[R. S. Gwynn]

http://www.claremont.org/crb/basicpa...eid=01f1b13d41

[Aaron Novick]

http://www.ablemuse.com/erato/showthread.php?t=28429

[Andrew Mandelbaum]

I thought the review was a hatchet job. Juster insinuates that she is unprofessional in her use of the term manic depression when anyone familar with her work on the disorder and its connection to the arts knows that her objection to the term bipolar is a reasoned objection that she has held through many papers and works. The author is intimately familiar with the struggles of the so-called disease as she herself lives with it. The statement in the review minimizing the hardship of such disorders betrays a serious lack of understanding of the level of courage it takes many of these folks to face each day. I have people close in to me who lose there very persons under these breaks, their courage is undeniable and admirable even if they sometimes lose the battle and the violence wins out. Regardless of whether the author of the book failed at certain points to make her case or failed artistically, Juster's dismissive scoff at the struggles of people who face these losses of person is disappointing and the review is full of cheap shots. This is a world I know intimately if not specifically involving Lowell's case, and the review does a disservice to the people that face so many uphill climbs, not least of which is being defined by the moments they are submerged in the wounds. Whether you agree with Redfield on the nature of the connection between so-called manic depression and the arts or not, she deserves more respect for her work in the field and in her own walk with the condition than a review like this. I don't have a dog in the Lowell fight. Not a fan or a foe but am very much a spectator of the everyday courage in folks with these sort of "disorders", a courage that is as breath-taking in its resiliency as it is heartbreaking in its constant defeats.

[John Isbell]

To Andrew's point:

There's an old gospel song, "I'm Glad About It", by Inez Andrews and the Andrewettes, which begins "When I woke up this morning, / I was clothed in my right mind."
It's a powerful thing, to be clothed in your right mind.

Cheers,
John

[R. S. Gwynn]

I've read most of the Lowell biographies, but not this one yet. Andrew and John, have you read the book?

[John Whitworth]

Andrew, what is the meaning of your phrase 'so-called disease'? Do you mean it is not a disease? That it is normal?. That Lowell was not ill. If he was sane then his behaviour was simply monstrous, his violence unforgivable.

When I first came across Lowell (the Faber Selected Poems), the consensus seemed to be that he was a great American poet. He was obviously a very accomplished one capable of arresting phrases. I was not aware then of what I will still call his mental illness.

Is he really as good as Frost or Stevens? What is the Spherean take on this? I cannot think so.

As for this book, Mike Juster shows definitively that it is a glugger, not worth my or anyone else's time. Or so I think.

[John Isbell]

Good evening Sam,

No, I haven't. But I read Jamison's earlier book (which was IMO flawed, as my initial comment in the other thread indicated, but is on my shelves); and I did read Juster's review, which stated if I understood correctly among other claims that the only problem in Lowell's privileged existence was his mental illness. Similarly, the only problem in Steven Hawking's privileged existence is his ALS. I did work for several years at a mental health clinic, and I have some grasp of the hidden challenges - they escape people - that mental illness routinely imposes. Those challenges did not seem visible in Juster's review, and my previous post in this thread aims to redress that balance. Particularly if folks read the review and skip the book, as I did. Misrepresentation comes easy in describing people. I hope to have avoided it here.

Cheers,
John

Update: to John's point, most severe mental illnesses, such as manic depression/bipolar disorder or schizophrenia, reflect a measurable chemical imbalance in the brain. They are verifiable or at least diagnosable (and to some extent treatable). But absent Lowell's brain, we just have the diagnosis of his providers. This is my own main objection to Jamison's method: she diagnoses Byron, as I recall, in her other book.
John, I like your critical diagnosis: that Lowell is capable of arresting phrases. I think he is as well.
Update: it may be worth adding that homosexuality was listed in the (American) diagnostic manual of mental illnesses until about 1973.

[Michael Juster]

Well, I am glad to see that my Lowell review has sparked two animated threads.

I'm not going to get into a point-by-point exchange, particularly with a couple of people who seem determined to misread my review, but let me make a few general statements:

1) I absolutely DID NOT criticize Jamison for using an older term for "bipolar." "As is Jamison's right as a clinician" was the phrase I used to introduce my ACTUAL criticism that Jamison only belatedly explains her use of terminology; my only criticism in this zone was that many readers will be confused because the explanation of the terminology comes so late in the book. This type of problem is a recurring one with this author--she also hides the ball on the fact that she married into the Lowell family and relied on her husband--not for the recounting of facts, but for expert medical opinion. That feature of the book crosses an ethical line I wouldn't cross.

2) I absolutely do criticize Jamison for largely assuming Lowell's "greatness" as a person and as a poet. In my view Jamison needed to explain what outside of his literary work would justify a claim of "courage." I saw almost no evidence to support her claim, and very little evidence of genuine remorse at any time about the many victims of his physical abuse--most of which were women & some of which were nearly killed. Nowhere in this long book does Jamison identify a non-manic period in which we can more sympathetically judge the character of Lowell. Nowhere in this long book do we see documentation that Lowell found it difficult to return to what he most loved doing after his institutionalizations.

3) My criticism of Jamison on Lowell's poetry is mostly based on her utter failure to make ANY assessment of the poetry and her only limited use of a few positive assessments in the secondary literature. My view of Lowell's work is pretty common: he wrote a few great poems; he wrote a larger number of dreadful poems; and there is a vast amount of other work about which there is much to admire but little to love. I consider myself somewhat open-minded in my assessment of Lowell's work & would have loved to see Jamison use her perspective to enhance my understanding of individual poems--in the way John Irwin's recent bio of Weldon Kees did. It's not that I disagree with Jamison's readings--I disagree with her decision not to even try to use the life to explain the art.

As for the cheap-shot ad hominem remarks, I have promoted bipolar into positions of great responsibility and selected a bipolar person to be the public face of the Social Security Administration--someone who became a cherished friend and co-worker. I actually believe that Jamison's book is unintentionally damaging to the people she clearly wants to help because she seems to argue that they can not be held morally accountable for anything--a standard that would disqualify them from significant jobs. She also consistently skirts history that contradicts her thesis--such as the controversy over The Dolphin and his Vietnam protests.

It is a widely praised but horribly flawed book.

[John Isbell]

Good evening Michael,

I believe I don't have a dog in your fight. I did the following in these two threads. I stated my objections to Jamison's method. I noted the drawbacks to relying on reviews without reading the book in question. I discussed the challenges mental illness imposes. I appraised Lowell's worth as a poet. And I wrote this:
I did read Juster's review, which stated if I understood correctly among other claims that the only problem in Lowell's privileged existence was his mental illness. Similarly, the only problem in Steven Hawking's privileged existence is his ALS. I did work for several years at a mental health clinic, and I have some grasp of the hidden challenges - they escape people - that mental illness routinely imposes. Those challenges did not seem visible in Juster's review, and my previous post in this thread aims to redress that balance. Particularly if folks read the review and skip the book, as I did. Misrepresentation comes easy in describing people. I hope to have avoided it here.
If this is unfair to your review, please do feel at liberty to tell me how and where.

With all good wishes,
John

[Michael Juster]

John:

You're 100% twisting what I said--I acknowledged that bipolar disorder was a serious problem in Lowell's life. The fact that he had state-of-the-art medical treatment (including lithium, not widely available at that time), he had a trust fund, he had friends at Ivy League schools who invariably invited him back no matter how much he damaged students, and he had incredibly supportive family & friends is also all undeniably true.

I just don't think Lowell's diagnosis is a blanket excuse for the wreckage he created, particularly his vicious violence against women. Jamison disagrees with me on that point, and that would be an important topic for you to discuss. She also asserts, without any evidence tied to dates, that he had periods of lucidity. OK then, but I don't see any breaks from dangerously violent behavior, frenetic sexual coupling, or poor treatment of people he considered lower on the social scale--or any regrets at all for his past behavior. In other words, how can one possibly make a case for his greatness as an individual--apart from the poetry? I don't see how you can, and the book is annoyingly vapid on that topic.

I also acknowledge that disgraceful human beings can be great poets--it's not hard to create that list. As I said before, my opinion on Lowell's value as a poet is not nailed down, but Jamison's book doesn't do anything to advance discussion about his literary merits.

By the way, I caught the implication in your comment and you should know that I suffer from a serious degenerative condition myself, and I have won many national awards for improving the lives of people with disabilities.

Mike