Month of October, 2010
1)
Paris, Texas
In this month, in 2003, Elliott Smith died. I accidentally commemorated the occasion this year by watching his favorite movie. It's now easily in my top five as well.
Speaking of which,
here is a link to what is, in my opinion, the most thoughtful and nuanced article in existence about the months leading up to Smith's suicide. Scroll down to read reply #3. SPIN magazine has not made this article available online, so the link is to a message board where a user reprinted it without permission.
I think it is irrelevant whether or not Smith's memories of molestation were accurate. Nobody disputes that he was beaten, abandoned, and verbally/emotionally abused. Any one of those things could be sufficient to leave a person scrambling forevermore to pick up the shambles of his life. This is especially true during times when the individual is attempting to face reality without taking refuge under the wings of dissociation* or delusional comforts. It's not strange that Smith died sober.
2)
Trauma and Recovery by Judith Herman
In the words of an acquaintance who read half the book: "Not good nighttime reading."
It is a tough read, if you have so much as half a heart (even a Grinch-sized one). But it is also an excellent book, on the whole. Indispensable for anybody interested in PTSD and trauma recovery. Bessel van der Kolk is another author/researcher whose work I would recommend looking up. Onno van der Hart and his colleagues are also at the forefront of PTSD research and clinical practice (at least in my unprofessional estimation). And all of these folks tip their hats repeatedly to Pierre Janet.
3) The History of Child Abuse by Lloyd deMause
That was actually a reread for me. But this time around I also read more or less everything available on his
personal site.
If Herman is bad bedtime reading, deMause is worse. I don't mean that the quality is poor, but that you'll probably NEED that book about PTSD recovery after reading this one. ;-)
I am a little skeptical of deMause's work. The Institute for Psychohistory is small and The Journal of Psychohistory is at least somewhat controversial. The relevant wikipedia articles are, in their present state, not terribly illuminating. Is he exaggerating or cherry-picking his findings? I don't know yet. I don't know enough to say. I do know that what he is saying is unappetizing and I can see why some others in the field would prefer to plug their ears.
My hunch at the moment is that deMause is mostly correct, especially regarding his main ideas (that the history of childhood is depressingly violent and exploitative, but improving; that a given culture's childrearing practices have an enormous impact on military and political happenings). The criticisms I've read so far have been ... uh, pretty cursory, with an emphasis on scandalized pearl-clutching ("What? No! My noble savages/grandparents would never do that!") rather than specific, evidence-backed objections.
4) Rene Magritte
I don't know much about art or art history, which means I not-so-infrequently get the pleasure of stumbling on a
great artist I knew absolutely
nothing about before. (Or, rather, nothing beyond a childhood glimpse of his iconic painting "
Time Transfixed".)
Check this out:
Pretty awesome. I don't know about you, but that reminds
me of the year
12,000 BC.
Happy Halloween!
----
*Spirituality and substance abuse are the most obvious examples of ways in which people dissociate from reality but sober, secular people also have systems in place that serve the same reality-dampening purpose. And, of course, most people--especially "well-adjusted" people--have layer upon layer of these protective illusions and mechanisms. Don't worry; I know I have them, too. Blue pill FTW, I guess.
