Joe?

I'm sorry about that Joe. There's no argument.

It is poncey.

Do you fancy coming round for tea and scones tomorrow, Joe?

"Hey Joe What do you know? Talk to me please, Don't be a tease"

I'm such a bad writer!

What I meant to say was:

"Substantive is a bit of an arid, legalistic, meaningless1 >AND< arguably poncey word to use when describing the experience of the mentally ill."

Sorry about that everyone.

I give up. Does anyone here like Suede?

Quite.

Um...ooookay. Did I get off on the wrong foot with you, Chris? Well, let me (attempt to) explain a bit further:

1) I overall have great respect for Dr. Jamison's writings, and admittedly it's been a long, long time since I've read her books, so maybe I'm remembering something wrong (if so, please feel free to correct me). Perhaps from my experiences interacting with those with Bipolar Disorder, I guess I am extremely sensitive when it comes to anything that I perceive might be romanticizing it, even a tad. All I meant to say with the above comment is that I do seem to remember back when I did read one of her books, a section that struck me as kind of odd and contradictory (or at least very paradoxical), in light of the fact that I thought she took care to not romanticize the illness throughout the book. I think the section I’m thinking of is probably the epilogue of “Touched with Fire”(?).

Here are reviews from Amazon. While I don't necessarily agree with these 100% (and again, as I fully admit, I haven’t read Kay’s books in a dog's age--my original comment was really just intended to be a casual comment about one thing that I thought she had said, in recalling her work), I DO feel they confirm to me that I’m not totally imagining things here:

"I have bipolar, and this book makes me a little bit angry because it purely glorifies this illness by pointing out the star achievements of all those who supposedly had it, giving very little focus to the tragic, rollercoaster lives many of them led. This illness is not a "magic madness" or a "dark gift" or any of the other stupid things I've heard it called. It is an extremely difficult, extremely challenging bitch of a disease that is owed control and respect, but for heaven's sake don't write a book portraying it as if it's some kind of blessing. I know this was not Ms Jamison's intent, but this book paints a very romantic picture of an illness there is nothing romantic about."

"What i found most objectionable about the book is the epilogue, where Dr. Jamison admits she would have chosen to be born with the disorder, because it obviously has given her more than it has taken away. If i had any doubts about the horrors of manic depression, they were quickly dissipated after reading this book, yet Dr. Jamison beautifies the disease as something precious and coveted, in obvious contradiction with her previous pages."

"This is not, however, a typical story and does nothing to dispell the romantic myth that somehow all manic depressives are extremely talented overachievers. Dr. Jamison is clearly a very gifted woman whose course of treatment is open to almost no sufferers in the population at large. Unless, of course, they are part of the psychiatric/psychological/medical establishment in which the good doctor is so firmly and purposefully entrenched."

"The one major beef that I and another friend have with the book is a presentation that reflects the nature of the illness itself. Although Jamison goes out of her way to point out how deadly the disease can be, and how crucial the medicine is (and how hard it is even for a scientist in the field to recognize she has to take it!), the last few sections are a nostalgic elegy looking back almost in support of hypomania, perhaps even mania itself, despite the pain involved. To me, this is but a short step to feed the profound need of BP/MD sufferers for a justification to cling to hypomania, and in this case, is offered by an expert in the subject. For that reason, I find the ending of the book disturbing, almost asking to release the reins that some have fought so long to control."

"Kay Jamison overused the thesaurus in her attempt to make manic depression appear beautiful, which it is NOT."

2) I think the topic of creativity and mental illness is a very fascinating one. But there are limitations to what one can conclude about the relationship between creativity and mental illness simply based on reading Dr. Jamison’s work, as provocative as I think it is. First, she is one individual with Bipolar Disorder (and one I would think, again based on reading the reviews, had came from a high SES, and had an atypical amount of resources, social support, etc., to deal with the illness) so what she concludes for the illness for herself might not be applicable to a wide section of other folks with Bipolar Disorder. Fair enough, after all she wrote a memoir about *her life* and that’s all. I can understand that. BUT...it’s plainly obvious that a) she’s highly regarded as an authority on the subject, b) this book is going to be read by a lot of people with Bipolar Disorder looking to her as an authority, for insights and how the book can apply to/influence their own lives (i.e. going beyond that of a simple memoir), and c) If the complaints about the Epilogue are relevant, that as an authority figure in this context, one must choose what one says especially carefully.

Also, the whole research and studies on creativity and mental illness is a very complex one fraught with difficulty (and, I would imagine, a lot of mistakes). How, exactly, does one measure “creativity”? “Artistic temperament”? I would offer this link to hopefully provide some additional picture of the debate/controversies involved (N.B. the “Criticism” section):

http://www.molbio.princeton.edu/courses/mb427/2000/projects/0002/relat ion.html

I keep meaning to get around to Dr. Arnold Ludwig’s book “The Price of Greatness,” which I believe hotly disagrees with many of Jamison’s ideas (though, much to her credit, she herself endorses the book, I believe).

Chris, I am sorry if you took offense at what I said, as none was intended. I guess I tend to be a skeptical/critical bastard, that’s all. :)

Oops! For that link to work, "relation" has to be together as one word...

dud. well, i've only read 'an unquiet mind'. but even oliver sacks is more fun.

Joe,

Better late than never!

There is no need to apologise, it was me who was being awkward, and I apologise unreservedly - I was going through a bit of a tough patch at the time and was probably drunk.

Sorry!

Thanks for the link and your thoughtful response. I agree with your point about her having more social resources etc. to deal with the condition. I've also had a lot of contact with bi-polars, several of whom have come from extremely comfortable, loving families but one would imagine that in a less tolerant domestic situation the sufferer would be ostracised - but I'm just speculating.

Having said that, I don't think Jamison has romanticised Bipolar Affective disorder as much as the posted reviews suggested. She didn't shirk from portraying her own suicidal moods or the hellish confusion of psychosis, and equally she was honest enough to admit that there are pleasurable aspects to the condition. I think there are interesting paralells between the Dark Night of the Soul/Mystical Illumination cycles of religious mystics and the wild mood swings of manic depressives, paralells largely ignored by the psychiatric establishment, the Church and academia.

Are we ever asked to do more than we are capable of?

The thing is, sometimes people are misdiagnosed, i.e., they are undergoing exogenous stress and such. It's never been clear to me what the parameters are of this 'disease'. Because some people are told they have it when they don't. Also, I'm skeptical about Jamison because it just leads ignorant people to assume that 'bipolars' (or even people presumed to be bipolar) can't function or live in some quasi-mystical state or something.