Re: Holden and Diagnoses

Tim O'Connor (tim@roughdraft.org)
Fri, 03 Apr 1998 00:54:41 -0500

> It's all
> absolute poison. I'm not against use of psychotropic drugs, but let's just
> say, I remain very,very sceptical of them. It's true though, these days
> they would have just tipped Prozac into his vanilla malt and be done with
> it.

I have to agree with Helena that certain medicines are indisposable for
certain people.  And I say that without apology; I think it's long past the
point where we have to feel "shame" for a "weekness"; it's neither, and in
many cases works.


> I'm not about to start coming out with the intimate details of my mental
>health,
> especially at a time when I'm starting to feel like an intruder in a mens
>club, but
> let me say this: If it were not for psychpharmocology, I, for one, would
>be very,
> very dead.

I'd guess that a few of us here have experiences that could relate to
yours.  But eek, I sure hope we don't sound like a "mens' club"; yuck!

> Quite frankly, it's none of any of your business what prescription drugs I
> am/was/will be taking or not taking, and I'm being especially concious of
>the fact
> that this is all being archived. Camille, I admire your skepticism; it's
>a healthy
> attitude to have. But please, please can you try and show a little bit more
> sensitivity? It was the last sentence of your post that really stung.

I should point out that I routinely excise messages people don't want
archived, and even have one person blocked altogether on request.   If this
is an issue with you, please tell me in private mail and I'll omit one or
more posts from the archive.  Personal privacy and requests are more
important than any number of archives.  Just do it promptly; the older the
posting, the more difficult it is to excise messages.

By the way, the archive is a bit out of date because I've  been sick for a
few weeks, and haven't had the chance to update it; I'll attack it this
week.

> :helena, the poisoned lump (allegedly)

No way, Helena.  If you were poisoned, you'd know it.  And if it helps you,
you have nobody to answer to about that, except perhaps to keep in close
touch with your doctor as your treatment progresses.

Mental health is a mystery, still, and so much of it is due to the chemical
soup swimming in our bodies and our brains.

> P.P.S. Back to the original point of this thread as put, rather
>impartially, by Tim.
> If you look at Holden as suffering from Clinical Depression, how does it
>change your
> opinion of him? This reminds me of studying Lord of the Flies in school.
>Simon, whom
> I thought on first reading was an intruiging mystic, is, allegedly, an
>epileptic.
> Does this take away from the importance of what he experiences? When you
>look at his
> 'episodes' with the pig's head in the forest as symptoms, does it lessen
>their
> importance? Similarly, when you percieve Holden's attitudes/emotions as
>symptoms,
> does this make them less valid?

To bring the doctor back, the fellow I mentioned, he said something like,
"If you have diabetes and I give you a medicine that completely 'fixes' it,
do you still have diabetes?"  Obviously the answer is yes -- but it's a
fascinating psychological subtlety, that if you've fixed both the symptoms
and the cause, does the patient still "have" the disease?  (Depending on
how we define the disease.)

ObSalinger: this is straying way off-topic, but these things matter from a
1998 perspective.

> I'm not trying to start a debate on whether/not Holden is 'Clinically
>Depressed', it
> would be as futile as the 'Is Franny pregnant?' thread. My question is,
>if you assume
> that he *is*, how does it change your reading of him?

I don't think it invalidates his experiences.  "Little Shirley Beans" is
"Little Shirley Beans," no mattter what the mental state of the person who
drops it and breaks it.  The nuns, the tourists, Rudolf Schmidt -- these
are here and are part of the puzzle, and I think Mr. Antolini puts his
finger on it better than anyone else in the book, at least in providing
context.

--tim