If he has a mental 'limitation', then that's not the same as a mental illness, so he wouldn't be in a psych facility anyway. But an alternative school - sure. And he'd still have use for a psychologist, to help him cope.
I have to strongly disagree. Schools, universities, parents, media that claims to be reporting truthfully is what educates people. If someone knows about mental illness purely from those two books you mentioned, than it is their own responsibility/fault for failing to educate themselves from easily available and recommended sources. Fiction is NOT what educates people, otherwise, why the hell did I go to medical school? I should have watched "Grey's Anatomy" and applied for a consultant position in cardio-thoracic surgery. Silly me : @shadowwalker: Sure, I agree, words have power. But also, this society has norms, and it is widely accepted and understood that fiction is not as reliable as a textbook or higher education, in informing about any one subject. It is a "nanny-state" mentality, trying to take responsibility for every person who is superficial, ignorant, not paying attention or simply chooses to believe in false premises. It is the same thing as someone becoming ill, but instead of going to the doctor, they go to the faith-healer. When they become really unwell, and they tell others of their decision, it would be inappropriate to attack and try to ban all faith healers. In medicine and law, we have a concept called "competence". If a person is competent to make their own decisions, they take responsibility for those decisions. So, if a competent person, who is by definition cognitively able to assess the quality of information given to them, willingly chooses to ignore any information on mental illness available from health institutions, other patients and medical textbooks, but instead only believes what they saw in "One Flew Over the Coockoo's Nest" then it is their right to believe so, as long as they are not endangering anybody. For people who are not competent, the society assumes responsibility, but such people are likely to misinterpret just about anything, so in this argument, effect of fiction on people with uncontrolled psychosis is not relevant. Free choice is imperative in the free society. Fiction writers, or anyone for that matter, must not be held responsible for bigotry of others, nor should bigotry of others be thinly veiled in "misunderstanding" of fictional stories.
A lot of people think that because something is written down in black and white then it must be true, they do not differentiate between fiction and fact - and that is a fact. The old black and white films have a lot to answer to with their sensationalizing of the split personality - call it showmanship if you like but it still did a lot of harm for the mental health sufferer. Take the film the Elephant Man - that depicted the showman Tom Norman as being cruel to Joseph Merrick (elephant man) when in fact the opposite is true. Joseph Merrick was destitute when he met Tom Norman. After a year (it may have been two yr) working with Tom Norman were he was on fifty per cent of the takings (yes I reiterate Joseph Merrick and The showman Tom Norman had a fifty/fifty business partnership) Joseph when he left Tom Norman he had £50 in saving, which at that time was a years keep. But ask anyone that has seen the film how Joseph was treated by 'the showman' and I'm pretty sure they will tell you that he was badly treated; believing (not questioning) what they seen with their own eyes in a film. As a writer of fiction or otherwise imo we have a duty to at least try and get our facts right. And surely as a responsible human being we would not wish to write anything that would cause distress or harm to the weak and vulnerable in our society.
If it is widely accepted that fiction is unreliable, then why do writers research? Why do they try to get things right? Why do they talk about and write articles about and discuss in interviews the amount of research they do? Why do readers contact them and point out errors? Because writers have convinced the readers that other than the specific characters and their specific circumstances, the rest of the story is taken from the real world. People who believe these things are not "superficial, ignorant, not paying attention or simply chooses to believe in false premises." They trust the writer. Maintaining harmful stereotypes is an abuse of that trust.
Shadow, I wouldn't be too hard on her. Look at this comment: "Sure, I agree, words have power. But also, this society has norms, and it is widely accepted and understood that fiction is not as reliable as a textbook or higher education, in informing about any one subject." I mean, what do expect? She's a woman. You know how they can get. Raging hormones, sitting at home when men work. Their whole world is comprised of what Oprah thinks. Everyone knows that. "Widely accepted"? Based on what? Coffee-klatchen with the girls? Complaining about their husbands, that's all. So now one them has learned to use a computer--and what is the first thing she does? Tell a man what he ought to think. Yikes, ever get behind a female on the highway? You never know if the correct turn signal is on or if they're just going to panic and slam on the brakes for no reason. Tell a man what to think, oy. They might as well flap their arms and fly to the moon. Nope, you give me good old American conventional wisdom every time. Chicks need to stay home and do housework. Sicilians make the best pizza. Crazy people need to be locked up. Everyone knows that. And I'm right because a man's words have power.
Yes, I agree. And nowhere in my comments did I state we should write lies or not research our topics. Also, everything I said about forensic psych institutions is perfectly correct, I know because I worked in that setting for some years. My point was - there is a huge difference between political correctness and well researched facts. The two are not necessarily linked or mutually exclusive. People above objected to any representation of a mad and violent person in literature on the account that it might make some ill-informed and yes, lazy to educate themselves properly, people believe that all mentally ill people are always violent. Not a conclusion I would reach but to each their own. As I said, everyone is responsible for the discrimination they choose to perpetuate. It is not my duty as a fiction writer to educate people fully about psychiatry or medicine in my medical thriller. I would think that was self evident. It is pointless, forcing people to fashion their fiction in order to not upset/mislead/confuse/embarrass anybody. First of all, it is impossibe to please everybody. Second of all, there are enough insane murderers in the world (even though they are minority of mentally ill population) so writing about an insane murderer is in no way, shape or form incorrect, or badly researched per se. If I wrote a book about mentally ill serial killer, you can bet it would be not only well researched, but competent and believable. This is why you should not judge the book by its cover. I feel that the sentiment you are expressing is misplaced. If you feel there is an issue with misrepresenting mental illness in the society, there are so many ways of getting involved, volunteering, studying to work in mental health and also, writing your own stories which, in your opinion, spread the correct sentiment. @shadowwalker: employing forensic psych institution type setting in a fictional story is NOT an abuse of anyone's trust nor is it necessarily stereotyping. It is real life, employed in fiction. You personally might not like such a story, you don't have to read it. But it is not true that anyone who has a mentally ill and violent story character is harming or stereotyping mentally ill people. You should read the book first, and then make conclusions.
Well, it wasn't really focused at 'you' the individual, but rather it was a convenient way to demonstrate the point. I'm not really sure even our modern society really cares about us 'nuts.' Oh, they'll care about women, minorities and any dying whale that washes ashore. But if the cause du jour can't desribed on a bumper sticker or lapel pin, then Entertainment Tonight doesn't care much. The OP demonstrated a condition that goes beyond my synaptically challenged brethren. That being, there are still people who can be exploited or discriminated against and no one cares. "Hey, mental defectives? Screw 'em. It's a good story..." But in truth, I've heard my father's circle of friends talk about women just like I depicted in my satirical post. After all, they were just women, so big deal.
Well, the fact that, despite all your experience, you still use the archaic term "insane"... but then I've met more than a few 'professionals' who have no more understanding of their clients than a technician watching lab rats. Pretty close parallel, frankly.
@Shadow: I could make all kind of snide comments directed at you, but that's just not the kind of person I am. Have a nice evening
Well then, if we are to use archaic terms and methodology because it does not abuse of anyone's trust nor is it stereotyping, then let's bring it all back. How about a nice pivotal scene where a rubber stopper is jammed into a patient's mouth and electric shock is pumped through him in hopes to "realign the brain's pathways." Of course, if the patient has been adjudicated and now diagnosed as an 'imbecile' or 'moron' you might get away with just warehousing them. Eh, what a heck, a little thorazine will calm 'em down. And if that doesn't work, how about a lot of thorazine. You might not even need disclaimers or the need to get releases to print real patient names. Those guys are most likely dead or so out of it protecting their dignity is no longer a necessity. Go back far enough into history and you'll find experiments done to them without their knowledge or consent. I hope the folks here never succumb to a disease or disorder where society doesn't care very much, so we only need to "keep you comfortable."
@Tourist: you seem to have the beginnings of a story right there. Perhaps pre- 1970s psychiatry hasn't been written about enough? Yes, I understand your point, and you are right - the stigma and prejudice associated with mental illness is awful. But in my experience, the society has a mind of its own and no matter how much promotion and education the medical profession initiates, people in general have a fearful reaction to what is commonly referred to as "madness" and it will take some more time until the general population is appropriately educated about the realities of mental illness, something up to 35% of population struggles with at some point in their lives. So like the beauty is in the eye of a beholder, people will always see what they want to see, in stories as well as in other people's behaviour.
Okay, on that we agree. From my seat you can do and say things about mental patients that you wouldn't dare do or say to blacks. Why? As writers we pride ourselves on the written word. Well, about five hundred years ago Shakespeare addressed the idea of the disenfranchised with the line, "If you prick us, do we not bleed?" And while this topic effects me personally, aren't you getting tired of mindless zombie stories, senseless violence and plots feeding the lowest ideals of man? I know I am.
Psychological Thrillers are successful for a reason. People are interesting in things that they don't quite understand or what is otherwise bizarre to them. Shutter Island wasn't making fun of the patients but it took place at a mental institution and even talk about experiments they do on the patients. Of course, it was all from the mind of the patient. So technically, if my MC has a mental condition and views his environment as more dangerous than it actually is, then it's not really a social stereo type or racism or insensitive, it's simply the character's reality as he sees it.
Wow guy, you have to start hanging around folks who really have problems. Let me draw you an analogy. Several years ago a father did an article on albinos. His son was an albino, and just hit high school when the typical "pink eyed master assassin" was popular. Burt Reynolds even used an albino he referred to in a movie as "bunny eyes." So did the Da Vinci Code. The father related that what people saw in movies they inferred to his son. But the father said the boy had trouble seeing, poor muscle mass and no athletic coordination. In other words, he could barely get out of his own way much less be a master villain. Same thing with mental patients. When you're in a psychic break you don't care about world domination. You're struggling to get out of bed. My first day up consisted off pulling myself together--which took ten hours--to walk out into the living room and 15 minutes eating a small bowl of pasta. I hadn't eaten in four or five days because I just didn't want to. After these 15 minutes, I got and fled back to the safety of my bed. I was there for probably another week until I got up again. But it was a start. I can testify from both my own personal experience and the people that I met during the path back to sanity that any author who writes the stuff discussed here is a clueless, talentless hack. A guy too lazy to use google. We are patients. But many of us are sick of being patient. If you cannot portray us as we are, find another fringe group that cannot fight back, exploit them, and make them your new soulless killer.
Yes, but we also must consider the time period that Shutter Island places itself in (1954)... not exactly psychiatry's finest moments (not that I'm sure the profession has had a 'good time.') Shutter Island also focused on the criminals. It was a prison first and psychiatric hospital second. It's not that I think you can't write about this, but make sure you do your research and don't portray patients in an insensitive manner. It may be difficult to understand but mental health patients have only very recently earned their rights (and they don't extend very far). I think Tourist is pointing out the fact that it's "okay" for writers to poorly portray mental health patients, but it is not acceptable to portray different races or women poorly. It's acceptable to use the mentally ill because they do not have the privilege to speak. They are silenced by stigma, they do not want to admit to having a disease for fear of being persecuted. (No one would ever tell a cancer patient to 'snap out of it' or 'your life isn't that bad,' but people say this to people suffering from depression all the time). In doing so, it invalidates the experience of the patient. Just like patriartchy and white towers, mental health patients are silenced by the institution of psychiatry who speak for the patients. They diagnose us through extremely subjective diagnostic categories and then silence our pain with medications. (oh you're having a psychotic break -- here's a lorazepam shot or we'll put you in a padded cell). No one would ever do this with a person of colour or woman who is being "disruptive" to the social norm. It is in this silence that the mental health patient's position is different from other groups that are discriminated against. Where women's groups and anti-racism groups can stand up and say, "this is sexist/racist and shouldn't be allowed," the mental health patient does not have that luxury. I think this is why Tourist (and I) take issue with these types of texts.
Noted. Biography channel has a series called Killer Kids and these are true stories of homicidal children. Something has to happen to these children, something that isn't pretty or pleasant. Be it a mental institution or a prison they are going to be around other sick, twisted, child killers. Mental illness might not be the cause of their violence, maybe it is, but I'll DD and edit my novel to reflect not only a more believable modern day scenario but one that doesn't stereotype the mentally ill.
Oh yes, I understand what you are saying perfectly, and I have thought about it a lot. Basically, the conclusion I reached isn't pretty, but I see no alternative. "Madness" as a state that signifies bizarre reactions, misinterpretation of reality and lack of insight, has been ostracised by the society since time immemorial. But also have been raped women, homosexuals, ethnic minorities, aesthetically challenged, fat, skinny etcetera. Just like a fat person or a black person or a foreigner or a woman, can't hide the reasons for their discrimination, neither can a mentally ill person. I think the singled out groups change over time, but every time one group is "retired" from being bullied, another group is singled out. It's as if the society has a primal need to discriminate; to single vulnerable or different people out, in order to make themselves feel better just because they aren't different. I think the problem is that the psychiatric services are extremely inconsistent. I have worked in places where the treatment of patients was our greatest concern, and then I worked in a place where I ended up resigning in horror. All I can tell you is that, unfortunately, no matter what in life that makes us vulnerable - illness (physical or mental), social status, age etc. we are prone to mistreatment. It's awful having to rely on the "kindness of strangers" when there's no kindness.
Please see my post above on why it is different for mental health patients. They do not have the privilege to speak for themselves.
Hey, you two, play nice or I'll turn this forum right around and we'll go home! LOL. In point of fact, you're both correct, to a point. We synaptically challenged individuals are often the brunt of descrimination and cruelty, and we do not need anymore of it. To admit a debating point to Jazzabel, the severe cases have appeared throughout history. It's not an excuse to continue treating us badly, but the problem has existed for quite some time. My issue is that I was tired of "passing." That is, pretending to be normal. And let's face it, I parlayed my synaptic gifts into a big ol' pile of money working amongst the muggles. It even helps me now writing. If I need a certain word, I can think of it in nano-seconds, even if I heard that word only once as a child. But just as fat guy finally needs insulin, I also needed help. My logic is that if I broke my leg I'd see a doctor. I broke my mind, I just needed a different kind of specialist. And like the old Vulcan adage, "Only Nixon can go to China," I'm the perfect one for stepping out of the looney closet. I'm not timid, I will not take derision, and my people need to speak up for their rights like any other aspect of society that is getting a raw deal. Eh, I don't like people much, anyway. So some guy on the WWW says, "Yikes, that throttle jockey has taken leave of his senses!" He probably never liked me to begin with. But there might be someone in our ranks, scared, clutching their terry-cloth robe like a suit of armor, wanting to go outside just to feel the sun, and hiding in the shadows. They fear criticism almost as much as their mental condition. Perhaps because of this thread, and the discussion of both sides of the aisle, some sufferer might say to themselves, "Well, the Tourist leads a productive life, and just about everyone hates him. I'm going to get an MMPI2 test, put on my shoes and go outside!" You shouldn't mess with my people, whether they're on bikes, or frightened in their cups.
If you think victims of rape are treated with any less dismissal and suspicion, you are very wrong. There are many situations in life where people are silenced through stigma, mental illness is not alone in that. To answer your point though, having worked in mental health for a long time, and in medicine in general, I can tell you that when things are done according to the law, mental health patients who are under section have access to a lawyer and a mental health review board every 2 weeks to do exactly that - speak up and challenge their diagnosis as well as treatment. The board consists of a lawyer, a member of public and another psychiatrist, and I have never in my life seen unfair incarceration happen. Granted, I have only worked in affluent, Western countries, and I am aware that abuses of the vulnerable through mental health institutions is a much bigger problem in certain other parts of the world. Speaking of patients who can't speak for themselves, also there are children, babies and the elderly with dementia but also patients who become delirious due to physical illness. All of them need to be kept safe and treated, to avoid harm. Psychiatric patients are carefully risk assessed every day, and it is only a few who need to be sectioned, and that only lasts until their insight returns and their risk of harm decreases sufficiently to guarantee their safety. But also, I have never met a patient who was sectioned who didn't believe they were perfectly fine, it is the nature of the illness, there is nothing that can be done about it.
Maybe bad experiences are tainting my position on this, but there is a large movement within Canada (and I think the US) towards a psychiatric survivors movement. That is, patients who are (now) rallying together to stand up against the discrimination, poverty, and mistreatment within psychiatric institutions. They are also speaking out about stigma and discrimination. If you had cancer and had to go in for treatment, it would be easy to tell an employer that you need time off for chemo. Now see this from someone suffering with bipolar disorder. What would your boss think if you said, my meds have stopped working and I am too depressed to come to work or you disappear because you've gone manic. You would be fired. Of course they wouldn't say it's because of that, but it's the reality. This is a discrimination that no other group faces. We have to hide our diagnoses and struggles for fear of being persecuted. Most of us are functioning human beings and sometimes, for no reason, our meds stop working or something triggers our depression or mania. There is no safeguards for this type of thing. I do not mean this to sound rude, but you obviously have never struggled with a mental illness or been a patient within a psychiatric institution. Perhaps my perspective is tainted by my own experiences, but the same can be said of yours. I understand that you have experience working in such an environment and I understand your point. Systems and protocols are in order to protect patients, but until you have been a patient and diagnosed with a mental illness you will never fully understand what it's like. Again, I do not mean this to sound rude or snarky. I just think we should both recognize our biases.
I think it is a very valuable initiative, and I think it should happen everywhere in the world. Gosh, I know just what you mean about employers, who (at least in the UK) will not think twice about employing an insulin-dependant diabetic teacher (who can collapse from a hypo and traumatise children) but they won't employ a person with bipolar diagnosis, no matter how well controlled. I have to speak up for Australia though, from all the countries I worked in, they have the most progressive attitude about mental health. It is normal for a person with a psych diagnosis to be employed in exactly the same job as before, the only thing is safe-netting, becuase it is acknowledged that people need help in recognising their symptoms early. My professor of psychiatry was bipolar, and he had a colleague and a secretary who were there to help him notice symptoms of relapse, he had flexible holidays for when he needed time off to get better, and as you can imagine, his teachings were invaluable. A friend of mine also developed mania in final year, it wasn't a problem, as soon as he got better, he went back to work, no different from any other illness that needs monitoring and ongoing treatment. It is not only possible, but mandatory to stop discrimination against people with mental illness. Also, without disclosing too much, to answer your last paragraph, I know only too well how it is to deal with both. And please don;t worry, you are not offensive if you point things like that out. But in my example, it doesn't apply.
This is wandering far from the original topic. Indy was asking about realistic partitioning of patients within a three tiered mental health facility. Realistic depiction of such a facility is on topic. Social awareness of mental health issues and treatment is not. Subsequent off topic posts will be deleted without notice.
