Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament

There exists sufficient evidence for me to support Kay Redfield Jamison's hypothesis that bipolar disorder is overrepresented in those with the 'artistic temperment'. Additionally, the link almost surely has a genetic component, with overlapping genes conferring a proclivity to the arts as well as susceptibility to depressive illness. Much of this research is surveyed in the Jamison's scholarly third chapter, which reads like a review on the topic (although now fairly dated, published in 1993).

However, despite supporting the underlying hypothesis, I found the book fairly uninteresting. It is an awkward juxtaposition of scientific survey and post hoc historical diagnosis. A full chapter is given to the archetypal Lord Byron (the only subject whose temperament earned its own adjective). While this chapter is mildly interesting, subsequent analysis of artistic genealogies added little to my appreciation of the work. Further, the fourth chapter, on how bipolar disorders might affect art, seemed quite speculative. Jamison even floats the hypothesis that seasonal themes in the arts might result from seasonal depressions of artists. A final chapter, on the implication of medication to the artistic temperament, seemed quite muddled and inconclusive.

Really, while I appreciate Jamison's work in this area, I would recommend skipping the book form.

_Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament_ by psychiatrist Kay Redfield Jamison is a study of the role of manic-depressive illness, psychosis, and depression in the lives of artists, writers, musicians, and poets. Unfortunately there is a tendency to assume that all individuals who are particularly intense, eccentric, moody, or creatively inspired are manic-depressive; however, this is simply not the case. While many of the individuals described by the author in this book did indeed suffer breakdowns, engaged in self-destructive behaviors, or were prone to wild changes in mood, there is little reason to assume that mental illness is an essential component of creativity. Furthermore, as with all of her books, the author seems unable to face the dark, destructive side of things and tends to romanticize mental illness. In addition, she tends to associate manic-depression with high social status, artistic accomplishment, creativity, and genius which not only serves to re-inforce stereotypes but also takes away from the genuine suffering of those who are not so blessed. As with all her books, this one is really for the high IQ, highly socially connected, creative manic type who is capable of channeling his changes in mood into artistic and creative endeavors. Unfortunately, the vast majority of those who suffer from this illness are not so capable. Thus, it is a fallacy to suppose that manic-depression is either an essential component of creativity or that it entails creativity. Many individuals suffer alone and in silence from depression or other mental disorders and they never have much hope of accomplishing works of greatness. And many of those who are manic engage in various self-destructive behaviors without ever accomplishing a work of high quality. In fact, in many cases either mania or depression may prohibit an individual from accomplishing valuable work. While one is in the throes of mania or depression one is simply unable to concentrate and thus lacks the necessary mental resources to focus on accomplishment. This is the unfortunate fact of the matter, and I believe her books do not face up to this reality, ignoring the social issues raised by severe mental illness and the dark, destructive side of manic-depression. Furthermore, many of the individuals discussed in this book eventually were to take their own lives (or starve themselves to death or engage in risky behaviors which led to their death), and thus the world was robbed of any future accomplishments they may have brought forth. In addition, there is also the tendency to apply the label of manic-depressive to all individuals who may have had breakdowns. This leads the author to conclude for example that van Gogh suffered from manic-depression and not schizophrenia as previously believed. I think that while there is some evidence to indicate that van Gogh suffered from an affective disorder, there also is the fact of his hallucinations and psychosis which are less easily explained (perhaps epilepsy or some other psychotic disorder). Thus, the author prematurely reduces all signs of temperamental instability or nervous breakdown to an instance of manic-depression, and this reduction may be unwarranted. In addition, there is always difficulty involved in any sort of retroactive diagnosis, and ultimately like most attempts at this endeavor it becomes pretty pointless.

What this book does include is some fairly interesting descriptions of both manic and depressive states in certain inspired individuals. As someone who has experienced a great deal of inner conflict at times, I could relate to many of these descriptions even if I could not relate to some of the more outlandish behaviors. The author includes discussions of the supposed seasonal nature of this illness, emphasizing the role of biological cycles (the role of light and dark for example) and proposing possible theories to explain them. The author attempts to relate this to peaks and troughs in creative output among artists and writers. This for me was fairly interesting and I could relate it to periodic changes in my own life. The author assumes that manic-depressive illness is inherited, although she does not really suggest an adequate evolutionary theory to explain it. To some this may still be a debatable point, as it has not been conclusively proven yet. She does attempt to show an association between creativity in near relatives of those afflicted with this illness and those who possess the full blown form of this illness. However, it should be pointed out that manic-depression is not something that neatly fits into categories. Many individuals who possess this illness in one form or another do so to varying degrees and there are many variations in the manner in which it affects them. The author contends that mania (given the tendency of manics to exhibit a flight of ideas) is a natural conducer of creativity. She illustrates this for example by quoting some remarks made about Coleridge (who she claims suffered from this illness), showing his tendency to rapidly move from idea to idea linked by the most tenuous of associations while at the height of his manic state. However, it should be pointed out that often the thinking of manics can become so disordered with thoughts and ideas linked together by such tenuous threads that it becomes impossible to focus rendering any creative advantage effective moot and reducing the stream of consciousness produced to nonsense. On the other hand, the author also contends that melancholic states may also lead to creativity as the individual overcomes them, because they allow for philosophical reflection and doubt. This seems more probable; however, again it must be pointed out that in the throes of severe depression thoughts are likely to be singly focused and thinking slowed down. The author provides a fairly interesting sketch of the life of Lord Byron, showing both his flamboyant temperament as well as the troubled history of his family. The author also provides genealogies of various individuals including Alfred, Lord Tennyson, Robert Schuman, The James Family (William and Henry James in particular), Herman Melville, Samuel Taylor Colderidge, Virginia Woolf, Ernest Hemingway, Mary Wollstonecraft and Mary Shelley, Samuel Johnson and James Boswell, and Vincent Van Gogh. Among others discussed in the book, the author also examines the lives of Poe, Lowell, Blake, and Keats concluding that they all were manic-depressives. Following this, the author turns to a discussion of the use of the drug lithium. She shows not only the positive effects of this drug in dampening the oscillations of manic-depression, but also some of the side effects that may be associated with this drug. Among these, particularly disturbing is the blunting of emotion and a decline in creativity. Whether or not this actually occurs and to what extent this is a necessary trade-off is really a question that must be answered on an individual basis. The author also provides an interesting discussion of the potentially horrifying consequences of modern genetics. In the past, many eugenicists did not propose the elimination of manic-depression because many individuals from prominent families possessed this illness. However, with the rise of modern genetics it may happen that certain individuals will attempt to eliminate this illness entirely. Particularly horrifying is the idea that mothers will abort or will be forced to abort their babies if they are believed to be carriers of this illness.

As someone who at times has suffered from much of this myself, I found this book to be both enlightening and disturbing. While many interesting points were raised about this illness, I did feel that the real social issues involved were not being addressed. On the other hand, I wonder if a useful study could be made on the prevalence of this illness among mathematicians and philosophers for example. I am aware of at least two famous mathematicians who suffered from this illness (Norbert Weiner and Georg Cantor) and my experience tells me that many more do also.

I encountered "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" whilst studying personality theory at RMIT. Although it is not about personality typology as I was them aiming to write, with hindsight "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" is a very interesting book in its own right.

Even having had up to that point no interest in literature - indeed as a child I again and again spoke of "boring novels" - I found the stories of people like Sylvia Plath and Lord Byron much too fascinating to resist. I had always wondered what drove so many poets to self-destructive behaviour and death at an age comparable to myself today. Using an exceptionally large sample spread over the period between the eighteenth and twentieth centuries, Jamieson compares the rates of certain types of destructive behaviour among various types of writers and artists and shows very clearly that the poetic personality is remarkably distinct. Biographies of poets over the entire period covered within "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" are shown to have remarkably high rates of suicide, alcoholism and other symptoms of severe depression. She also shows repeatedly that poets have long recognised the mental problems they so often face, with memorable quotes from Byron at the beginning of the book.

The details to which Jamison is able to go in her quest is remarkable, yet "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" is by no means too dry to be read by those who are academically inclined: indeed the statistics are very easy to read and do not disturb the text in a significant way. Instead, they illuminate what is said about the poets and other artists very effectively.

I have several problems with "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" are:
1) the potential for inaccuracy in biographies of those written about, but Jamison writes with so much detail and such a sense of drama that I cannot believe she really is in any way wide of the mark.
2) the potential to underestimate the problems posed by manic depression and bipolar disorder for the majority of people affected thereby - an issue which however, Jamison really cannot be said to be ignoring when she talks about the problems of the poets and artists mentioned here
3) many of the poets discussed, especially the earlier ones, are not regarded today as particularly significant, and the question of whether the problems of manic depression are essential to poetic creativity is not adequately discussed

Still, should you want to understand some of the most poetic creativity, "Touched with Fire: Manic-Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" is a very valuable and accessible resource.

As mentioned by others, if you are looking for the actual process of how depression is seen to predispose certain people to be creative then this book is not for you. The fineline between madman and genius is still poorly understood. Jamisons book is a treatise on what information is known along with citing studies and statistical analysis. It is aimed more towards scientists etc. studying the phenomenon as opposed to individuals looking for answers as to why they are prone to depression and the creativity that depression brings about.

However, with the above in mind, Jamison has done a good job. I feel it to be incomplete as it doesn't really get in to the nitty gritty of what exactly is happening to cause the madman/genius scenario. Alas that isn't a failing of Jamison, more a case that currently no one knows with any certainty as to what is going on. Is it hereditary?, Genetics?, a social failing, artists taking advantage of societies perception of the madgenius-artist?, being predisposed to being more emotional and just feeling the highs and lows of the human condition to a greater degree? etc. etc. Hopefully one day soon the underlying causes may be know but not today. And in a way that is a plus for this book - Jamison for the most part appears to be impartial to the theories and merely collects them together for the reader to to review. There are some biographies of certain artists/writers/poets/musicians etc. with Lord Byron being the greatest study. They make for very interesting reading, along with the lists of well regarded artistic types and their battles with mental illness.

If you are someone looking for answers this book isn't for you. But if you are looking for the current state of affairs in this field then you will find much here to dwell on. My background is science so I found the delivery of the book to be standard scientific fare and had no problems reading it. It may come across as dry to a reader not so well versed in this manner of writing. As I am now a writer and an artist I found the book to be very interesting - I didn't learn much beyond what common sense will tell you but it was useful to have all the current studies in one tome. A book in a similar vein worth reading is Anthony Storr's "Churchill's Black Dog".

Being a simple laymen, I dare not pass judgement as to the scientific validity of this book. I will say though, that I did enjoy it. It certainly gives food for thought and those dealing with and working with those suffering from bi-polar disorder, or living with them, should give it a try, even if for no other reason than to consider the subject from a different angle. I note a number of reviewers have used terms such as "sloppy science," and "dangerous assumptions." Lighten up folks. This is not a college or medical school text. To be honest, if you are bright enough to read the thing, you are bright enough to see it's weaknesses and take them into consideration. Anyway, the book is well done, gives you something to think about and is fun. Enjoy.

This is a fascinating but highly problematic book that basically amounts to a lot of cherry-picking. Anyone who's read Dr. Jamison's memoir "An Unquiet Mind" knows how oddly blind she is to her own romanticism, and she shoots it all over the place in this book.

Dr. Jamison's big flaw as a psychological writer is her total lack of interest in environmental and developmental contributors to personality, both for herself and the subjects she studies in this and other books. She is dyed-in-the-wool biological determinist--a point of view which is thankfully falling out of fashion as we learn that even schizophrenics are not damned by their genes, and can completely recover functionality--something which wasn't so clear in the 90's, when Dr. Jamison was at the height of her fame.

So a greater proportion of celebrated artists were manic-depressive than the general population--what does this prove exactly? Perhaps these genes--the artist gene and the bipolar gene, travel together. But they travel apart much more often. All great men or women are touched in one way or another--all of them have some kind of intensity that drives them to push their lives harder and farther than the general population. They don't just have unusual brains but unusual experiences. I suspect you'd find that a greater proportion of celebrated artists also come from broken families, or ethnically mixed families, than the general population. No doubt a greater proportion of celebrated artists have high IQs than the general population. Malcolm Gladwell believes success is aided by being born in a year with a lower birthrate. Why single out manic-depression?

The vast majority of manic-depressives do not make great art. If they go untreated, they are much more likely to rack up huge debts, ruin good careers and marriages, waste enormous amounts of energy on ridiculous projects, and spend sometimes whole years barely able to get off the couch. But again, that's not sexy. However many disclaimers she provides to the contrary, Dr. Jamison ultimately produces the impression of bipolar as a "dangerous gift". But the best we can say is that it's a dangerous illness which is sometimes accompanied by gifts, but usually isn't.

This is a great book if you want to read about some of the most notoriously crazy artists in history--especially poets--at their craziest. It also contains a lot of great quotes from them on depression, mania, etc. And she's probably right--most of them probably were bipolar. But what does it all amount to? Another rag on the pile of romanticizing mental illness.

This is one of my favorite authors on the subject of mood disorders, but the book was a disappointment. Most of the information about creative people that she used is well known and documented in other sources. Ms. Jamison did a nice job of explaining the family history of some of our favorite creative people of old, defining the link between mood disorders of family members. As an artist my interest was in those who had been successfully treated for their disorder and lived to be creative again. This book was an analysis of THE PAST, statistics relating to the resuming of creative careers after treatment were not in this book. I very much enjoyed her other writing but this was a detailed rehash of old information and didn't offer much beyond dry research and statistics.

I don't think Dr. jamison did anything irresponsable here. Nor did I find her grasping at scientific straws as I've heard it implied. My sister who read the book brought up the concern that I read here several times, which is, how did Dr. Jamison know these ppl were bipolar? She never claimed absolutely that they were. She did however point out very suspicious and in my opinion serious patterns and events that matched what we now know of bipolar. The illness is not *that* hit and miss. I think the ethiccal questions she raised were important. No, every bipolar is not an artistic genius, though overall bipolars are *more* creative than non bipolars. What happens to this creativity when we cure bipolar disorder? It's a good question. And a good book. People's personal distaste for or fear of mental illness notwithstanding, any open mind will find it's not making false claims, or glorifying pain. It's just examining some questions that should be brought to light.

This book is both psychological analysis and literary criticism. Its main thesis is that there is a causative connection between manic- depressive illness and creativity. Redfield- Jamison uses her own expertise and her rich reading to show the statistical connection between bipolar illness and creativity. A far larger portion of creative artists are bipolar than is the general population. She points out that of all the artists it is poets who are most likely to suffer from bipolar disorder, and most likely to be suicidal.
She provides great insight and a tremendous amount of information. She quotes a large number of poetic texts. Nonetheless the book for me was a bit disappointing. This is perhaps because I compared it to her great autobiographical book 'An Unquiet Mind'. Redfield Jamison does raise the question in the book of whether the taking of Lithium, or other drugs which moderate extreme mood swings does have a price in terms of Creativity. The longing for the exuberance of the 'highs' is something she well understands. It seems to me that in this book there is an even and measured tone, a kind of non- exciting steadiness.

Dr. Jamison's study of creative artists demonstrates a definite correlation between their creativity and psychological suffering--but, in the final analysis, that is all it shows. This notion--the suffering artist--is nothing new. Her questionable conclusion is that the bulk of these artists suffered from manic depressive illness, now technically known as bipolar disorder. But what exactly is "bipolar disorder"? Jamison--and the vast majority of her mainstream psychiatric colleagues--claim it to be a biochemically caused disease or illness. Indeed, in this book, Jamison makes a compelling biological argument for the genetic and biochemical determinants of bipolar disorder. Yet there is still inadequate data to support such strident claims--despite the relative efficacy of lithium therapy in controlling (but not eliminating) the symptoms. As in most other mental disorders of varying severity, biological factors are practically impossibl! e to isolate from psychological factors, making such dogmatic claims somewhat suspect. Thus, Jamison's reducing creativity to the byproduct of a specific psychiatric disorder is dubious. It amounts to the medicalizing or pathologizing of the creative process in extremis. That creativity comes from wrestling with one's inner demons--depression, isolation, and especially anger or rage--is more to the point. Jamison--who herself suffers from bipolar disorder--seems to diminish the dignity of constructively struggling with and expressing what I call "the daimonic" in favor of a disease model of both madness and creativity. But I submit that what all great artists (and each of us to some lesser degree) truly have in common is this existential confrontation with the daimonic, some being more successful in directing it creatively than others--not merely some brain, neurological or biochemical imbalance.

I recently had the privilege of hearing Dr. Jamison speak. In her book and in her speech, she does a wonderful job of explaining how it feels to have Bipolar Disorder. Her descriptions and guidance make it much easier to understand why this disorder generates such wonders and tragedies. I highly recommend her work to people who have Bipolar Disorder and their family members.

Sheryl Gurrentz, author

If Your Child is Bipolar

Ok...let's get some things straight right off the bat. This book by Jamison is NOT a book meant for the easy reading of those who are trying to find out more about bipolar disease (whether or not they are merely curious or actually have been diagnosed with it themselves!). This book is an excellent qualitative case studies argument for professionals and peers (in education, in psychology, in neuroscience, in the art world, etc.) who would like to further delve into the long-circulated theory that those blessed with creative abilities are often cursed with manic-depressive (bipolar disorder). Those lay people who merely want confirmation of their illness (or that of a family member) are going to be in for an incredible disappointment if they 'get' this book. It was never intended to be a self-help diary, no matter what Jamison's previous books on bipolar have been like.
Next...Jamison makes an excellent case for the link between bipolar disorder and creativity. The methodology she uses tends to be dependent upon case studies of particular artists and the information available from their own writings as well as their family backgrounds and family lineage. It is a well-known fact that many of the psychiatric disorders have both a genetic and an environmental component. Jamison obviously is learned enough and has enough background in neuroscience and psychiatry, to be able to tie the information often gleaned separately in these fields, together in a more comprehensive whole. No, Jamison does not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the concept that many writers/artists are plagued by bipolararity...but she sure makes a heck of a case for the previously surmised existence of a link! Her science information is impeccable, given what is known now at this particular time concerning manic-depression and the brain. In spite of having to use historical accounts and letters of family members, the artists themselves, and those in direct contact with these people...Jamison's analysis of their work and art, in conjunction with that historical writing, and using what is known now about this particular disorder in the brain is an phenomenal act of intelligent and scholarly writing. And it is well-written and not typical-boring textbook (or 'let's-slap-ourselves-on-the-back-in-congratulatory' professorial type) either! That's high praise on my part, since I cannot abide professors who pander their own writing (whether textbooks or journals) or write to their colleagues in as hard-to-understand professional jargon as possible, and then demand their poor students attempt to make sense of it (as well as line the professors pockets!) Cynical, aren't I?
I had seen and heard of Jamison's work before, but this was the first opportunity I had had to pick up one of her books. Since having not only two artistic grandfathers (one of whom fit the mold of those in this book) as well as having a good per cent of my own family history done (and being linked to some very famous depressives and manic depressives on both sides like Mary Todd Lincoln)...my interest has always been piqued by this theory. My first three years in college gave me a great background in British and American literature, and I remember reading William Blake and thinking 'this guy straddles the world between being one of the major prophetic poets, and being stark-raving loonie'!
Jamison really confirmed what I had previously thought by giving more background into the lives of these men and women. Plus she ties in the what is known about their placement into insane asylums and into their deaths at their own hands (as well as dependence upon alcohol or other drugs to relieve their depression...they rarely wanted to ease their mania which in itself is another confirmation of their own recognizance of their problems).
Jamison watches the speculation, that I find abhorent in historical research. She makes no claims that this is the final word on these people...she cannot. She knows and admits this. But her immense work in this area provides significant input into the lives and works of these men. It makes all of us, whether in the medical world, the educational world, or the artistic world appreciate the art and writings of these men even more because of the knowledge of what they went through.
Karen L. Sadler,
Science Education,
University of Pittsburgh

Thankfully Jamison added a little culture into this book. For the artists and writers who are dealing with manic-depression, swimming through a barrage of scientific mumbo jumbo and left-brained analysis, I'd recommend this. For not only will it build your self-esteem when you discover the distinguished company you associate with, but it may lighten your fact-filled head with some beautiful poetry written by some of the greatest poets to have walked the fields.

Well written by someone well read and educated - and admittedly mentally ill. Its that education that I think holds this book back. It interprets the illness, or frames it in terms of inspired creativity, rather than exposes.

If you want to experience mental illness w/out going there yourself, read Schreber's 'Memoir of my Nervous Illness'

Dr. Jamison tells about how the artist is more likely to suffer from manic illness than other careers. This books gives insight to the highs and lows of the great writers and artists of the English and American world. An excellent read for those interested in the psychology of artist and their temperaments.

As someone who loves both literature and psychology this book captivated my attention from start to finish. The swings from darkness and despair to the dazzling highs that existed for some of our greatest writers and poets was both difficult and fasinating to read about and I read and reread. A must for people in both fields of interest! If you know someone who is Bi-Polar you may gain some insight you didn't expect.

While this book was really not that interesting to me, despite the fact that my brother is bipolar, certain chapters rang so true and brought me to tears. It is a factual book, but Redfield (the author) seems as though she is affected by the disorder. So reading her accounts was intrguing on that level.
The best part was the incredible lists she offers of all the famous artists who have been manic-depressive: Sylvia Plath, Leigh Hunt, Dante Rossetti, several former political leaders and even Presidents of the USA! Amazing!

After finishing my senior independent study on creativity and mental illness, I still go back to this book in with fond memories. It's an accessible and even-minded introduction to the admittedly controversial theory of the link between mental illness and creativity. It was the inspiration for my research.

Though not perfect, this book helped me to understand my and my family's struggle with various forms of manic depression and depression. Particularly helpful was the pattern of unconcious genetic parings that can increase or minimize odds of the illness surfacing. This has been the case in my family tree.

It is a very beotifull book, with an almost poetical writing abaut the relation between the manic-Depressive illness and art creativity. It is over all a book that does not approach the problematic of the illness from a negative point of view but yes looking to important points that they must be had in account when somebody is come across with this illness and not only from a clinical point but also social and cultural point of view.

Over the years.....for as long as I can remember - I sit alone and let my mind soar to the most incredible heights. My mind hears, sees and feels ....original music that tragically will never be heard. Motion Pictures that will never be seen. Eroticism that would make even the most sexually creative blush - never be felt.

My mind went too high...too often that made life too difficult to bear when the stars tuned to clouds.

Before the medication, early on a Sunday morning - I would play my piano into the early evening......with only vague recollections of my wife's voice mentioning something about lunch. Never being satisfied with what I had played over the last 12 hours. Vainly trying to fight off the anxiety and depression. The waves of original music I had just played while my body covered in goose bumps and those encompassing waves not dissimilar to a sexual orgasm..only giving way to the frustration and damning myself for the melodies that did not come. Regardless of the niceties bestowed upon me by neighbors at cocktail parties who overheard while watering the lawn or walking the dog.

Mens sana in corpore sano - A healthy mind in a healthy body is something madness will not allow.

My children and I thank you Dr. Greenfield and we thank you Pamela for continuing to lead me past the open windows. I love you both from the bottom of my heart.

....and thank you Kay for the validation.

As a graduate student in psychology, an artist, and someone with a Bipolar I diagnosis, this book was particularly appealing to me.
I appreciate Ms. Jamison's desire to bring to a light a positive side of having bipolar disorder. I do not feel that she was attempting to glorify BPD so much as to find a bright side to all of the negativity surrounding it. Nowhere in the book does she suggest that people with BPD not take their medication. In fact, she states that to treat a person with BPD with psychoanalysis alone is considered medical malpractice. I appreciate her positive outlook and exploration of a subject that has been touched on in research, but never explored as much as I, personally, would like.
That being said; I do take issue with psychoanalyzing deceased poets, writers, and other artists in order to make a point. It was very contrived and did not lend credibility to her points. I would rather have looked at real-life examples that have been diagnosed. I also did not enjoy the constant quoting from poets. I felt that there was just not enough research so she ended up filling the empty space with quotations. In the end, I feel that I read a whole lot of quotations and filler to get to the "meaty" research parts. I would have rather just read the studies by themselves.
While I appreciate the attempt at bringing the relationship between BPD and creativity to the attention of researchers and the public, I just don't think this book was well-executed or contained enough research to drive the point home.

I really liked Jamison's memoir, An Unquiet Mind, except for her obvious (to a degree well-deserved) hubris. The result of her overestimation of her abilities resulted in this charlatan of a book. This book trades on her knowledge after the fact that certain people who are creative are or may be bipolar. I can understand Jamison, who is bipolar, desiring to make manic depression a glorious pathway to creativity, but I believe it distracts hurtfully from the sane and sober approach to understanding and treating people who suffer from manic depression. Her enthusiasm for this subject is SADLY misplaced. I also don't believe in psychoanalysis of people long dead and concluding they are bipolar. Her theme disastrously parallels the adulation of many authors who have been alcoholics and many who have committed suicide. Severe mental illness and alcoholism should not be used in a pseudo- positive and bogus way to elevate those who suffer from these illnesses onto a pedestal.

Perhaps the major problem is that people will go back into the past and find a perfectly normal, sane and great author like John Keats abd then gather evidence that he was really bipolar. Manic depression or bipolar disorder are still squishy, amorphous terms that label people effectively for certain purposes but don't really identify what is specifically wrong with a person who has been labelled bipolar I. Miss Jamison seems to have clearly suffered from Bipolar I, but very, very few people can be categorized so precisely and neatly. Manic depression is a spectrum illness with very many sufferers who cannot be labelled neatly as Bipolar I or II or any other subset of manic depression. The terms are often helpful, but they are NOT tantamount to the physical law of gravity or even an illness said to be panic disorder. What I get from this book and her memoir (and the fact that she has achieved great academic and publishing success) is a woman who thinks she knows it all. Her book on suicide is also tendentious and ultimately harmful and unenlightening. She needs a dose of humility.

Kay Jamison does it again. She really helps me understood my condition better and why I am so creative at times and not others. By reading this book, I have come to have a better grasp of my condition and to work to keep it under control.

Bipolar women can not produce a baby free of birth defects on medication like lithium, etc... Some women will produce children before the onset of symptoms and taking medication. The majority will not due to modern medicine. Bipolar disorder will only be passed on by the male population. Hitler and the US government of the '40's have finally gotten their way. Today's medications are simply a "backdoor" to Eugenics. To the best of my knowledge no research facility is feverishly working on a drug that is safe for bipolar women to conceive on.
Dr. Jamison's book makes a clear cut case for keeping bipolar disorder alive and "well". The amount of artisans over the centuries with bipolar disorder is staggering.
Prepare for the world to become a duller, less colorful and inventive place without us.

Jamison's opinion of Herman Melville is way off. Melville has been appropriated to most every taste, and need. Difficult to accept that given his achievement, he was surprisingly 'normal.' Wagneknecht had it right, in reading Melville, one must distinguish between biography and autobiography of the reviewer.

I toiled through about 130 pages of this book and, finding no citations of research in the past 50 years, decided it just wasn't worth the time.
Sure, Victorian era 'science' gave us brave new views on human nature. But they were wrong. Move on.

THIS BOOK BY KAY REDFIELD-JAMISON MADE ME REALIZE THAT MY ARTISTIC AND POETIC TALENTS ARE PROBABLY PRODUCTS OF MY MANIC-DEPRESSION, THAT I AM NOT TOTALLY MAD!!!! SHE ALSO PROVIDES A VERY LENGTHY LIST OF ALL THE TRULY GREAT PEOPLE WHO HAVE LIVED WITH AND DIED BECAUSE OF BIPOLAR DISORDER. THE NUMBER OF POETS, ARTISTS, WRITERS, COMPOSERS, ETC. IS ASTOUNDING. HERE I AM THINKING THAT I AM A POET/ARTIST WITH AN EMOTIONAL PROBLEM, WHEN ACTUALLY I AM AN EXCELLENT POET/ARTIST BECAUSE OF MY (DISABILITY) MANIC-DEPRESSION. THIS SITUATION GIVES NEW MEANING TO THE WORDS "ARTISTIC TEMPERAMENT."
THE LIST OF BIPOLAR/MANIC-DEPRESSIVE PEOPLE (WITH SUPERIOR ARTISTIC ABILITIES) ALONE IS WORTH THE COST OF THE BOOK.

HOw much of the creativity of fiery individuals is due to mood disorders? This book explores the connection of many who have been artistic and successful with mood disorder. Is there such a thing as an artistic temperament?

Note: This review was originally written to address "Born Under Saturn - The Character and Conduct of Artists: A Documented History from Antiquity to the French Revolution" by Rudolf and Margot Wittkower (described by the N.Y. Times as “a delightful, scholarly and gossipy romp"). However, a significant space in this review is also given to Jamison's "Touched With Fire - Manic Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament". Mentioned also is "Soul Hunger: The Feeling Human Being and the Life Sciences", 2010, by the Swiss psychiatrist Daniel Hell - a book which deserves, in this reviewer's mind, far more attention than Jamison's best-seller. Daniel Hell's "Soul Hunger", like many "foreign" thought streams running counter to the ideology of Anglo-American scientific reductionism employed by Jamison, simply never appear in English translation to begin with; or if they do, like Hell's "Soul Hunger", remain nevertheless obscure to the English speaking reader. "Daniel Hell has written a book that is a true scientific and philosophic masterpiece." - Raymond Battegay, M.D., emerited professor of psychiatry of the University of Basel, Switzerland. (from reviews found at: "Soul Hunger: The Feeling Human Being and the Life Sciences Daimon Publishers")
____________

I have my copy of "Born Under Saturn" since the late 1960's - and consider it one of the few important texts I've encountered in my specialized field of art history. So, unlike many who like to be entertained by books, I usually consult books for the information and insights I find in them which are not to be found in exactly the same form in other books. This is especially true, for example, for the chapter in "Born Under Saturn" with the title: "Genius, Madness and Melancholy". I want to quote from the beginning of this chapter in order to illustrate just how "gossipy", "fun", "hilarious" and "entertaining" art history can REALLY be:

"Plato differentiated between clinical insanity and creative insanity - that inspired madness of which seers and poets are possessed. ... [real "gossipy" - right?]

It was Marsilio Ficino, the great Florentine philosopher and commentator on Plato's Dialogues, who paved the way for the diffusion of Plato's thought. [CAUTION: here comes some more "gossip"] Ficino summed up his ideas on inspiration in a letter of 1457 addressed to his friend Pellegrino Agli. A few passages from this long statement may here be paraphrased: The soul, which tries to grasp through the senses as much as possible [hey, I can't BELIEVE this gossip!] of divine beauty and harmony, is enraptured by divine frenzy. Plato calls celestial love the unattainable desire, which drives us to recognize divine beauty. To see a beautiful body arouses [...Ho, Ho, Hooo!...] the burning desire after divine beauty and, therefore, those who are inspired and transported into a state of divine madness."

...and here the plot thickens a bit.

"Thereafter the idea that the true artist created in a state of inspired madness was much discussed and widely accepted. [but this is just "gossip", right?] We need not probe further into the pervasive influence of Plato's furores, but shall turn to another tradition according to which genius was not far removed from real madness. Seneca's often quoted dictum ... 'there never has been great talent without some touch of madness' - would seem to express this point of view. In actual fact, Seneca's further comment leaves no doubt that he referred to the Platonic fire of divine inspiration rather than to insanity. BUT WHEN THE PASSAGE WAS QUOTED OUT OF CONTEXT, AS IT OFTEN WAS FROM THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ONWARDS, IT SUGGESTED A DIFFERENT MEANING. [my emphasis] Dryden's 'Great wits are sure to madness allied, / And thin partitions do their bounds divide, [great gossip! - I'm sure we can ALL agree] and even Schopenhauer's 'genius is nearer to madness than the average intelligence' echo the MISINTERPRETED LINE FROM SENECA." [again, my emphasis]

... and here is where we start getting "close to home", so to speak.

"During the nineteenth century clinical diagnosis confirmed the previous assumption of an alliance between genius and madness. Early in the century Lamartine already talked of 'cette maladie qu'on appelle génie' [yet more gossip: 'this illness is called genius'] by the end of the century the idea of the disease was so firmly established that a popular magazine declared 'evidence is not lacking to warrant the assumption that genius is a special morbid condition'. Meanwhile a school of professional psychologists, represented by ... Moreau (1804-84) ... Lombroso (1836-1909) ... Moebius (1853-1907), had correlated psychosis and artistic activity. Their findings had a considerable influence on twentieth century psychiatrists. ..."

"Psychiatric opinion conquered large sectors of the public. A writer like Proust maintained that 'everything great in the world comes from neurotics. They alone have founded religions and composed our masterpieces.' And Lionel Trilling regards the supposed connection between mental illness and artistic genius as 'one of the characteristic notions of our culture'. " [WOW! I have rarely read such a fun and entertaining book!]

... or, you can just read the highly dangerous book by Kay Redfield Jamison: "Touched With Fire - Manic Depressive Illness and the Artistic Temperament" (1993). Jamison is no artist and doesn't know beans about art - or exhibit the slightest concern for art's broader history as a history of ideas (found in "Born Under Saturn"). But this is completely OK because Jamison herself is diagnosed with manic depressive illness and inhabits the higher levels of the medical establishment. Or, to phrase it another way, Jamison KNOWS PERFECTLY WELL all there is to know about art: it's all just a lot of beautiful and/or pioneering stuff in the "useless" field of aesthetics ... wonderful and thrilling, but wholly dispensable when set against the "real world" - plus what currently gets called science on the one hand and "health and material well-being" on the other. This is THE essence of philistinism, which pays lip service to the "beauty" of art while keeping art from ever being a living force in life. In the words of composer Morton Feldman, "I feel that music [art] should have no vested interests, that you shouldn't know how it's made, that you shouldn't know if there's a system, that you shouldn't know anything about it ... except that it's some kind of life force that to some degree REALLY CHANGES YOUR LIFE ... if you're into it."

At one point in her book (pp. 55-56) Dr. Jamison mentions "Born Under Saturn" - but in no meaningful way engages with the HISTORICAL / SOCIAL CRITICAL material presented by the Wittkowers. Why? Because the latter is too diametrically opposed to Jamison's Anglo-American reductionism on the scientific plane and her abysmal philistinism on the cultural. By remaining essentially silent regarding the material presented in "Born Under Saturn", Jamison banks on the continuing, total ignorance of her English-speaking readers of the fundamental opposition of contemporary European psychiatric / medical thought (see: "Soul Hunger: The Feeling Human Being and the Life Sciences", 2010, by the Swiss psychiatrist Daniel Hell) to her Anglo-American reductionism - a time-proven propaganda technique; and this is not the only example of Jamison's careful cherry-picking when it comes to sources which could contradict her opinions... but this review is already long enough without going into more detail. Then, in a spasm of seeming "conscience motivated thoughtfulness", Jamison muses on her final pages:

"What remains troubling is whether we have diminished the most extraordinary among us - our writers, artists and composers - by discussing them in terms of psychopathology or illnesses of mood. Do we - in our rush to diagnose, to heal, and perhaps even alter their genes - compromise the respect we should feel for their differentness, independence, strength of mind and individuality? Do we diminish artists if we conclude that they are far more likely than most people to suffer from recurrent attacks of mania and depression, experience volatility of temperament, lean toward the melancholic and end their lives through suicide? I don't think so. Such statements seem to me to be fully warranted by what we now know [within the confines of the Anglo-American medical establishment, that is]; to deny them flies in the face of truth ..."

Whatever "truth" exists in what Dr. Jamison thinks (or better, "believes in" when it comes to the dogmatic reduction of everything to material cause and effect), we can, however, count on one certainty: a multi-billion dollar criminal enterprise (the shorter term being "mafia"), a.k.a., the international pharmaceutical industry ("drug every 'problem kid' in sight; you never know - they might grow up to be authority-questioning artists") working in close conjunction with the medical establishment to achieve a zero-tolerance-for-deviance-vision of our blooming future as a species.

P.S. Here's another quote from "Genius, Madness and Melancholy" which I really shouldn't omit:

" '... the painter or writer is not unique and no more in need of personality understanding than is the greengrocer or the banker or the man on the street, all of whom have their own peculiar manner of dealing symbolically with psychic forces whether they deal with money (manna), power, painting, or politics.' [Pasto, T.A., and Kivisto, P.: 'Art and the Clinical Psychologist', Journal of Aesthetics and Art Criticism, XII (1953)]

Objectively unassailable, this truly democratic psychology, which obliterates value judgements, realigns once again (as in medieval times) the artist with the common man and effaces the specific traits of character often associated with creative minds in the last five centuries."

... but WHO NEEDS TRUE DEMOCRACY (or even art) when you can have almost unlimited amounts money and power instead?