Scan barcode
laindarko2's review
informative
reflective
medium-paced
3.0
To ask oneself or someone else to write about their experience with mental illness is an almost impossible request. Not only are there limits inherent to language, it is challenging not to feel overly self-indulgent in the process; it is challenging to be that vulnerable; it is also difficult not to become distant and removed during the writing process, defaulting to self-reporting and avoiding the (potentially re-traumatizing) process of truly capturing what your illness feels like. For this reason I greatly respect Wang's essays for being so lucid and informative. I did, however, feel like there was a distance or remove between the essays and myself as the reader. There was a lot of listing of facts, listing events but not quite describing them - I did not come away feeling as if I had an understanding of Wang's experiences. When I read an essay, I want it to, in some way, change something about how I think or see things. I want to feel encapsulated in a new idea or feeling. None of these really did that for me. That's okay, it only means they're not really to my taste. This book is a good introduction for people unfamiliar with schizoaffective disorders, but if you've ever done any research or reading on them before, you won't learn anything new here.
yikes_juniper's review
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
medium-paced
5.0
smuds2's review
3.0
Better than I expected in some ways, a bit more confused in others - as a whole a very enjoyable reading/listening experience. Only rating it a 3 because I think that there were some weaker essays I didn't get much out of.
There were a couple of essays, the names of which, because i read this in audiobook format, I don't know, that I found significantly better than others. There was nothing I didn't like, necessarily - some just felt very honed and felt like they were very clearly coming to a single cohesive idea. Others (like the Cotards syndrome one) felt a bit like it was "this was my experience with it - draw from it what questions you will." While interesting - I found those less engaging.
Three stood out as very good, engaging, and emotional to me.
There was the summer camp volunteer one which I connected with on a variety of levels. For reasons of our own, we've been going back and forth on "should we have kids - shouldn't we". The wavering on our part isn't really for mental health reasons, or as clearly related to mental health as for Esme. Ours are more climate related. But the push of one partner saying yes, while another says no, sometimes being on the same page and feeling like at a cathartic, if sad, position, etc. Was very relatable. On the surface, it's just a very sad, happy, warm, cold story. The complex emotion of relating to a child, to caring for a child, to not needing to care for a child and being free to do so anyway, to wanting to protect a child because it's encountered things similar to you, etc. I think are common enough experiences, but told in such a realistic, and brutal situation to just lay it all out there.
I think that the Yale-indictment was a good read. Nothing too relatable for me. Just a pure "I'm not gonna say it, but you know I could" about how uncaring institutions are for the humans they 'serve'. Well written, well reasoned, well told.
There was an essay about Esmes experience being involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility, and it has come up as an occasional refrain. I think that it is very helpful and valuable to hear someone discuss their experience in a language I understand. Like - I fundamentally think it's a bad idea to involuntarily confine someone, but to hear it described at a non-theoretical, of the pain and trauma you can experience as a result of it - very good to hear and be reminded of.
I'm also not quite how to encapsulate it, but there is also some type of throughline between the autoimmune illness book I recently read by O'Rourke and the discussion on the diagnosis of Esmes illness. In both cases, there is an element of the medical authority trusting the person suffering the illness. In both cases, there is an element of elimination at play (i.e. I've ruled out these other things, so this is what it seems like you have). In both cases - there's an element of ambiguity, and a failing of our current understanding of the human body. In the autoimmune case, we don't have a good understanding of what causes something like ME/CFS, and it attacks multiple organs unpredictably, and can cause seemingly unrelated symptoms, which is at odds with our "human bodys are machines, if a part of a machine is broken, you fix it" mentality. Similarly, there is a growing desire to account for things in genes, without the actual ability to map everything to genetic differences. She didn't exactly say this is the case, but lets take the mentality to the extreme - what does it mean when you say most illnesses can be tracked as expressions of certain regions on DNA, but then you get one that can't be? What does the perception of that illness become?
There were a couple of essays, the names of which, because i read this in audiobook format, I don't know, that I found significantly better than others. There was nothing I didn't like, necessarily - some just felt very honed and felt like they were very clearly coming to a single cohesive idea. Others (like the Cotards syndrome one) felt a bit like it was "this was my experience with it - draw from it what questions you will." While interesting - I found those less engaging.
Three stood out as very good, engaging, and emotional to me.
There was the summer camp volunteer one which I connected with on a variety of levels. For reasons of our own, we've been going back and forth on "should we have kids - shouldn't we". The wavering on our part isn't really for mental health reasons, or as clearly related to mental health as for Esme. Ours are more climate related. But the push of one partner saying yes, while another says no, sometimes being on the same page and feeling like at a cathartic, if sad, position, etc. Was very relatable. On the surface, it's just a very sad, happy, warm, cold story. The complex emotion of relating to a child, to caring for a child, to not needing to care for a child and being free to do so anyway, to wanting to protect a child because it's encountered things similar to you, etc. I think are common enough experiences, but told in such a realistic, and brutal situation to just lay it all out there.
I think that the Yale-indictment was a good read. Nothing too relatable for me. Just a pure "I'm not gonna say it, but you know I could" about how uncaring institutions are for the humans they 'serve'. Well written, well reasoned, well told.
There was an essay about Esmes experience being involuntarily admitted to a mental health facility, and it has come up as an occasional refrain. I think that it is very helpful and valuable to hear someone discuss their experience in a language I understand. Like - I fundamentally think it's a bad idea to involuntarily confine someone, but to hear it described at a non-theoretical, of the pain and trauma you can experience as a result of it - very good to hear and be reminded of.
I'm also not quite how to encapsulate it, but there is also some type of throughline between the autoimmune illness book I recently read by O'Rourke and the discussion on the diagnosis of Esmes illness. In both cases, there is an element of the medical authority trusting the person suffering the illness. In both cases, there is an element of elimination at play (i.e. I've ruled out these other things, so this is what it seems like you have). In both cases - there's an element of ambiguity, and a failing of our current understanding of the human body. In the autoimmune case, we don't have a good understanding of what causes something like ME/CFS, and it attacks multiple organs unpredictably, and can cause seemingly unrelated symptoms, which is at odds with our "human bodys are machines, if a part of a machine is broken, you fix it" mentality. Similarly, there is a growing desire to account for things in genes, without the actual ability to map everything to genetic differences. She didn't exactly say this is the case, but lets take the mentality to the extreme - what does it mean when you say most illnesses can be tracked as expressions of certain regions on DNA, but then you get one that can't be? What does the perception of that illness become?
mauvenotebook's review
informative
2.0
I didn't particularly like this book. Some of the reasons are my own, and some of them have to do with the work itself. I thought it would be more of a coherent narrative, even though it was broken up into essays, so I was a bit disappointed that most of it was disjointed. I also didn't like the last chapters about witchcraft and chronic Lyme. The author seems kind of gullible.
bingo789's review
3.0
I expected more details of psychosis and personal stories rather than education. In short, the book was a mix of both. I found the author to be rather ‘snobby’ for majority of the personal reflections and descriptions of herself. Overall, it’s a fine book.. it just wasn’t as gripping as I thought it would be.
ptitirodactyle's review against another edition
informative
reflective
medium-paced
4.25
Vulnerable and informative from
beginning to end. I really appreciated how the author made use of her background as a research assistant. I really enjoyed the balance between the data and the more personal parts of the book. Everything was told with such honesty & vulnerability. I will definitely be reading this again and recommending it.
beginning to end. I really appreciated how the author made use of her background as a research assistant. I really enjoyed the balance between the data and the more personal parts of the book. Everything was told with such honesty & vulnerability. I will definitely be reading this again and recommending it.
rugbykake's review
challenging
emotional
hopeful
informative
inspiring
reflective
sad
tense
medium-paced
5.0