<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: To Ralph and Gerald
Review: "Gee, given the "compulsion" you have to respond to our poor quality, far-reaching, offensive and unrealistic work, perhaps you might benefit from a little therapy conducted by someone unintimidated with your pseudo-intellectual style of analysis. I hate to be so personal about this but since you go after us personally, you shouldn't be surprised by the personal nature of the response. You know if you truly wish to have a frank exchange of views here you might have noticed that although my brother did indeed cite the wrong book by Jamieson, his point is still well taken, for she does analyze historical personalities (all dead as far as I know) in "Touched By Fire", and does specifically provide a diagnosis. All you can think to write about Jamieson's effort in comparison to ours is that she analyzes figures "in perhaps a less obvious way than you 'interview' two dead people. Do I have that right? Being less obvious is a virtue? Perhaps, perhaps not. But in either case, I always thought the central consideration was getting the diagnosis right. And that is something we think we have done, in spite of your abusive dismissal, and yes, hero worshipping of Jim Morrison.
About the apparently conflicted of Morrison you disagree and that's fine. Upon what exactly does your analysis rest? For example, why is Manzarak's account of Morrison so much better than Densmore's? Densmore, you wrote, "probably said that because he never particularly liked Morrison on a personal level." Are you kidding? Whether he liked him or not, that dismissal of Densmore only reveals the true believer bias in your selective citations. No hero worshipping, right? Just "the right" quotes from a person commenting on Morrison's complicated life with whom you happen to agree (Manzarak)."You are not responding to a criticism of your work; you are psychoanalyzing one who criticizes it-his motives, likes, dislikes, inevitable biases, etc. Sorry Ralph, but one can't ALWAYS sit in the therapist's chair, particularly on a website. It simply isn't tenable. (And, just curious, since were getting personal now, does that give you any problems or difficulties in your personal life? Perhaps we could create another arbitrary, subjective label within the confines of this argument-TM (Therapeutic Megalomania).
Must not be easy on personal relations.) You and I both have no clue who precisely knew Morrison better, Densmore or Manzarek. And here is really the epitome of my argument:that we cannot KNOW.
I therefore find it more tasteful to leave hypothesis hypothesis. We could argue forever
about the ethics of diagnosing two people, be them legends, average people, et al, but
in the end it would seem that both you and your brother need a good dose of Thomas Szasz, Robert Whitaker, R.D. Laing, and a host of other figures who have pointed out the dangers of doing precisely what you are doing, acknowledge it or not, admit or not: psychiatrize everything to point of absurdity. You are walking, living, breathing examples of what anti-psychiatry feared the most, that is, the overbearing arrogance and cocksure mentality of those who HAVE to believe that all the answers are in the some edition of the DSM, Freud, whoever. The fact that Morrison's poetry is almost universally appreciated by his fans, not simply because of who wrote it but for the work itself, puts to bed any theory that it is nothing
more than the work of a "tormented" or "confused mind". It was also that, but not entirely that. Your diagnosis can never be proven. As I have said a million times before, you *do not seem to realize the entirely subjective nature of your science*. You do not have all the answers, but out of the three of us, I do not hesitate to say that I have the most open mind of us all, not being cluttered with centuries of psychobabble and nonsense. You should, in your own words, "stick to what you know"-textbooks and labels, not poetry or art.
Rating:
Summary: To Ralph and Gerald
Review: "Gee, given the "compulsion" you have to respond to our poor quality, far-reaching, offensive and unrealistic work, perhaps you might benefit from a little therapy conducted by someone unintimidated with your pseudo-intellectual style of analysis. I hate to be so personal about this but since you go after us personally, you shouldn't be surprised by the personal nature of the response. You know if you truly wish to have a frank exchange of views here you might have noticed that although my brother did indeed cite the wrong book by Jamieson, his point is still well taken, for she does analyze historical personalities (all dead as far as I know) in "Touched By Fire", and does specifically provide a diagnosis. All you can think to write about Jamieson's effort in comparison to ours is that she analyzes figures "in perhaps a less obvious way than you 'interview' two dead people. Do I have that right? Being less obvious is a virtue? Perhaps, perhaps not. But in either case, I always thought the central consideration was getting the diagnosis right. And that is something we think we have done, in spite of your abusive dismissal, and yes, hero worshipping of Jim Morrison.
About the apparently conflicted of Morrison you disagree and that's fine. Upon what exactly does your analysis rest? For example, why is Manzarak's account of Morrison so much better than Densmore's? Densmore, you wrote, "probably said that because he never particularly liked Morrison on a personal level." Are you kidding? Whether he liked him or not, that dismissal of Densmore only reveals the true believer bias in your selective citations. No hero worshipping, right? Just "the right" quotes from a person commenting on Morrison's complicated life with whom you happen to agree (Manzarak)." You are not responding to a criticism of your work; you are psychoanalyzing one who criticizes it-his motives, likes, dislikes, inevitable biases, etc. Sorry Ralph, but one can't ALWAYS sit in the therapist's chair, particularly on a website. It simply isn't tenable. (And, just curious, since were getting personal now, does that give you any problems or difficulties in your personal life? Perhaps we could create another arbitrary, subjective label within the confines of this argument-TM (Therapeutic Megalomania).
Must not be easy on personal relations.) You and I both have no clue who precisely knew Morrison better, Densmore or Manzarek. And here is really the epitome of my argument:that we cannot KNOW.
I therefore find it more tasteful to leave hypothesis hypothesis. We could argue forever
about the ethics of diagnosing two people, be them legends, average people, et al, but
in the end it would seem that both you and your brother need a good dose of Thomas Szasz, Robert Whitaker, R.D. Laing, and a host of other figures who have pointed out the dangers of doing precisely what you are doing, acknowledge it or not, admit or not: psychiatrize everything to point of absurdity. You are walking, living, breathing examples of what anti-psychiatry feared the most, that is, the overbearing arrogance and cocksure mentality of those who HAVE to believe that all the answers are in the some edition of the DSM, Freud, whoever. The fact that Morrison's poetry is almost universally appreciated by his fans, not simply because of who wrote it but for the work itself, puts to bed any theory that it is nothing
more than the work of a "tormented" or "confused mind". It was also that, but not entirely that. Your diagnosis can never be proven. As I have said a million times before, you *do not seem to realize the entirely subjective nature of your science*. You do not have all the answers, but out of the three of us, I do not hesitate to say that I have the most open mind of us all, not being cluttered with centuries of psychobabble and nonsense. You should, in your own words, "stick to what you know"-textbooks and labels, not poetry or art.
Rating:
Summary: Second Response--It's so bad, I have to speak out.
Review: I have no doubt of the sincerity of your belief that Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin were suffering from the exact 'disease' you diagnose them with, but referring me to *movies* (I think it would be appropriate here to distinguish between reality and cinema, particularly in the case of "The Doors", an Oliver Stone carwreck containing so much misinformation and misportrayals of every character, particularly Morrison, that we can hardly rely on it as some objective portrayal of the bands', and by extension Jim's, life and times that in looking at the actual man and not the fantasy we should positively run the other way). Shouldn't a psychotherapist discount films and souped up biographies to get to the real man as opposed to the myth? "The Rose", concerning Janis, while a better film, is still only a film. That a licensed psychotherapist, psychologist, whatever could even think of invoking a movie to diagnose even a long dead "patient" is absurd to the point of insanity. You speak as if you knew them personally, which clearly would not be possible. You probably read "Break On Through", "No One Here Gets Out Alive", "The Lizard King", etc, and took everything in them as gospel truth--at least that's how it seems from the inane spouting of the Cartoon Morrison in your "interviews". I am more than certain I know as much about the lives of these two legends as you do. Yes, they were self destructive; yes, they used drugs extensively; yes, they played with different identities, different costumes. No one will EVER know why. This is precisely my point. Diagnosing them with Borderline Personality Disorder is about as solid as guessing what color shoes they wore from day to day. It is, once and for all, subjective. Your book is pure hypothesis, useful in the genre of hypothesis, but nothing more. Jim Morrison and Janis Joplin were doubtless two individuals suffering on the inside; in this they are no different from many creative geniuses. But to reduce their creativity to illness or twisted therapy accepted during a time of social turmoil is to stain their memory. Your thoroughly distasteful reductionism ("the facade of Morrison as poet began to crumble") is positively offensive to anyone who values his groundbreaking creativity. Did you actually speak to their families? Anyone who knew them as opposed to people making money from books and films? They were individualists, and individualism can even extend to so called "self destructive" behaviors that others find horrific or 'wrong'. They *chose* that path. Automatically assuming that some deep seated mental illness drove their every lyric or action is simply wrong.
Rating: 
Summary: Insightful analysis of two deepyl troubled people
Review: I was unable to put this book down once I began reading the accounts offered by Faris and Faris. Their analysis of the borderline disorder was so disturbingly realistic in my own experience with my son that I thought they were writing to me. The therapy sessions they created with Janis and Jim were not only revealing but astonishing when you consider how good their music was.
This book is a most excellent read, filled with insights into the behavior of the borderline. And I truly did appreciate the sociological observations as well which contextualized the 1960s so well...and I do remember them as if it was yesterday.
Rating:
Summary: another response to J
Review: J why is an exchange of views juvenile? Can't you support your points without ad hominems? How do you come by your conclusions? The judgements you make here are in total disagreement with thousands of fans and clinicians we have met and talked with and heard from. If you were an experienced clinician we wouldn't be having this discussion. No one, no one trained to make the careful diagnostic discrimination in psychiatry would argue with our conclusion as you do. If you think the work is so far-reaching and unrealistic, I would ask on what basis? Did you know them personally? Have you experience with this disorder so that you can say the sessions are as you categorize them? Haven't you assumed that the simulated sessions are unrealistic from your lack of experience about how someone with this disorder would be in a therapeutic environment.? Are you upset that obvious humanity of these two threatens your illusions about Morrison, his creativity and poetry?
You are correct-the book I should have referenced was "Touched by Fire". But Jameson still diagnosed "dead people". Additionally, you are uninformed if you think that simulated sessions with historical figures is unusual. Irving Yalom's book "When Nietzche Wept" is one good example of many. I will send you a long list if you like.
We do not diminish Morrison's creativity or talent. We ask that you appreciate that his work was accomplished while wrestling with a torment that neither you nor I will ever experience. But his poetry can be recognized as the work of a creative but confused mind. We even know why the confusion. The poetry we leave to other recognized poets we have consulted, all of whom say most of it is the work of a brilliant mind but bizarre and almost uninterpretable. You have identified some pieces as incomprehensible and obscure. OK. fine. you have stated in your last communication that "Yes, they were self destructive; yes, they used drugs extensively; yes, they played with different identities, different costumes. No one will EVER know why." You should stick to what you know. Most trained clinical observers would not shrug off the evidence as you do. Your lack of curiosity about these facts that you yourself acknowledge is itself curious. You seem to be dismissing these facts to hold on to some view of these two people (or at least Morrison). I submit that your view of him doesn't do then justice. That by failing to recognize the torturous world they lived in, you undervalue their accomplishments.
Neverthless it fits the story of Morrison. The behavior of Morrison in New Haven, Florida, with Pamela Courson and the "marriage" to Patricia Kennealy are well documented. So are his other escapades, drug abuse, identity issues and the other bizarre actions such as the Jekyll and Hyde pattern and thrill seeking behavior.You cannot dismiss all this as part of creativity or the search to be free (Break On Through). No clinician would miss the signs of the borderline condition because we are not so ready to explain everything so blindly. He died at 27. In his journal, if you remember, he had handwritten page after page of "God help me, God help me, God help me"! He was in pain and all the antics of the yearsbefore were consitent with the need to escape.
Of course the pain of the disorder was bound to appear in his work. The song "I can't see your face in my mind" is a perfect example of the object inconstancy we believe is at the core of the disorder. Our point is that the pain, however it was manifested in his creativity, was not the source of his creativity. We believe that Morrison would have been brilliant and creative and lived a long life if his condtion could have been treated.
Morrison's contribution to the pop culture is not in question. You seem unwilling to see him as the fuller human being he was. You now say he was obviously a vulnerable man but you refuse to consider why. We aren't the hero worshipers. You sound like one though. We hoped that we could use the coincidence that the king and queen of rock and roll both suffered from the condition to help publicize it. It is vexing, complex and greatly destructive. By showing how therapy with such a disorder might be, we hoped to encourage people with the disorder or their relatives to benefit by seeking help. Your comment that he overcame his vulnerability is incorrect. He felt the pain and urge to suicide every day. His accomplishments are even more amazing given that fact. I don't know how you could gather that we do not think of him as an authentic artist.
Rating:
Summary: Finally an explanation that makes sense!
Review: Nowhere in the literature is there an analysis and narrative like this. Intense, compelling and riveting, the book explains why these two icons were so tragically self-destructive. In doing so,
they have illuminated and clarified for the public, the complex nature of the poorly understood borderline disorder. So many people can benefit from reading "Living in the Dead Zone". Bravo gentlemen!
Rating:
Summary: response to j's response
Review: There is little one can do with a true believer and a closed, uninformed nonclinician. Books are written analysing historical figures by qualified clinicians all the time. See Kaye Redfield Jameson's "The Unquiet Mind" or of any of dozens of others of this genre.. If you are well-trained as a clinician, it is no trick to see the emotional disorder in well documented public personalities. Books, movies, interviews - if there are enough of them, by intelligent people who knew them it isn't that hard to be diagnostic about serious disorders in this way. Furthermore the attempt to identify the presence of a disorder doesn't call for a comprehensive, detailed explanation of the whole personality of a person. It only requires that the key criteria outlining the disorder are present. As an aside, with respect to Oliver Stone's "The Doors", John Densmore has said that the movie "has integrity" and that "Val Kilmer miraculously re-created Jim". And there is an extensive public record. To write off Jim's self-destructiveness, alcohol and drug abuse and the chaos of his interpersonal life is simply not reasonable and cannot be so cavalierly dismissed as "creativity". Morrison was brilliant and creative despite his struggle with the borderline condition, not because of it!
And no poet I have ever talked to thought that his poetry was comprehensible.
Because one needs a hero, one doesn't have to ignore the hero's vulnerabilities. Humans struggle. And these two humans were tormented - not as part of their creativity but separate from it. No one close to them has ever disputed their torment, confusion and despair. So why is it so hard to see them as humanly vulnerable as well as talented?
Rating:
Summary: Again, just can't help it.
Review: This is becoming juvenile, but call it a compulsion--I find the quality of your work so poor, so far-reaching, so unrealistic and offensive that I guess I just can't help myself. <<Books are written analysing historical figures by qualified clinicians all the time. See Kaye Redfield Jameson's "The Unquiet Mind" or of any of dozens of others of this genre.. If you are well-trained as a clinician, it is no trick to see the emotional disorder in well documented public personalities. Books, movies, interviews - if there are enough of them, by intelligent people who knew them it isn't that hard to be diagnostic about serious disorders in this way.>> Eh, Dr. Faris, I think you're referring Kay Redfield Jamison's "Touched By Fire", (where she does indeed analyze figures like Napoleon, Poe, Byron, in perhaps a less obvious way than you "interview" two dead people) not "An Unquiet Mind". But I forgot: I'm the uninformed one here. <<And no poet I have ever talked to thought that his poetry was comprehensible.>> Wow. That's odd. You must know a pretty narrow circle of poets. His poetry is quite comprehensible most of the time. While snippets of his poetry are simply, I agree, incomprehensible and obscure, pieces like "An American Prayer" (I suggest you read the piece sometime) are quite clear, profound and beautiful. I'd refer you to a detailed (sophisticated and even a little clinical, don't worry) analysis of Morrison's poetry: http://www.sharelynx.com/web/WCook/Morrison.html . <<As an aside, with respect to Oliver Stone's "The Doors", John Densmore has said that the movie "has integrity" and that "Val Kilmer miraculously re-created Jim".>> I simply cannot understand how a grown man could watch that movie without laughing. It is absolutely awful. The acting is poor, the entire thing is horribly exaggerated. The keyboardist has openly ridiculed it. Oliver Stone wanted to create *his* Jim Morrison, and he was an unappealing one at that. Densmore probably said that because he never particularly liked Morrison on a personal level. Direct quote from Ray Manzarek:"This is not the story of The Doors." <<Morrison was brilliant and creative despite his struggle with the borderline condition, not because of it!>>
Yeah. You said that in the book, although I find it hard to believe that such a horrendous and unrelenting condition would not inform his art or spur his creativity in some way. Perhaps his 'borederline personality disorder' (if he had it, or didn't have it, or had that and an admixture of something else--gee, who knows, it's been awhile) had something to do with the confusion he expressed in his art. <<Because one needs a hero, one doesn't have to ignore the hero's vulnerabilities>>
Jim Morrison isn't my hero. I admire him, his work and his commitment to personal freedom, but hero would not be the word I use. Actually, writing a book about someone who has been dead for decades and creating imaginary "therapeutic" interviews with them kinda points in the direction of hero worship, doesn't it? He was obviously a quite vulnerable person, I don't think it would be tenable to deny that. But he overcame his vulnerabilities for a time and introduced actual art into pop culture. He was not a death defying giant, but an authentic artist.
Rating:
Summary: Final Response to J
Review: To J one more time, I promise: My brother and I have had a good laugh at your latest response, not that your other responses weren't just as laughable. But your latest was the most sweeping and most revealing and therefore the most pathetic. This will, however, be our last effort to have a reasonable discussion with you. We see no reason to continue a conversation with someone who reveals his ignorance and arrogance in almost every sentence. You love Jim Morrison, you love his poetry, you dismiss entirely psychiatry and psychology, we are completely wrong about everything. You're the only one who apparently can KNOW anything. And you think we don't understand you? In the cute way that people who really don't understand a discipline do, you accuse us of psychoanalyzing you. There's no doubt that you do not understand the fields of psychology or psychiatry, and psychoanalysis-they are all very different modes of investigation, not that you would trouble yourself with such distinctions since you already know everything you need to know from the misreadings of Szasz, and Laing. You might try reading pioneers in the field, who really do KNOW something from extensive empirically-based and theoretically well-grounded research. Read John Gunderson's work from Harvard, Otto Kernberg's from Cornell, James Grotstein from Stamford, to name a few. But of course they are all part of the psychobabble industry to you, aren't they. You ask us to stick to what we know best, rather than critique your hero's poetry? You don't appear to impose any restrictions on your statements about psychology and psychiatry. That must be because you think you already KNOW. Right? Wow. Must be comfortable to live in such a fatuous world. Since you don't appear to know anything about serious empirical research in psychiatry, although I'm sure you think you're a quick study, in the absence of that knowledge you don't appear to be in any position to comment on what we can or cannot know. Borderline personality disorder is now one of the most carefully researched, empirically confirmed diagnoses available to us today. And the possibility for moving backward, historically, to look at what we do know about popular figures and legends, although messy and complicated is not IMPOSSIBLE (Should I drop the caps?) and can be very helpful in popularizing such a disorder to the public. Nor is it unethical to do so. Among the reasons we believe so confidently that you are only superficially familiar with these fields rests fundamentally on your citation of Szasz, and Laing, for example, not to mention your wild-eyed claim that one cannot really KNOW anything (your emphasis) about the psychology of other people. Szasz and Laing, the most often misunderstood and at the same time most often cited by those pseudo critics, hostile in the extreme to psychiatry and psychology, would never have made such silly claims that we can never KNOW. You wrote that "the entirely subjective nature of your science," as if there's no such thing as major depression, bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, and personality disorders, anxiety and panic disorders, posttraumatic stress disorders, identity disorders, to cite a few. These diagnoses are neither subjective nor unscientific. Your dismissal of them as such reveals such ignorance that we choose not to bother you with more complete accounts of the works of brilliant clinical researchers, especially since you appear to have a comic book view of Szasz and Laing as dismissing those serious folks. And we believe any further conversation with you is both pointless and distasteful. P.S. I am not a therapist, my brother Gerald is, a fact you would have known if you had read our book-not to trouble you with a little thing. This was our last response but we are sure that the hero-worshipper within you will compel you once again to respond.
Rating:
Summary: To Mr. J: Radical Fundamentalist Morrison Fan
Review: To Mr. J from New York: Gee, given the "compulsion" you have to respond to our poor quality, far-reaching, offensive and unrealistic work, perhaps you might benefit from a little therapy conducted by someone unintimidated with your pseudo-intellectual style of analysis. I hate to be so personal about this but since you go after us personally, you shouldn't be surprised by the personal nature of the response. You know if you truly wish to have a frank exchange of views here you might have noticed that although my brother did indeed cite the wrong book by Jamieson, his point is still well taken, for she does analyze historical personalities (all dead as far as I know) in "Touched By Fire", and does specifically provide a diagnosis. All you can think to write about Jamieson's effort in comparison to ours is that she analyzes figures "in perhaps a less obvious way than you 'interview' two dead people. Do I have that right? Being less obvious is a virtue? Perhaps, perhaps not. But in either case, I always thought the central consideration was getting the diagnosis right. And that is something we think we have done, in spite of your abusive dismissal, and yes, hero worshipping of Jim Morrison.
About the apparently conflicted of Morrison you disagree and that's fine. Upon what exactly does your analysis rest? For example, why is Manzarak's account of Morrison so much better than Densmore's? Densmore, you wrote, "probably said that because he never particularly liked Morrison on a personal level." Are you kidding? Whether he liked him or not, that dismissal of Densmore only reveals the true believer bias in your selective citations. No hero worshipping, right? Just "the right" quotes from a person commenting on Morrison's complicated life with whom you happen to agree (Manzarak).
Your view of Jim's poetry is similarly revealing because of the selectivity you use to make your case that Jim's poetry was comprehensible, profound and beautiful. You recommend that we go to the ShareLynx Web Site (advertises as "The premier GOLD website for GOLD charts & information) for a favorable review of Jim's poetry. Wow! I never thought to go to a website dedicated to monetary analysis for a review of his poetry! But why not direct us to the standard journals and such for professional, insightful reviews of poetry to learn what we can from those who certainly have as much knowledge of what would count for poetry as a "Gold Website" might? Instead, you direct us to a less than "narrow circle" of poetry experts? Again, selectivity trumps actual analysis.
That you can so cavalierly dismiss an honest and informed attempt to explain his and Janis's deaths suggests a mind at work that can tolerate no criticisms of its "heroes". Yes, I read that you only admire him. But you do protest too much.
As for your comments about the movie of Jim's life and the creativity you appear to associate with his illness, let me see now if I understand you. Aside from being an expert on the life of Morrison-incidentally, what you add here is that you find something hard to believe, namely that his horrendous, unrelenting condition would not have informed his art or spur his creativity. Fine, so do we--a point of agreement. How is creativity informs his art, exactly, isn't clear but perhaps you might become familiar with what those who have studied creativity have to say about the relationship between it and personality disorder. What we do know is that creativity stands in a complicated relation to one's personality, and one afflictions therein. But the point is that none of the experts denies that there is a relationship. So because we don't specify what that is in our book doesn't make our analysis of their affliction any less cogent or useful. Thus the best we can offer our readers, our open-minded ones, is that Morrison was "brilliant and creative in his music in spite of and not because of his borderline affliction." If you read our book, you would know that we never made Jim Morrison the sum total of his disorder; rather we think minus the disorder, those of us who really liked his music, ourselves included, Morrison might have been around a lot longer. To ignore that possibility, to dismiss honest and we think insightful presentations of his life and death is irresponsible, especially when you appear to dismiss some of the best insights of modern psychiatry and psychology. That is more than likely where we are in disagreement, in spite of your outrageous attacks and comments on our book.
As for your charge that we are in fact the hero worshippers, hmmm. If writing a book about two icons of rock and roll in an effort to raise consciousness about a little known psychiatric disorder so that it may more effectively be treated is hero worshipping, then we're guilty. Of course, you've completely redefined the term and in the process made a ridiculous assertion, or was it a serious question?
In any case, you write "he overcame his vulnerabilities for a time and introduced actual art into pop culture. He was not a death defying giant, but an authentic artist." Where exactly do you think we disagree? Indeed he did overcome his "vulnerabilities", not our term for what plagued him, but still he did, didn't he? He died of a drug overdose at the age of 27? You don't accept our analysis and you think attempting such a complicated analysis from a distance is pointless and in this case wrong. Where exactly did we go wrong in view of what you term his vulnerabilities? Did his vulnerabilities lead to his death or not? By the way, what the devil does vulnerability mean? Is that a less threatening term for you to use than "disorder?" Oh, that's right, we got him all wrong.....
<< 1 >>
|
