John O’Connor, whom I happened to interview on May 5, explores a similar dynamic unfolding amid today’s psychedelic renaissance—a movement rife with magical thinking that he sees as something of a religious revival—in his delightful and enlightening new book A Short, Strange Trip: An Untold Story of Magic Mushrooms, Madness, and a Search for the Meaning of Life in the Amazon. 

Some Westerners are appropriating sacred plants while divorcing them from the traditions that gave them meaning—“colonizing them in reverse,” as American ethnobotanist Glenn Shepard puts it (p. 211). For example, ayahuasca use, despite widespread belief, may not date back thousands of years. Instead, O’Connor argues that the practice “rarely existed where Indians remained isolated from Western meddling” (p. 222). Its expansion beyond the Río Napo began relatively recently with Jesuit missions in the early 17th century and later accelerated through 19th-century rubber camps along the major river systems of the Amazon Basin. Through Western tourism, ayahuasca has come to be portrayed as “an ancient ritual for slaking our insatiable thirst for Indigenous salvation and/or for increasingly extravagant highs” (p. 223). 

During our meeting, O’Connor told me he does not “think there’s ultimately harm in appropriating a plant if you find it therapeutic, useful, or even life-saving—which a lot of people are reporting these drugs can be.” 

At the same time, he said, “we need to have an honest, good-faith conversation about where these drugs come from, what their actual Indigenous uses are, and what they are.” 

To write the book, which explores humanity’s broader relationship with psychedelics, from ancient religion to modern medicine, O’Connor worked with the Uitoto people to retrace an expedition undertaken some 50 years ago. Into the Colombian rainforest—home to begonias as red as blood and butterflies as wide as hubcaps—ventured scientific researcher Dennis McKenna and his older brother Terence, the visionary whose “tangled beard hung like an oriole’s nest past his chin” (p. xix). Weary of the war on drugs and fueled by utopian fantasies, Terence’s army of psychonauts sought a legendary hallucinogen that would turbocharge their DNA and “hasten a return to our preindustrial and preliterate past” (p. 284). 

In reality, Terence and his disciples did not transform into “eternal hyperdimensional beings” or travel via “flying saucers of the mind… ‘into the plenum of being’” (pp. 94, 30). Nor did they propel “human evolution forward to its next stage” by connecting to “the mind of nature itself” (pp. 284, 11). But they did experience auditory and visual hallucinations that led them, in a manner not unlike schizophrenia, “to adopt a new narrative interpretation of the world” (p. 95). 

Armed with the spore prints they’d brought back from La Chorrera, the McKenna brothers were “among the first, if not the very first, to successfully cultivate magic mushrooms at home, sparking a major leap forward in psychedelic history” (p. 202). In 1976, they published Psilocybin: Magic Mushroom Grower’s Guide; this April, half a century later, President Donald Trump signed an executive order expediting research into the therapeutic benefits of psilocybin and other substances of its ilk. 

O’Connor mentioned that one such mind-altering drug, ibogaine—made from the root of a Central African shrub—has shown promise in treating post-traumatic stress disorder and substance use disorders. 

“That’s great,” he told me, “but it also has a habit of slowing people’s heart rates considerably,” among other life-threatening side effects.  

“People are diving into these treatments as if there are no potential risks,” O’Connor, who teaches journalism at Boston College, added. “They don’t work for everyone—they’re not a magic bullet.” 

The remainder of the interview, which follows, has been edited for length and clarity.  

Why did you choose Terence as the focal point of the book? 

I hadn’t heard of him, and I pride myself on knowing about eccentric, overlooked weirdos from the psychedelic ’60s and ’70s. I was doing a lot of retail therapy online during the pandemic, as were many folks, and I came across his book, True Hallucinations (1989), totally by happenstance. I hadn’t known anything about it, bought it, and put it on the shelf for two years.  

I finally opened it one day and started reading. I had some preconceived ideas without really knowing anything about Terence or his subject. I thought it was probably some hippie-dippy thing about machine elves, and it sort of is that, but that’s not all it is. It’s a great narrative and just fascinating—it just captured me. 

Terence postulated that psilocybin mushrooms “played a crucial role in human evolution, giving our remote ancestors a jolt in language and cognition” and “turning Homo erectus into Homo sapiens.” While there’s nothing in the fossil record to support Terence’s “stoned ape theory,” according to anthropologist Laura Weyrich, advances in proteomics and DNA-sequencing technology could potentially indicate whether ancient hominids at least ate psychedelic mushrooms.  

How plausible do you think stoned ape theory is? 

When I first began looking into it, I was like, “Oh, this is so ridiculous.” I was embarrassed to ask these various paleoanthropologists, archaeologists, and researchers about it. I was like, “Oh my God, I can’t ask this, but I have to.” But it turns out that, as a thought experiment, many of them also found it interesting. It’s not something that I think is ultimately really provable. You could find some tangential scientific evidence, but you’re probably never going to get a smoking gun. 

Terence had a lot of theories—some relatively sane-seeming, like the stoned ape theory, and some completely batshit theories that have no basis in science or reason. But I sometimes liken him to Sigmund Freud, or maybe some of the kookier analytic philosophers, where you read it, it sounds kind of good, and then you get to the end and think, “Well, that’s probably 95 percent bullshit, but it still enriches my worldview.” I feel more enriched for having read it. That doesn’t mean it’s true, and I don’t put much credence in it, but it’s fun to entertain, and I do think it enriches the way I think about the human mind and human possibility. 

You also mention how “what drove [you] to write this book was in part a procession of deaths and their aftermaths” you and your wife endured starting in 2019. Would you elaborate on that? 

About a year into writing the book, my son, who was four at the time, fell ill unexpectedly, out of nowhere. He was in and out of the hospital during those days. It really brought us face to face, for the first time as parents, with real suffering and grief, and with being totally out of control when it came to finding a remedy for him. There was just no help to be found anywhere. I started thinking about grief and suffering, and how much of it was around us.  

Then there was this kind of cascade of deaths—just a lot coming at once over the span of a couple of years. It made me wonder what psychedelics, at least on a therapeutic level, potentially have to offer people: some relief.  

Another thing: My father was, weirdly, at the same time, starting to consider psychedelic-assisted therapy to treat his depression and longstanding addiction to alcohol. Maybe a year before, I’d given him Michael Pollan’s book, How to Change Your Mind: What the New Science Teaches Us About Consciousness, Dying, Addiction, Depression, and Transcendence (2018). Because my dad had been in and out of therapy, rehab, and 12-step programs for many years, I was like, “I don’t know if you’ve heard of this, but I’ve been reading about non-traditional approaches to treating alcohol addiction, including psychedelics.” I don’t think he ever read it, but it did start a conversation between us. 

What surprised you most while researching the book? 

Reading Terence, I hadn’t realized that psilocybin mushrooms were not indigenous to La Chorrera—that they were essentially a foreign import [1], and not something used by the people there, certainly not by shamans. 

Another revelation was what “shamanism” actually looks like in the Colombian Putumayo. Terence talked a lot about this sort of psychedelic shamanism. A lot of people do today, too. But it’s just not at all what it seems to be. The Indigenous perspective on and use of things like ayahuasca, or yagé, and other psychedelic plants—at least in the Putumayo, where Terence and Dennis spent much of their time—is vastly different from how I think they’re generally understood or used in the U.S. These substances were generally not used for healing. Until European contact with Indigenous peoples throughout the Amazon Basin, ayahuasca was mostly used in the hunt—to have luck in finding animals—or sometimes to find lost objects or communicate with family members or other tribe members over long distances. But it was definitely not a therapeutic application. That’s starting to shift a little bit now, though, because of this strange sort of cross-pollination that happens so often in history where it’s now being fed back into an Indigenous context. 

I think I went into the book as something of a Terence fanboy. I cooled on him a bit once I spoke with Colombian anthropologists and ethnobotanists and realized how taken out of context many of his proclamations were on psychedelics and the “shamanic” experience. But, by the end, I sort of warmed to him again because I realized that his ultimate project, I think, was really about human wellness and flourishing. I think that’s what he wanted ultimately, even if he went about it in a strange, myopic way focused almost exclusively on the psychedelic experience through psilocybin mushrooms. That’s where I part ways with him. I think the best place from which to grapple with grief, loss, and suffering is through love, tenderness, and compassion—not through machine elves at the end of history, which was, more or less, Terence’s take. 

I was also interested in your discussion of “diagonalism”—what scholars William Callison and Quinn Slobodian characterize as the social-distress-born alliances between the far left and the far right uniting wellness gurus, anti-vaxxers, and conspiracy theorists. 

I was just reading an article by the American political scientist Francis Fukuyama; he calls it this horseshoe meeting of the minds—this ideological vortex where people with otherwise totally divergent political opinions are meeting in the middle on certain issues. The far left, the Make America Healthy Again movement, the Multidisciplinary Association for Psychedelic Studies—even just the friendship between [MAPS founder] Rick Doblin and former Texas Governor Rick Perry [co-founder of the nonprofit Americans for Ibogaine], who had one of the most conservative legislative agendas in recent memory. That friendship seems genuine—and maybe even necessary to advance these drugs beyond their current legal status. 

In 2023, MAPS hosted the world’s largest psychedelic conference, which you describe as laden with snake oil pseudoscience and lacking in diversity, equity, and inclusion. Almost a year later, an FDA advisory panel rejected MDMA-assisted therapy for PTSD, citing safety concerns and questions about data validity. Critics alleged that MAPS’ drug development arm failed to disclose data showing sexual misconduct by therapists and increased suicidality among trial participants. A former MAPS volunteer called MAPS an exploitative and abusive cult that functions “more like a religious movement than a scientific organization.” Similar concerns emerged at The Johns Hopkins Center for Psychedelic and Consciousness Research. An ethics complaint accused founding director Roland Griffiths of “acting as a ‘spiritual leader’ rather than a scientist” and influencing participant outcomes through religious symbolism. 

Additionally, a Columbia psychiatrist reviewing the field noted a relatively high rate of  irritability, anxiety, insomnia, and other adverse events, and called for more “rigorous assessment” of psilocybin-assisted therapy.  

How do we balance the potential of psychedelics to promote empathy and well-being with the risks? 

Terence said a lot of completely bullshit things about psychedelics—even dangerous things at times. You see that in the movement today, where a lot of these wild, unsubstantiated claims are being made about drugs that, yes, have real healing potential for many people, but for others, such as my father, don’t work at all—and arguably cause more harm than good. 

We should be sane and sober about this. We can champion these drugs while still having a lucid conversation about their efficacy, limitations, and safety concerns. 

[1] One of my favorite passages from the book is “Darkly gilled, with distinctive golden halos and pink veils around slender stems the color of bruised flesh, they were easily identifiable as Psilocybe cubensis… Likely brought to the Americas by Spanish missionaries via the dung of zebu cattle—rangy saltwhite beasts with enormous, scythe-like horns—Psilocybe did especially well in the humid pastures of La Chorrera. Amazonian shamans, who knew more about psychoactive plants than anyone on earth, had no use for these foreign imports. To Terence, however, they were living manifestations of the divine” (p. xx). 

A Short, Strange Trip: An Untold Story of Magic Mushrooms, Madness, and a Search for the Meaning of Life in the Amazon 
John O’Connor 
New York: Sourcebooks 
2026 

Susan Sontag has said, “Illness is the night-side of life, a more onerous citizenship. Everyone who is born holds dual citizenship in the kingdom of the well and in the kingdom of the sick.” Author Lina Meruane challenges the idea that people with illnesses are necessarily separated into a different kingdom than those who are not sick, asserting instead that illness can be part of anyone’s normality. She makes this case through her novel, Nervous System. The novel tells the stories of four family members and a boyfriend who, at one time or another, develop a serious illness or help take care of one of the others with a serious illness: it’s all illness, it’s all the time, it’s normal. We talk with Dr. Meruane about her idea of illness as normality as she presented it in the novel, and about how its atypical structure and its evocative and memorable prose contribute to the stories told and the ideas offered.

Co-host

Daniel Albrant

Source
Nervous System by Lina Meruane, translated by Meghan McDowell, Graywolf Press, 2021.

Links
–Lina Meruane’s bio
–Russell Teagarden’s blog piece about the novel, Nervous System, and his blog piece about the MRI scene in the novel.
–Russell Teagarden’s blog piece about Lina Meruane’s novel, Seeing Red.
–Video conversation between Lina Meruane and Meghan McDowell about Nervous System.
–Interview with Lina Meruane in LALT magazine about Nervous System.

A big thanks to Lina Meruane for sharing her thoughts on illness as normality and her writing processes.

The Clinic & The Person is a podcast developed by our editor Russell Teagarden to summon or quicken the attention of health care professionals, their educators, researchers and others to the interests and plights of people with specific health problems aided through knowledge and perspectives the humanities provide.

Web image by Medhum.org

As the founder and director of the Centre for Health Humanities and a professor of English at the University of Reading, UK, Andrew Mangham, Ph.D., has published extensively on medicine and Victorian literature. His books include Violent Women and Sensation Fiction: Crime, Medicine, and Victorian Popular Fiction (Palgrave, 2007) and Dickens’s Forensic Realism: Truth, Bodies, Evidence (Ohio State University Press, 2016). Mangham and I exchanged questions and answers via email concerning his book, The Science of Starving in Victorian Literature, Medicine, and Political Economy (Oxford University Press, 2020).  

1, How did you arrive at the topic of your monograph? What led you to research the intersection of Victorian literature, medicine, and political economy? 

It was a bit of a circuitous route actually. At the institution where I teach, there is a key research strength in food science and food security. A few years ago, this was highlighted as an area of research focus within the University, and this got me thinking about what it was that the Victorians could bring to the table, as it were, on the question of modern food security. We’re all very familiar with the idea of the starving Victorian pauper, but I wondered what political and philosophical work this idea or image was doing on the ongoing issue of food inequity. This then set me thinking about how nineteenth-century medicine responded to the problem. Some preliminary research taught me that there was a plethora of medico-physiological works on starvation as a material phenomenon. I also noted that this side of the question had been overlooked by modern scholarship, which has tended to focus on political economy as the Victorian science of hunger. What I found, however, is that medicine spoke in very different ways about hunger and—if anything had a bearing on the birth of social problem realism as the genre of the ‘Hungry Forties’—it was this material, medical, scientific focus set against the consequentialist thinking of political economy. 

2, For readers unfamiliar with The Science of Starving, briefly sketch your main contention. Why does your study deserve attention? 

My main contention is that, in the long nineteenth century, there emerged a science of starving in which specialists in medicine and physiology spoke about what happens to the body when we starve. The realities of this process were stark and shocking, and they countered the notion, formulated mainly in the works of Thomas Malthus but swiftly adopted as ‘fire-and-brimstone’ gospel by politicians, social reformers, and authors of statutes, that those who starve are intended to do so by nature—that it is only ‘natural’ that famines sweep away large numbers of people. This propagandizing interpretation of Malthus converted the poor into a mass of immoderate and reckless burdens on the State. The physiological focus on starvation as a harrowing condition which affects individuals helped counter the conservative ideology, and it inspired the social problem fictions of Charles Kingsley, Elizabeth Gaskell, and Charles Dickens, which also take individual subjectivities, ways of interpreting poverty, and reactions to social injustices as key points of focus. Taken in conjunction, literature and medicine show us a world in which the well-meaning ideas of Malthus were exploited and warped into something much more sinister; they also show us the ways out of the problems the ideology has posed for us by returning to a consideration of the individual, the connections between people, and the material realities of modern life. 

I would argue that the book deserves attention on two major counts. First, it gives us a new context in which to read Victorian social problem fiction—a context in which we have an explanation for the emergence of realism as a socially-aware, politically-driven mode of writing. Looking at the forgotten context of Victorian food science, we see a lot of familiar and unfamiliar narratives in new light. Secondly, the book—and perhaps the most important issue—deserves attention because its questions are still with us. The conservative interpretation of Malthus has fed into and justified neoliberalism—a political approach tried and failed since the 1980s, and now enjoying a resurgence in the UK. At the heart of the neoliberal ideal is the idea that the many cannot be trusted to handle money and that economic responsibility is rightly placed in the hands of the elite few. The idea is that this will lead to a trickle-down effect, where the many will benefit from the successes of the few. The truth, as we see in the bloated account-books of internet trading companies for instance, is that wealth placed at the top tends to stay there, with some individuals now wealthier than some countries. My book can’t tackle all aspects of this issue, but it does show us where the idea of the ‘immoderate mass’ comes from; how it has justified political disenfranchisements of the poor for centuries, and that there is a more humane approach which concentrates on the experiences and the needs of individuals.  

3, Describe your research methodologies for this book. You use the first chapter to stage the broader historical context, describing the major theories of political economy and medical understandings of hunger, digestion, and gastrointestinal anatomy. Your subsequent chapters then situate medical texts alongside examples of Victorian fiction. What is your larger methodology? 

I suppose my methodology could be identified as a kind of new-historicism, where the powers and meanings of literature are best understood when we pay attention to their original, historical and social, contexts. But this isn’t a straightforward process of identifying where an author picks up his or her ideas. I try to read literature as actively involved in the shaping of history; ideas may begin in medicine and/or political economy, for instance, but they are soon transformed and made to do something special when they work their way into works of fiction. What this work is depends on the styles and objectives of individual authors, but it is certainly the case, I think, that ideas become bolder when they are explored in works of fiction. Zola famously had the idea that the novel was an experiment—a trial of ideas and concepts—and I think that whether an author intends it or not, their work tests the meanings, potentials, and limits of ideas within a certain historical timeframe. I therefore think it’s important to read the fiction produced by any time period we are seeking to understand fully, to go back and to see how and why ideas first emerged through the ways they are tested and dissected in the form of fiction. 

4, Some readers might naturally assume a kind of intrinsic rivalry between art and medicine, fiction and scientific rationalism. Yet your book emphasizes that Victorian writers neither snubbed medical science nor regarded it as antithetical to their literary ambitions. Why is it important that these writers transcended disciplinary borders? 

It’s important that the field of ‘literature and science’, which has become quite busy in recent years, moves away from the idea of the two cultures—the notion, that is, of warring approaches to interpreting the world. This is a modern idea, forged in the twentieth century, and is not actually representative of the work science or literature does. To those of us who spend any time with the ideas of science and/or medicine, we’re used to seeing how the intellectual work involved here is no less beautiful or imaginative than the ideas of fiction and poetry. Similarly, we can point to authors whose work has all the hallmarks of scientific rationalism. It is important to see how writers transcend their so-called disciplinary borders because this shows us how ideas evolve when they are passed from specialism-to-specialism; it also shows us how ideas were never meant to be confined in disciplines. Appreciating the true interdisciplinarity of how ideas work opens up a world of possible collaborations and curiosity.  

5, Writers, as you show, were certainly influenced by the era’s medical texts, but were physicians reading the works of these literary figures? In other words, was there a mutual exchange of influence and recognition between Victorian physicians and writers? Were physicians aware of their impact on shaping the literary texts you examine? 

Yes, certainly. This question could have formed the basis of another book—volume 2 perhaps. We know that medical figures read fiction—there is a famous account of the physiologist and surgeon Benjamin Brodie reading The Pickwick Papers in his carriage between consultations; other medics saw literature as crucial to the kind of work they did. The surgeon Anthony Carlisle perceived there to be similarities with the progress of illness and/or injury and the progress of a story. He is thought to have written a gothic novel. For other medical and scientific figures, literature was a ‘switch off’ activity. We have accounts, for instance, of Charles Darwin and Richard Owen reading Dickens in the evenings. In later psychological texts of the period, Dickens’s characters are often held up as case studies of complex conditions like dementia. Whereas we have an obvious written record of medicine’s influence on literature (we can look at specialist language working its way into fictional plots), proving the inspirations in the opposite direction is more challenging, but I wonder whether the evidence is less ‘tangible’. I think the centrality of narrative in case studies and accounts of experiments, for instance, owes much to the powerful example of literature; I also think questions of causation, biological determinism, psychological wellness or aberration have their roots in the long social and psychic studies of the novel. 

6, While these writers used medical language to ground their plots and characters in the materiality of poverty, one wonders if these descriptions would have eventually desensitized readers to the shock of starvation’s physical dimensions. That is, did the language of medical science and physiology become subsumed into what later readers may have recognized (and disparaged) as sentimentality? Did the language of physiology eventually lose its trenchancy as it became an established feature of these Victorian writers’ works? 

It’s a good question. Certainly, in respect to the long nineteenth century, I think the science of poverty offered something of a stimulant to ways of reading which had become desensitized. We often hear of social-crusade literature, or poverty tourism in the nineteenth century, as intending to jolt the Victorian reader with confrontations from a world they had chosen to ignore, or which their middle-class existences sheltered them from; but by the 1840s, the world of letters, politics, and social reform were overwhelmed with newspaper reportage, government blue books, and philanthropic pamphlets. Writings about the stock figures of the starving mother and child, for instance, were very common and it’s unlikely that these would have had the confrontational power it would be all-too-easy to ascribe to them when read out of context. In the nineteenth century, however, physiology was relatively new; people were used to medicine as the treatment of the sick, and to anatomy as the study of bodies, usually dead ones, but the science of life—the science of the processes of life—was relatively fresh. This new science had new things to say about hunger—how it operates, what causes it, and how it proceeds if it is unchecked. I think this did emerge into something confrontational, something which had a powerful political ballast. I think it still does.  

7, Readers might consider the extent to which illustrations—in Dickens’s writings, specifically—also worked to visually articulate the language of physiology. For example, John Leech’s illustrations in Dickens’s Christmas Carol depict the children “Innocence and Want.” These child figures are gaunt, shivering, and spectral; their clothes are tattered. Are readers to understand these illustrations as also reflecting Dickens’s broader efforts to draw on medical science to ground material representations of starvation? 

Yes, I think so. ‘Ignorance and Want’ was an image I originally intended to include in the book but left it out in the end because it will be very familiar to a lot of my readers. We know that Dickens exerted a pernickety attention to detail when it came to his illustrations and, as John Leech set about creating the engraving, Dickens would have overseen the process closely. What’s interesting about this image is the fact that it is set in London and yet has a mill in the background, which would have been more identifiable with an industrial town like Manchester. This is an obvious nod to the industrial context—how the inequities of the profits of capitalism result in ignorance and want. The image pays particular attention to bodies in a way that echoes how the literature develops what Terry Eagleton has called ‘corporeal materialism’; in the contexts provided by the spectacle of starvation, skinny, gaunt and raggedy bodies spoke a radical, political message against the status-quo. 

8, At the time these writers were drawing on medical science to recalibrate literary representations of starvation and poverty, did the era’s readers and literary critics observe, even minimally, this changing perspective? Did book reviews, for example, detect this shift in language and representation by responding to or critiquing its efficacy? If not, what may have accounted for this critical oversight? 

Reader response is a difficult thing to measure, but reviews are an interesting insight. These differed wildly and depended, of course, on the politics of the reviewer and the magazine or newspaper they were writing for. There certainly was an acknowledgement of the social aspects of the literature and some account of the realism as well. I think that the radical qualities of the literature can be seen in just how often it raises the heckles of a conservative reviewer. It was not uncommon, for instance, for authors to take umbrage with the dogged materialism of an author like Gaskell (which is not an entirely accurate summation—she was very much interested in religion, spirituality, and feeling); Kingsley was also taken to task for his focus on bodies—unseemly, some said, in a man of cloth. And Dickens himself was attacked for the unrelenting nature of his focuses on the poor—for his seeming preference for the characters and situations of low life. Not many critics saw this—at the time—as part of a new way of thinking about poverty, but it’s certainly the case that materialism had long been associated with radicalism. Those readers who appreciated these authors often spoke of their truth and their accuracy and I think this is part of a larger, cultural (largely unspoken) acknowledgement of the powers of social problem realism. By the time we get to the next wave of social problem fiction—Arthur Morrison, George Moore, George Gissing—we’re in different territory and there is, I think, a more critical and analytical reflection on corporeal materialities.  

9, Historians of medicine, political scientists, and literary scholars will certainly note the importance of The Science of Starving. Aside from these readers, what do you want your research to convey to today’s medical students and practicing physicians? 

I’m fairly happy leaving medical students and practicing physicians in peace. They do extraordinary work and don’t need me to tell them how to make their work more humane or socially responsible. Politicians, on the other hand, I’m very happy, in the words of Dickens, to ‘fall upon’. The emergence of the far right, the zombie-like persistence of neoliberalism, and general intolerance among conservative politicians are all things which suggest that some of our civil servants might take a leaf out of the book of the nineteenth century. I would love it if my research could convey to some individuals that consequentialist thinking, knee-jerk policies, and political essentialisms have all been tried and tested, have failed, and done irreparable damage. One thing the authors of fiction and the pioneers of science and medicine have taught us is the power of thought—the importance of keeping an open mind and being willing to abandon ways of thinking whose fixedness is preventing us from growing as individuals and societies. We can learn a lot by looking to the past and we need these lessons more now than ever. 

Andre Mangham’s most recent book is We Are All Monsters: How Deviant Organisms Came to Define Us published in February 2023 by MIT Press.  

An earlier version of this interview was published in the NYU Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database (Litmed).
Web image from The Cleveland Museum of Art

The Science of Starving in Victorian Literature, Medicine, and Political Economy  by Andrew Mangham 

Sebastian Galbo Jun 2, 2025

A compelling study of how Victorian writers used medical science to expose and challenge political economy’s misconceptions about starvation.

People can have certain desires stemming from their illnesses, for the arts, health, companionship, serenity, and meaning among other possibilities. The scholar, writer, and teacher David B. Morris considers these desires a form of eros that should be taken into account as a part of what people go through with their illnesses and what could potentially help them. We speak with David Morris about the relationship between eros and illness, and evaluate it using examples from art, literature, and theater. We muse about possible applications.

Primary Source Citation
Morris D. Eros and Illness. Cambridge MA; Harvard University Press, 2017

Links
Russell Teagarden’s relevant blog pieces:
— David Morris’ book, Eros and Illness
— Anatole Broyard’s book, Intoxicated by My Illness
— The play, Farinelli and the King
— Montaigne’s essays about his kidney stones

Modigliani’s reclining nude series:
— Reclining Nude, 1917
— Reclining Nude (Nu Couché) 1917–1918
— Reclining Nude (Le Grand Nu) 1919
— Nude on a Blue Cushion 1917

David Morris’ CV

Thanks to David Morris for coming on this episode and providing his thinking on the role of eros in illness.

The Clinic & The Person is a podcast developed by our editor Russell Teagarden to summon or quicken the attention of health care professionals, their educators, researchers and others to the interests and plights of people with specific health problems aided through knowledge and perspectives the humanities provide.

Feature Photo by The New York Public Library