Is it me?

[Sex and Death]

I'm with Doc on this one.


Pain gives way to a clarity that only the truly mad can understand and they give it birth in a way that the sane can relate to it.

I wonder if making sense of our pain is different than making art of our pain?

It would seem qualitatively different, but perhaps it is simply semantics.

 

[rikaaim]

I wonder if making sense of our pain is different than making art of our pain?

It would seem qualitatively different, but perhaps it is simply semantics.

No, I think you have a point. For years I've been trying to make sense of my pain, wanting it to go away. Instead I'm now learning that it is part of me. It does not control me like I thought it once did, but it does influence me. It is my choice ultimately how to harness that influence. I'd like to think that I can weave its delicate nuances into something beautiful. Unlike ghory movies or stories, like Saw, I think it can be used to provoke thoughts and feelings that would otherwise remain stagnant, like Kafka's In the Penal Colony. That's how I discern the difference.

 

[Huckleman2000]

If you're truly of a mind to explore this issue, I'd recommend this book Against Depression

I haven't read it, but I've read "Listening to Prozac" and "Should You Leave" by the same author. He writes with an almost academic density, but not pedantically. I couldn't read much of his books at a sitting, but I didn't feel as though I couldn't understand what he was trying to say.

He explores the issues with an open mind, but also a relentlessly scientific mind. He traces the history of scholarship in the area.

I agree somewhat with Dr. M and others in this. The 'testing' of one's beliefs and optimism is a critical part of any story that resonates on a personal level. Consider JFK - By any reasonable standard, he led a charmed life up until his assassination. Still, the myth was made by his service in WWII on PT 109, when his mettle was tested much more on a level playing field with those who did not enjoy the same social advantages. At least, that's the myth.

So, I don't think that one has to suffer a mental illness to be able to communicate about the essential human condition.

do writers who have battled mental illness speak to me more directly and deeply? Absolutely. Moreover, studies show that depressives generally have a more accurate view of subjective reality; for example, in tests where subjects make choices on each trial, but successful results are random, depressives are more likely to determine the random nature of their influence. "Normal" people are more likely to attribute successful results to their own (immaterial) actions.

In that sense, my reaction to depressive writers is probably more positive than a statistical 'norm', simply by virtue of our shared illness. Insofar as depressives may be more motivated than 'normals' to try to make sense of their worldview, and more accurate in their perceptions, those are further reasons that depressive writers may be both more prolific and more resonant.

Still, it's a big leap from those 'tendencies' to categorically state that non-depressives (or non-bipolars, non-schizophrenics, non-OCDs, etc.) aren't capable of producing deeply resonant works for a mass readership.

 

[rikaaim]

If you're truly of a mind to explore this issue, I'd recommend this book Against Depression

I haven't read it, but I've read "Listening to Prozac" and "Should You Leave" by the same author. He writes with an almost academic density, but not pedantically. I couldn't read much of his books at a sitting, but I didn't feel as though I couldn't understand what he was trying to say.

He explores the issues with an open mind, but also a relentlessly scientific mind. He traces the history of scholarship in the area.

I agree somewhat with Dr. M and others in this. The 'testing' of one's beliefs and optimism is a critical part of any story that resonates on a personal level. Consider JFK - By any reasonable standard, he led a charmed life up until his assassination. Still, the myth was made by his service in WWII on PT 109, when his mettle was tested much more on a level playing field with those who did not enjoy the same social advantages. At least, that's the myth.

So, I don't think that one has to suffer a mental illness to be able to communicate about the essential human condition.

do writers who have battled mental illness speak to me more directly and deeply? Absolutely. Moreover, studies show that depressives generally have a more accurate view of subjective reality; for example, in tests where subjects make choices on each trial, but successful results are random, depressives are more likely to determine the random nature of their influence. "Normal" people are more likely to attribute successful results to their own (immaterial) actions.

In that sense, my reaction to depressive writers is probably more positive than a statistical 'norm', simply by virtue of our shared illness. Insofar as depressives may be more motivated than 'normals' to try to make sense of their worldview, and more accurate in their perceptions, those are further reasons that depressive writers may be both more prolific and more resonant.

Still, it's a big leap from those 'tendencies' to categorically state that non-depressives (or non-bipolars, non-schizophrenics, non-OCDs, etc.) aren't capable of producing deeply resonant works for a mass readership.

Thank you very much. That is very inspiring and hopeful. Well said. I'll definately check out the link you provided and agree with what you say heartily. Now, I must be off to study Kafka in Lit. Yes, you can blame my English literature teacher for this thread.