I learned of Lawlor’s book in an engaging essay in a recent issue of The New Yorker. She is Henry Waldgrave Stuart Professor of Philosophy at Stanford University. The review was intriguing and a book only 213 pages long sounded plausible. I am here to confirm that it is a beautifully written book, one that does not pull punches and that does not hide behind academic terminology. It is of the moment and I hope it gets wide circulation and readership.

Let me explain why. The force driving Lawlor’s book is to analyze the relationship between rational and reasonable thinking and to make the case for restoring value and prestige to the second cognitive style. Lawlor addresses the difference in multiple contexts – in law, in personal identity, and social values. Rational man has had several names including Homo economicus and has been studied in clever models such as the response to the Prisoner’s Dilemma (read the book for details). She points out that greater emphasis was traditionally placed on being rational, namely, making intellectually valid decisions about ourselves and the world around us. Reasonableness was dismissed as a lesser virtue, one that was poorly defined and incapable of promoting good behavior.

The book is rich in stories. Lawlor starts the book with a court case that occurred in Louisiana in 1992. A 16-year old Japanese exchange student was invited to a Halloween party but unfortunately went to the wrong house. After a confused and ominous exchange with the owner, even though the student started walking away from the door, the owner of the house became anxious for his safety and well-being and fatally shot the student. A criminal jury acquitted the homeowner and considered the shooting a reasonable response to a perceived threat to life. A driver in Ohio is issued a summons for exceeding 85 miles per hour in his vehicle, above the reasonable limit. Governor Pataki and Mayor Guliani argued whether it was reasonable for the mayor to violate the standing law and run again as a candidate for another time after the September 11^th attack.

Lawlor’s book begins with the standard view, namely that a rational person is “logical, smart, and unemotional” while a reasonable person is “honest, kind, and fair.” But her central thesis is that this characterization overstates the value of rationality and misrepresents the importance of reasonableness to meaningful interpersonal interactions and the stable function of society. She assembles a wide selection of psychological data and real and theoretical circumstances to redefine the meaning of reasonableness and to identify its key components. She makes a compelling case that to be reasonable means to be sensitive to the needs and views of others, be willing to recalibrate one’s own view in response to the concerns of others, and to be willing to change your course of action if pressed by someone who thinks differently from you. These are not features that are generally invoked when describing a rational person and she makes the claim that this indicates that reasonableness is more important than rationality in grounding society.

The link to the current political environment is clear and acknowledged. Without mentioning any names, Lawlor vividly chronicles how loss of reasonableness is the underlying defining feature in our polarized argumentative world. The fact that political parties articulate programs that fail to account for the needs of the other and the inability to acknowledge any value to the views of others are signs of rampant unreasonableness. It is unclear whether reasonableness has a biological basis and whether it was favored by evolution. But anyone reading the news or monitoring the policy objectives of the current administration cannot escape the notion that reasonableness is a “misunderstood” and clearly undervalued virtue.

One gap in Lawlor’s narrative is medicine. She does not have a chapter on reasonableness in patient care. To me this is an area in need of attention. A case can be made that the movement towards evidence-based medicine is a move to incorporate more rationality into medical care. To be sure, incorporation of the patient voice and patient-related outcomes in the assessment of treatment efficacy is a sign of attention to the other and recognition of the need for reasonableness. But I fear that this information may be prone to quantitative analysis that undermines a genuine commitment to listen to the patient and treat that person on their own individual terms. Clinical research is urgently needed to learn whether exciting novel therapies are being utilized in a reasonable way, namely with genuine attention to the needs of the patient, a willingness to change the plan if the clinical course does not meet expectations, and a realization that medical care is just one component in the total scope of social wellbeing. That research team would be wise to include Lawlor as a consultant.

In closing, books often have an impact because they are read by a receptive reader at just the right moment time. In the beginning of May, I was on vacation with my wife. After a day biking and hiking, I accidentally fell and suffered a head injury. I lost consciousness for two days and needed to be hospitalized in an unfamiliar place for six days. On my return to New York, I was cared for by wonderful people and I think, or should I say I hope, that I am getting back to “normal.” But one thing was clear to me. I am not sure how I usually think and behave but over the last two months, I am sure I was not as reasonable as I should be. But one good and reasonable decision I made was to read this book. It has helped me appreciate what I lost and offered guidance about what I should pay attention to as I get back to myself. I cannot think of higher praise for any philosophy book.

Being Reasonable: The Case for a Misunderstood Virtue
Krista Lawlor
Harvard University Press, 2026. 213 pp 

Web image by Medhum.org.

Five Little Peppers and How They Grew by Margaret Sidney is an early example from 1881. This book describes the daily life of the hardworking Pepper family and how they remain cheerful and loving despite challenges associated with 19^th century poverty. The Pepper family consists of widowed Mrs. Pepper or “Mamsie,” 11-year-old Ben who voluntarily takes on the mantle of “man of the house,” patient and selfless 10-year-old Polly, impulsive and food-loving 9-year-old Joel, gentle and conscientious 7-year-old Davie, and beloved baby of the family 3-year-old Phronsie.

Children’s literature during this era was heavily instructional and used relatable characters and stories to teach morals and values to young minds. Illness was rarely just a biological event; it was a test or demonstration of character. In a chapter aptly titled “Trouble for the Little Brown House,” the first challenge that the Pepper family faces is measles.

Notably, this book highlights the ophthalmologic symptoms and sequalae of measles, as first Phronsie, then Ben, Polly, and Joel all catch the infection. Common early symptoms of measles include conjunctivitis and photophobia, which occur before the obvious rash. Ben and Polly, the hardworking older siblings who earn money for the family by chopping wood and sewing respectively, are each in initial denial of infection because they understand the financial repercussions this will have on the family. But the historic reader understands the warning signs when Ben and Polly report visual complaints. Ben tries to reassure Polly by saying, “I’m all right; only my head aches, and my eyes feel funny,” alluding to the itchy and gritty sensation of conjunctivitis, before he becomes bedridden. The narrator describes Polly’s struggles more vividly, “An awful feeling made her clutch the back of a chair, but she managed somehow to get into her clothes, and go groping blindly into the kitchen. Somehow, Polly couldn’t see very well. She tried to set the table, but ‘twas no use.” Polly’s initial visual impairment can be attributed to severe photophobia, leading to blurry vision.

Modern day readers may not know that the measles virus can result in serious vision-threatening complications. It can cause deeper structural damage starting with keratitis – a painful inflammation or infection of the cornea, the clear front surface of the eye, which manifests as blurred vision and intense tearing. If keratitis is left untreated or a secondary bacterial infection occurs, corneal scarring can permanently impair vision. In rare instances, measles can also cause retinopathy and optic neuritis leading to blindness. The severity of eye damage from measles is heavily linked to nutrition. The virus actively depletes body stores of vitamin A. In low-income populations where vitamin A deficiency is already common, measles is more likely to cause permanent childhood blindness.

The Peppers live in poverty and hunger. Mrs. Pepper makes a meager income sewing “sacks and coats” for a local store and “had hard work to scrape together money enough to put bread into her children’s mouths, and to pay the rent of the little brown house.” There is never enough food to go around. Their main source of calories are coarse brown bread and unappetizing cornmeal mush, neither of which contain meaningful amounts of vitamin A. However, the generosity of the parson’s wife, Mrs. Henderson, helps protect some of the Peppers from blindness. Mrs. Henderson gives the Peppers “a little pat of butter,” which Phronsie and Ben put on their bread. Dairy, like milk and butter, is an excellent source of vitamin A. And later, Mrs. Henderson sends over “a little bird delicately roasted,” which Joel consumes with delight. Poultry and gamebirds are another good source of vitamin A.

However, selfless Polly saves the butter and bird for her siblings and ends up being most at risk for permanent vision loss. She develops very painful eyes, suggesting keratitis, and the doctor pronounces that “her eyes are very bad” and warns, “You will be blind!” if she doesn’t take care. Although the author attributes Polly’s illness severity to eye strain from sewing to earn money for the family, it is medically more likely due to vitamin deficiency. The therapeutic value of vitamin A in treating measles was not discovered until 1932 – 51 years after the publication of this book – when British physician Joseph B. Ellison found that administering vitamin A extracts roughly halved the death rate of hospitalized children suffering from measles [1]. Studies establishing the role of vitamin A in reducing blindness in children with measles did not occur until the 1980s [2,3].

Because moralizing 19^th century children’s literature rewards the virtuous, Polly ultimately makes a full recovery. However, reality is not so kind. Even today in the 21^st century, an estimated 15,000 to 60,000 children are blinded by measles every year globally [4]. The World Health Organization recommends that children in low income and developing regions diagnosed with measles receive immediate, high-dose oral vitamin A [5]. This simple, low-cost intervention protects the cornea and has successfully saved the eyesight of millions of infected children [6]. And, those who are vaccinated against measles are spared the risk and need for intervention completely.

[1] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/20777111/
[2] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/8486934/
[3] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3492298/
[4] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14998696/
[5] https://www.who.int/news-room/fact-sheets/detail/measles
[6] https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24407830/

Original Publication: The story was originally serialized in an 1880 edition of Wide Awake, a children’s magazine and later published in a hard cover edition.

Dover Publications, 2006. 224 pages

Web image by Medhum.org

The Sick Child

The sick child is thought to be the artist’s sister. She is not a child but rather a young girl who is lying down or seated, with a blanket over her lower body and she faces a woman who is seated beside her, clutching the child’s left hand. We cannot see the woman’s face – it is turned down as she is bent over in apparent grief. While the painting’s title names the girl as the subject of the painting, it is the grieving woman and her attention to the girl that is particularly striking.

Death and the Child

Death and the Child depicts the anguish of a child who has been confronted with the corpse of her mother lying in bed. The child faces the viewer, hands pressing against her ears – she cannot bear to “hear”/ absorb what she has encountered; her face has an expression of fear and despair

Death in the Sickroom

In Death in the Sickroom several adults are scattered about, some standing, one woman sitting in the foreground; behind her another woman stands facing us. In the back of the room a figure sits on a chair, a blanket draped over her lap – presumably this is Munch’s sister. With his back to the wall an elderly man has both hands pressed to his chest. These individuals have come to help and mourn but they are isolated from each other, which adds to the grimness of the scene.

Image credits: wiki commons

Painting with Empathy: The Expressionist Art of Edvard Munch with Curator Øystein Ustvedt

Russell Teagarden 12.28.23 1852

Edvard Munch’s emotional portrayal of illness and suffering offers profound insights for health professionals and…

Far less dramatic—not even in the same league, but disturbing in its own way—is the record of psychoanalysis during the Third Reich (psychoanalysts were not involved in the two programs mentioned above). Psychoanalysis, pejoratively referred to as “the Jewish science” by the Nazis, was of course created by Sigmund Freud in Vienna. One of the early and seminal centers of treatment, research, and training was the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, founded in 1923 (it grew out of the Psychoanalytic Polyclinic, a free clinic founded three years before) by Max Eitingon, who was the director. Many of the faculty, including Eitingon, were Jews; several were also socialists.

When the Nazis came to power in 1933, the Institute’s days were clearly numbered; not only because psychoanalysis was considered “Jewish” and so many psychoanalysts were Jewish, but also because its goals of individual growth, self-knowledge, and independence were directly antithetical to the mindset that a totalitarian government wanted to impose. Freud was now anathema, a new language of “Aryan” terms for analytic principles was devised, all Jews were purged, and the focus of psychoanalysis in Berlin shifted to the furthering of Nazi ideology: treating “war trauma” in soldiers and SS men, prioritization of and obedience to a totalitarian mindset, “reorienting” dissidents towards approved National Socialist thinking, conversion therapy as a treatment for homosexuality, and the like. The talking cure was to be weaponized for state purposes.

Seven months after Hitler seized power, Freud wrote to a colleague in England, “Berlin is lost…” Eitingon was forced to resign and fled Germany and was replaced by two Aryan analysts as co-directors. Three years later the Institute was subsumed into the German Institute for Research and Psychotherapy, known as “the Gӧring Institute,” with a new director, Matthias Gӧring, cousin of Reichsmarshall Hermann Gӧring.

The Institute’s excuse for collaborating with the regime was that it was the only way to “save” psychoanalysis and permit its survival; Freud himself had early on counseled accommodation as necessary to accomplish this end. What the Institute learned was that there is no accommodation short of full cooperation in a totalitarian state. But what was the toll of compromise on the men and women left in the Institute?

This was the history of psychoanalysis under the Nazis, which has been reviewed in a number of scholarly works¹. The novelist Stephen O’Connor has set himself a different task: to examine the life of a fictional non-Jewish German psychoanalyst as it played out against the background of Berlin and the Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute before and after the Nazi seizure of power in January 1933. His new novel, We Want So Much to Be Ourselves, follows its main character, Günter Zeitz, from his initial meeting with Sigmund Freud in 1924 through the years of the Third Reich and beyond. Günter will be our avatar, our surrogate participant through whose eyes we will watch things play out, during the heyday of psychoanalysis and through its suppression. However, the novel is not primarily about the destruction of German psychoanalysis, but about Gunter during the destruction of German psychoanalysis. Günter will be Exhibit 1 in the case for the acute and lingering effects of trauma.

As the novel opens we meet Günter corralling Freud on a street corner in Vienna and asking him to take him on for analytic training, which will consist largely of Günter’s personal analysis, and Freud agrees. In the doctor’s waiting room Günter meets another patient, Josine Rosen, a Jewish woman, and shortly thereafter they begin an affair. It becomes clear that Josine is troubled; she has already had a suicide attempt, and is subject to bouts of depression, but Günter is in love and within a year they marry and soon thereafter have a daughter, Hannah. Despite their ongoing disputes about some aspects of Freud’s “death force” theory, Freud recommends Günter for a position at the prestigious Berlin Psychoanalytic Institute, which he accepts. Over time, the course of true love does not exactly run smooth; Josine is unstable, and the National Socialists are increasing in power and presence in Germany, posing a problem for her as a Jew. Günter and Josine will separate and reunite several times and draw others into their story as their world descends into a very rigidly structured type of chaos. How they all navigate this personal and professional turmoil determines the rest of their lives.

Meanwhile, we listen in as the analysts at the Institute discuss the increasingly dangerous situation, and how to respond. They initially dismiss Hitler and his “gang of toothless throwbacks” (p. 127) as upstarts with no political base and no future (as does much of the German public) until 1933, when it becomes apparent that this is no longer the case. In 1936, after Matthias Gӧring assumes the directorship, new rules for psychoanalysis are introduced; complying with these changes is clearly the only way the Institute will be allowed to continue to function. Some analysts flee, some accommodate, and some join the resistance.

However, the novel is really Günter’s story. Günter is eminently likeable; he is a bright, engaged and engaging character pursuing his academic dream who genuinely wants to mitigate human suffering. We watch him grow from the sheltered son of a country doctor to a confident teacher and practitioner, and we watch him fall in love, repeatedly, almost as though he is “feeling his way” in this world of emotions. When the Institute is taken over and its direction changed Günter finds himself in a moral quandary: he is horrified by National Socialism but feels unable to do anything about it. Can there be a small degree of accommodation, to allow him to continue to help those who need help, or is accommodation a slippery slope which ends in a betrayal of self and principles? Silence or resistance? We watch with him as he tries to keep his professional life intact as his personal life begins to unravel. When he is forced to treat Dr. Gӧring’s nephew, an SS lieutenant recently returned from a murderous detail in the East, he reaches his personal Rubicon.

Günter is an everyman caught in the gears of a machine, and the kernel, the gist, of the novel, is a question: how does one go on living one’s life in a system gone mad, and what are our responsibilities to others and ourselves? How do you go to work and go home to your family, how do you love and hate and gossip and drink your coffee and read your newspaper and pick up your paycheck and go to a movie, when you are convinced that a great evil is being perpetrated, that you are told to be part of it, and that any false step on your part might bring that evil down upon you? When it is your country and your countrymen and your colleagues doing it? What is the personal cost, the cost to yourself, and to your self, when—if— you come out on the other side of the madness?

The other characters, and their interplay, are handled carefully and realistically. Josine is a large and critical part of the story. She is clearly—and sadly—damaged, and her behavior is too erratic for us to “like” her, although she engenders tremendous sympathy . She is a tragic figure and we feel for her, although this is not always easy. The student analyst Elke Weber, who becomes a critical participant in the story, is drawn realistically and sympathetically. Hannah will become important as a character in her own right later in the book. The other characters in the novel, including some of the historical figures, are drawn simply but cleanly and expressively; the reader feels that they know them, if only briefly.

We Want So Much to Be Ourselves is well-written, engaging, and suspenseful. O’Connor’s narrative successfully summons up both the atmosphere in the world of psychoanalysis in the 1920’s and Nazi-era Berlin’s anxiety and paranoia in the 1930’s. The reader who has some familiarity with the history of Weimar and Nazi-era Germany will note a rare factual slip², but nothing that is critical for plot development or that takes away from the pleasure of the reading experience; such are the pitfalls of writing historical fiction. When we reach the last hundred pages or so—the postwar years—the narrative tempo speeds up, and near the very end the novel becomes telescoped into a series of rapid-fire moments in the protagonists’ lives, seeming more an epilogue than a continuous part of the novel; this is the section that catalogues the aftermath. Life hobbles on, though one might wish for a more leisurely unwinding of the tale.

We Want So Much to Be Ourselves asks how a person of moral integrity can function in what the German philosopher and psychiatrist Karl Jaspers has called a Verbrecherstaat, a “criminal state”—not simply a state that occasionally commits crimes, but a state which has been transmuted entirely into a criminal enterprise—and what the price of that functioning, of complicity or resistance, might be. It portrays profoundly human characters who live through societal trauma, from which it is possible to emerge, but rarely to emerge unscathed, and emphasizes the role of connection for moving forward and healing. Importantly, it reminds us that patient care does not exist in a vacuum or a pure state, divorced from the society that surrounds it, and that when it is co-opted and weaponized by political considerations, things go very bad, very fast.

We Want So Much to Be Ourselves
Stephen O’Connor
Bellevue Literary Press, New York 2026: 496 pages
_______________________________________________________
¹The history is complicated…and contested; see Geoffrey Cocks’ “The devil and the details: psychoanalysis in the Third Reich,” in Psychoanalytic Review, 88 (2), 2001; Zvi Lothane, “The deal with the devil to “save” psychoanalysis in Nazi Germany” Psychoanalytic Review, 88(2), 2001; and Cocks’ review (in Psychoanalysis and History 3(2), 2001) of James and Eileen Goggin’s Death of a Jewish Science—Psychoanalysis in the Third Reich, among others. The Goggins feel that psychoanalysis was “destroyed” under the Nazis, while Cocks notes significant continuities in the discipline through this period, although his analysis includes psychoanalysis and psychotherapy.

²At one point one of the characters is said to have been arrested by the police and “…got off the train at Theresienstadt and went straight to the gas chamber…” (p. 425) While the person narrating this event is admittedly unsure that the prisoner went to the gas chamber, the fact is that they could not have; there were no gas chambers at Theresienstadt. In another example, a patient of the Berlin clinic is referred to as a “Leninist” who was a member of “the DKP.” The author is presumably referring here to the German Communist Party, known as the DKP, or Deutsche Kommunistiche Partei. However, the DKP was only founded in 1986. The Communist party in Germany during the Weimar Republic and (though it was rapidly outlawed) in the Third Reich was the KPD (Kommunistiche Partei Deutschlands).

Web image by Medhum.org based on the original book cover.

The novel follows Martin Arrowsmith from a small Midwestern town to the upper reaches of American research science. As a boy in Elk Mills he reads anatomy in the town doctor’s office, and at the University of Winnemac he falls under the spell of Max Gottlieb, a German bacteriologist who teaches him to distrust easy answers and love the laboratory above the clinic. Martin’s career moves quickly from medical practice into research as a vaccine discovery vaults him from a small-town practice into a prestigious New York institute, and finally to a Caribbean island where bubonic plague is raging. There he faces an ethical conundrum: whether to withhold his unproven cure from half the population to prove it works, or whether to save as many as he can without conclusive evidence. When his wife Leora dies in the experiment, Arrowsmith throws caution to the wind and immunizes everyone, sacrificing his chance at greatness. In the aftermath, he walks away from money, marriage, and fame to chase pure science in a rural cabin, leaving the reader to decide whether he’s really a hero or just a reclusive crank. 

Lewis wasn’t the first American writer to champion medical science. Willa Cather and Oliver Wendell Holmes laid some of this ground first. But biographer Mark Schorer isn’t wrong in saying that “Martin Arrowsmith was a new hero, scientific idealism a new subject, and scientific individualism a new (and rather unscientific) perspective.” And Lewis was probably the first American writer to coauthor a major novel with a scientist, the bacteriologist Paul de Kruif. 

Arrowsmith won the Pulitzer in 1926 (though Lewis refused to accept the award), and the novel was a major factor in the Swedish Academy’s decision to award Lewis the Nobel Prize in 1930. It represents a hard-fought accord between science and art that has vanished from the literary scene today. But it’s hardly a one-note celebration of science. Lewis suggests that once scientific medicine withdraws from public view, the ominous tropes of the nineteenth century may creep back in. 

Like most of Lewis’s novels,  Arrowsmith is filled with overwritten scenes and dialogue riddled with slang. But I’d be curious, if I could teach it to medical students today, how much of themselves they might see in the character of Martin Arrowsmith, a boy from flyover country who nearly rose to medical immortality but crashed, Icarus-like, on his own hubris. 

A Novelist and a Whistle-Blower 

Lewis was immersed in medical culture throughout his young life as the son of a rural physician, but he was not a scientist himself, and never aspired to a career in medicine. His father, Edwin J. Lewis, began his medical training at Rush Medical College in 1875, graduating two years later as an M.D. and eventually opening a small practice in Sauk Centre, Minnesota, where he advertised himself as a physician and surgeon. Memories of his father provided a general basis for the opening scenes of Arrowsmith, set in rural Winnemac (or Minnesota), but Lewis needed to grasp both the passion and methodology of real scientists to create his medical hero. 

Lewis met his coauthor, Paul de Kruif, at a meeting arranged by his publishers. De Kruif held a Ph.D. in bacteriology from the University of Michigan. He had also worked as a researcher at the Rockefeller Institute in New York, but had been fired after the director discovered that de Kruif had published an anonymous exposé of the Institute’s financial corruption and premature publication of scientific results. He was an ideal partner for Lewis, whose satires of the American Midwest elevated skepticism to an ethical ideal. As E. L. Doctorow observes, “Expecting his countrymen to be more than they were, looking for a resonant truth and righteousness, Lewis had found an American spiritual life that could elicit from him nothing more than bitter derision.” Lewis and De Kruif counterbalanced one another professionally, one steeped in medical science, the other in literary art, but they were both truth-seekers, through and through. 

De Kruif was professionally destitute when he met Lewis, having recently lost his position at the Rockefeller Institute. He had seriously jeopardized his chances of finding work in his field, as university bacteriology departments and pharmaceutical companies balked at hiring known whistle-blowers. He needed Lewis and the stimulus of a major literary project as much as the author needed his expertise. 

Lewis gave De Kruif “assignments” during their travels, such as writing a fictional biography of Gottlieb, Arrowsmith’s mentor. The apprenticeship would later pay off for De Kruif, who became a bestselling author of scientific history just one year after the publication of Arrowsmith. His book The Microbe Hunters, which sold over one hundred thousand copies in 1926, alone, was one of the major nonfiction books of the decade. 

Indeed, De Kruif learned literary craft so well that it’s impossible to know who wrote certain passages in  Arrowsmith. Take, for instance, the scene where Martin realizes that he is about to make a potentially groundbreaking scientific discovery about the behavior of bubonic plague. Late at night, alone at the McGurk Institute (the fictionalized Rockefeller Institute), Arrowsmith simply can’t wait to process his lab results: 

At a hectic run, not stopping for lights, bumping corners and sliding on the too perfect tile floor, he skidded down the stairs and galloped through the corridors to his room. […] 

Then he forgot…war, night, weariness, success, everything, as he charged into preparations for an experiment, his first great experiment. He paced furiously, rather dizzy. He shook himself into calmness and settled down at a table, among rings and spirals of cigarette smoke, to list on small sheets of paper all the possible causes of suicide in the bacteria. 

Lewis and De Kruif collaborated so intimately that the scientist began to write like the novelist and the novelist began to think like the scientist. They should have shared the honors that followed, but Lewis insisted on crediting De Kruif more as a fact checker than as his equal. 

Cruelty or Cure? 

It’s hard to imagine language like this from a doctor now, but Martin Arrowsmith dedicates himself to the search for “the Why that made everything so.” Impatient with memorizing facts, he “wanted to look behind details and impressive-sounding lists of technical terms for the causes of things, for general rules which might reduce the chaos of dissimilar and contradictory symptoms to the orderliness of chemistry.” Arrowsmith believes in precise technique, but he’s also emotionally invested in the work, demonstrating an almost fanatical belief in the scientific method. 

His defining characteristic is his curiosity, which helps him crack riddles others see as mere aberrations. Lewis writes, to this effect: 

Now in Martin Arrowsmith there were no decorative heroisms, no genius for amours, no exotic wit, no edifyingly borne misfortunes. He presented neither picturesque elegance nor a moral message. He was full of hasty faults and of perverse honesty; a young man often unkindly, often impolite. But he had one gift: curiosity whereby he saw nothing as ordinary. 

When he sees something weird in his test tubes, he says, “Now there was some cause for that, and I’m going to find out what it was.” This is how Arrowsmith discovers the X Principle. He tells his wife Leora that it could lead to the cure of every germ disease, which overstates the case, but it is a major scientific breakthrough—not only for Martin, but potentially for humankind. 

Arrowsmith’s X Principle is a remarkable development in the novel. Perhaps for the first time ever in American fiction, Lewis invites a reader to participate in the euphoria of scientific discovery, rooting for the medical scientist as he plugs away in the laboratory. Later he causes a stir among the farmers in Wheatsylvania, the little town where he briefly sets up a private practice, by curing a seemingly unstoppable blackleg epidemic with an original vaccine prepared in the makeshift laboratory at the back of his doctor’s office. The vaccine requires several experimental dry-runs, but Martin works on the project after hours, glad to be searching for the root cause—the Why—of the disease. 

Later, Arrowsmith travels to St. Hubert, a fictional Caribbean island, to test the X Principle on a population besieged by bubonic plague. Verifying the efficacy of his bacteriophage would require a control group, which would mean denying the remedy to a portion of the populace. Is it more compassionate to inoculate everyone with an unproven (but promising) remedy or to withhold treatment for conclusive proof, thereby guaranteeing the health of future generations? It’s an important ethical question, but one that politics ignores. It’s hard to name a doctor today who is both publicly promoting scientific knowledge and defending human rights in quite this way. 

Arrowsmith develops a high-stakes debate over humanitarianism. One doctor argues that temporary cruelty does not justify eventual compassion; accordingly, he refuses to receive the preventive bacteriophage inoculation until the entire population of St. Hubert has been immunized. Arrowsmith’s mentor, Gottlieb, insists that true humanitarianism requires establishing irrefutable scientific facts. Gottlieb corners Arrowsmith before he leaves for St. Hubert and delivers one of his longest speeches of the novel. The St. Hubert experiment is Martin’s chance to become a “Great Man,” and Gottlieb intensifies the pressure: 

Be sure you do not let anything, not even your own good kind heart, spoil your experiment at St. Hubert. I do not make funniness about humanitarianism as I used to […]. So many men, Martin, are kind and neighborly; so few have added to knowledge. You have the chance! You may be the man who ends all plague […]. 

You must not be just a good doctor at St. Hubert. You must pity, oh, so much the generation after generation yet to come that you can refuse to let yourself indulge in pity for the men you will see dying. 

As I write this,  doctors are taking to Instagram to protest insurance companies who deny patients coverage for life-saving procedures. We’re having a hard enough time helping people now; no one is talking about the generation after the generation yet to come. But this is what Lewis imagines in Arrowsmith’s unorthodox heroism: by withdrawing from society into the laboratory, as he does to prepare his blackleg serum or to discover the X Principle, Arrowsmith has a chance to become a legendary benefactor of public health. But is the greatest degree of human compassion possible only through momentary cruelty? 

Arrowsmith’s heroism might have been lost on the popular audience had Lewis seen the St. Hubert experiment through to the end. Instead, Lewis creates a strategic compromise. First, he sets up the conditions of the experiment, outlining arguments for and against denying the vaccine to portions of the St. Hubert population; this lends credibility to Martin Arrowsmith as a scientific physician by highlighting the complexity of his choice. Then Lewis derails the experiment with the accidental death of Arrowsmith’s wife Leora, who dies suddenly of plague. Stricken with grief and guilt (because he had been entertaining adulterous thoughts at the time of her death), Martin begins administering his serum indiscriminately to the people of the island, compromising the scientific integrity of his results, but demonstrating his capacity for emotion. 

After Leora’s death, he returns to the self-destructive behavior of his vagrancy during medical school, drinking heavily and acting as if he no longer cares about knowledge or the accompanying reward of fame. Lewis writes: “[…] all day, Martin injected a line of frightened citizens, in the Surgeon General’s office,” during which time he “had a bitter satisfaction in throwing away all his significance, in helping to wreck his own purposes.” In the end, no one knows whether the plague disappears from St. Hubert as a result of “phage or rat-killing or Providence.” The result is tragic by Gottlieb’s standards, but it further endears Arrowsmith to readers, whom Lewis manages to educate about the ethical quandaries of research science while introducing the research scientist, himself, as a man of passion and human weakness. 

Arrowsmith loses his chance to enter the historical record alongside scientific greats such as Pasteur, but Lewis reinforces his heroic stature on the human level. Alongside characters like Hawthorne’s Rappaccini who becomes so obsessed with science that he forgets humanity, Arrowsmith’s capacity for emotion in the heat of his greatest experiment is extraordinary. In fact, I’d like a little more evidence that grief, for today’s doctors, is as powerful as scientific curiosity, profit, or personal branding. We could use more reminders that science happens in social contexts and that it is vulnerable to the weaknesses and biases of those who do it and the systems that support it. 

A Flawed Hero 

Arrowsmith is a bildungsroman—the first to show how an ordinary person becomes a scientific hero—but it borrows from other literary forms, such as the epic and the portrait of the artist. 

Martin is raised in a small town called Elk Mills, where he is the “unofficial” assistant to Doc Vickerson, the self-styled “plug doc” and alcoholic who has managed to compile the first museum of natural history in the county. In a drunken speech, Vickerson tells the young Arrowsmith to get all the training he can in the sciences in order to realize his full potential as a physician. “Set a high goal,” he admonishes Martin. “Don’t let things slide. Get training. Go college before go medical school. Study. Chemistry. Latin. Knowledge!” A nice little pitch for the liberal arts, even if it sounds quaint to us now. 

The University of Winnemac is Arrowsmith’s portal to opportunity, where preparation for medical school consumes his life. His entire identity revolves around his education, where “the purpose of life was chemistry and physics and the prospect of biology next year.” Arrowsmith’s junior year of college is set in 1904, and the descriptions he hears of Gottlieb, his professor of bacteriology, reflect lingering stereotypes of the medical scientist as a rogue. Rumors about Gottlieb suggest that “he was doing terrifying and costly experiments which probably had something to do with human sacrifice. It was said that he could create life in the laboratory, that he could talk to the monkeys which he inoculated, that he had been driven out of Germany as a devil-worshiper or an anarchist.” 

Gottlieb, whose name translates literally from German as “Godlove” and more accurately as “Beloved God,” recalls the master-apprentice relationship typical of the bildungsroman through his mentorship. From his introduction in the Winnemac scenes, Gottlieb remains the dominant influence on his young protégé throughout the remainder of the novel. When Arrowsmith asks to be admitted into his course before having taken all of the prerequisites, Gottlieb says: 

There are two kinds of students the gods give me. One kind they dump on me like a bushel of potatoes. […] The other kind—they are very few!—wish a liddle [sic] bit to become scientists, to work with bugs and make mistakes. Those, ah, those, I seize them. I denounce them. I teach them right away the ultimate lesson of science, which is to wait and doubt. Of the potatoes, I demand nothing; of the foolish ones like you, who think I could teach them something, I demand everything. (11) 

He goes on to tell Arrowsmith that he must take physical chemistry before he will be ready for bacteriology; this is the difference between true scientists and imitators. Gottlieb’s first public experiment, an inoculation of guinea pigs with anthrax repulses many of Arrowsmith’s classmates, but the young Martin later imagines himself repeating experiment: “as he remembered Gottlieb’s unerring fingers, his hands curved in imitation.” 

But Arrowsmith needs flaws if he is to be taken seriously as a character, and he nearly destroys himself at several crucial moments in the narrative. The same restlessness that fires his curiosity is also his potential undoing—binge drinking makes him careless in the laboratory and lack of sleep makes him belligerent. When Gottlieb reprimands him for a series of avoidable errors, Arrowsmith’s defiant response nearly ends his medical career. The medical dean decides to suspend rather than expel him, and Martin is temporarily exiled from the University that has been the primary touchstone for his identity as a young adult. 

But Arrowsmith’s flaws show that the most promising benefactors of public health sometimes seem the most misanthropic by nature. For Lewis and De Kruif, two idealists who effectively replace religion with science, pure science requires complete devotion. This is a high standard that none of Lewis’s characters fully attains; it’s in their failings that he endears them to readers, unveiling the joys and heartaches of a scientist, making the doctor’s emotional life known. 

Back to the Lab, Out of the World 

If the novel were to end in St. Hubert with Martin Arrowsmith doling out medicine to everyone in sight, it might be a story about compassion defeating cold-hearted science. Leora would be a martyr and Martin would be a widower, unselfishly serving humanity. But the story doesn’t end there: Martin marries Joyce Lanyon, a wealthy woman from New York, and briefly celebrates the birth of a son before divorcing Joyce, abandoning his son, and withdrawing to a remote cabin to dedicate his life to research. Arrowsmith is hard to like as a deadbeat father and cultural isolationist. Why, after taking such pains to help us understand the beauty and importance of science through Arrowsmith’s life, would Lewis turn his hero into such a miserable person? Is that really what science does to the heart? 

Lewis leaves us with a paradox. Nearly all of Arrowsmith’s flaws are scientific virtues: his brutal honesty, his distaste for wealth, his comfort with solitude. But  Arrowsmith’s  most troubling implication is that the medical scientist might give up trying to communicate with the public at all, choosing, instead, the uninterrupted calm of the laboratory, where discoveries happen unseen. When that happens, we’re thrown back to the distrust of the nineteenth century. Are the researchers devoted to unlocking the great Why beneath physical things today doing it for themselves or for humanity? Are they Arrowsmiths or Rappaccinis? 

The public story of medicine is a balancing act. It requires careful translation of facts into culture. It’s hard work, and it never ends. It’s much easier for suspicion to prevail. 

That’s why I see  Arrowsmith as a miracle. Think about what it took for that book to exist. It took a Paul de Kruif: a researcher with enough integrity to sacrifice financial gain for truth-telling. And it took a Sinclair Lewis: a kindred spirit who was willing to make an artist of a lab scientist. 

In Martin Arrowsmith, the scientific physician comes of age as a character, no longer a shadowy villain, but an artist in his own right: a figure whose potential for greatness or failure extends the medical narrative to the full scope of human experience. 

Web photo: Wiki Commons

Zauner was 25 when her mother was diagnosed with an aggressive, late-stage, mid-life cancer. Zauner was a rebellious child, resentful of Umma’s version of tough love. Growing up the lone Asian student in her Oregon community, she felt both othered at school and an outsider among her mother’s Seoul relatives when she visited them each summer. Just as she was beginning to appreciate her Korean heritage and understand her mother’s love, she learned about Umma’s diagnosis.   

The first half of the memoir exuberantly brings to life scenes from Zauner’s childhood and her brief post-college years as a musician in New York City. Surprisingly, without hesitation, she paused her makeshift career and flew west to care intensively for her mother. Attempting to heroically save Umma, Zauner zealously learned to prepare the native foods they shared. “I would radiate joy and positivity,” Zauner pledged. “I would learn to cook for her—all the things she loved to eat, and I would single-handedly keep her from withering away” (69). Her optimistic culinary efforts produce a poetry of exacting descriptions of the flavors and textures and preparation of those foods. It’s grimly ironic that the chemotherapy her mother endured wiped out her ability to taste or digest Zauner’s loving offerings of health.  

The second half turns from living with Umma to living without her. Wishing to sustain her bond with her mother as Zauner grieved, she continued preparing her Korean family’s recipes. Walking down H Mart’s redolent aisles released “waves” of sorrow that mark the enduring ebb and flow of her grief. Unsuccessful with conventional therapy, she found cooking the best form of self-care: “Every dish I cooked exhumed a memory. Every scent and taste brought me back for a moment to an unravaged home. Knife-cut noodles in chicken broth took me back to lunch at Myeong Dong Gyoja . . . The kalguksu so dense from the rich beef stock and starchy noodles it was nearly gelatinous. My mother ordering more and more refills of their famously garlic-heavy kimchi” (212-213). An image of abundance in the midst of loss.

Zauner’s detailed descriptions of cooking and consuming invite readers to her table, reminding us—as previous celebrated writers have—of the power of the senses to evoke memory and the power of food to strengthen human bonds. Food also powers Zauner’s self-understanding and the unexpected transformational love for her mother: “The culture we shared was active, effervescent in my gut and in my genes, and I had to seize it, foster it so it did not die in me . . . If I could not be with my mother, I would be her” (223-224).  

Zauner’s writing is itself active and effervescent. Through her grief, she holds a steady, unflinching gaze on cancer and death. As she writes candidly about her family, Zauner is critically reflective about her own life. Her writerly achievement is the immediacy of her felt experiences, her grief and her joys made palpable. “Let me feel this,” she courageously writes, dismissing her Korean family’s admonitions to withhold tears (202). An unforgettable image of the process of loving transformation that Zauner experienced unfolds in her description of making the Korean staple kimchee. It is a slow, exacting process of fermenting cabbage that at first strikes her as “controlled death” because “[l]eft alone, a head of cabbage molds and decomposes. It becomes rotten, inedible. But when brined and stored, the course of its decay is altered. Sugars are broken down to produce lactic acid, which protects it from spoiling. Carbon dioxide is released and the brine acidifies. It ages. Its color and texture transmute. It exists in time and transforms. So it is not quite controlled death, because it enjoys a new life altogether” (223). 

As if miraculously, a few years after Umma died, Zauner’s itinerant music career took on a new life. The band she has fronted, Japanese Breakfast, recorded the album Psychopop with a song she wrote about her mother, “In Heaven.” Then they toured the U.S. and South Korea. Although her mother was skeptical about a musical career, Zauner imagined that Umma would be “glad that I had finally found a place where I belonged” (233). 

Crying in H Mart: A Memoir
Michelle Zauner

Publisher Alfred A Knopf
Place Published New York
Edition 2021
Page Count 239

Web photo by Portuguese Gravit

Tuner follows Niki White (played by Leo Woodall), the apprentice of piano tuner Harry Horowitz (Dustin Hoffman), and a tragic genius. Once a gifted pianist, Niki developed hyperacusis—an increased sensitivity to sound that prevents him from playing the piano and requires him to wear hearing protection at all times. After Harry forgets the combination to his safe, Niki teaches himself to open it by listening to the lock’s subtle sounds. When Harry is later hospitalized, Niki begins cracking safes to pay off his mentor’s mounting medical debt.

By the film’s second act, Niki’s increasingly dangerous work jeopardizes both his safety and his relationship with his girlfriend Ruthie (Havana Rose Liu), leaving him to confront the consequences of his actions. When Niki makes amends in the third act, Uri (Lior Raz), the leader of the criminal group in which he has become entangled, viciously beats him. The injury costs him part of his hearing but enables his return to the piano.

Tuner is engaging, beautifully constructed, and emotionally resonant. At the same time, it turns disability into a plot device. Marking director and co-writer Daniel Roher’s fiction debut, the film fully embraces the artistic license afforded by the genre, casting hyperacusis as a superpower rather than focusing on the condition’s often debilitating effects.

To be fair, Niki mentions that, at one point, even the sound of his own voice was agonizing. He is constantly on guard against potentially harmful sounds. When confronted with barking dogs, smoke alarms, air horns, and gunshots, he winces and clutches his ringing ears.

But the impact is fleeting. In real life, exposure to noises like these can permanently worsen hyperacusis. Furthermore, the hearing disorder is not a “superhuman” tool; many individuals with hyperacusis show normal hearing thresholds. For those with milder cases, everyday sounds like a running dishwasher can cause significant discomfort. In more severe cases, even near silence can be excruciatingly painful. One wonders how Niki could tolerate the clicks, clacks, and whirs of piano keys and combination locks (another creative liberty: modern safes are designed to thwart auditory decoding).

As disability studies scholar Rebecca Garden argues, there are “tensions between the lived experience of illness… and the conventions that shape the representations of those experiences in published narratives.” [1] In other words, the demand for drama often precludes verisimilitude, instead favoring a happy ending of triumph over adversity. Niki’s liberation from his condition is narratively satisfying; another, if less commercially successful, film might depict a similar character learning to live with it.

In his seminal text The Wounded Storyteller: Body, Illness, and Ethics (2013), sociologist Arthur Frank enumerates three types of illness stories: restitution, chaos, and quest. The restitution narrative “has the basic storyline: ‘Yesterday I was healthy, today I’m sick, but tomorrow I’ll be healthy again,’” the chaos narrative “imagines life never getting better,” and the quest narrative “accept[s] illness and seek[s] to use it.”

Tuner follows a kind of restitution storyline: Yesterday Niki was a healthy prodigy, today he cannot perform because he is sick with an exploitable “superpower,” but tomorrow a thief will effectively cure him by rupturing his eardrums. The film also features aspects of the quest narrative; to quote Frank, Niki “returns as one who is no longer ill but remains marked by illness”—that is, no longer hyperacusic but partially deaf. Niki is figuratively reborn with a new purpose, embodying the film’s Spider-Mannish moral logic: “With great power comes great responsibility.”

Despite these quest elements, Niki’s story remains fundamentally a restitution narrative. Frank notes that such narratives are “culturally preferred” and calls for “an enhanced tolerance for chaos.” To that end, future films might engage more directly with the lived experience of hyperacusis. Ultimately, however, Roher’s approach is understandable and even commendable, using the possibilities of cinema to draw attention to some of the challenges of a rare, if romanticized, disability.

[1] Garden, Rebecca. “Telling Stories about Illness and Disability: The Limits and Lessons of Narrative.” Perspectives in Biology and Medicine, vol. 53, no. 1, 2010, pp. 121–135.

Photo credit: Black Bear

Most chapters are titled after a medical condition (exceptions are “Hubris” and “Melodrama”). Some of the headings are familiar – Trauma, Infarct, Aneurysm, Meningioma. Other chapter titles flaunt delicious medical terminology that mingles the mysterious and the poetic with nomenclature such as Angor animi, Neurotmesis, Photopsia, and Anaesthesia dolorosa.

Included are riveting accounts of both mundane and seemingly miraculous patient outcomes. One success story involves a pregnant woman losing her sight due to a brain tumor that compresses the optic nerves. Her vision is restored with an operation performed by the author. Her baby is born healthy too. But tales of failure and loss – malignant glioblastomas that are invulnerable to any treatment, operative calamities including bleeding of the brain, paralysis, and stroke – are tragically common. The author describes his humanitarian work in the Ukraine. He admits his aggravation with hospital bureaucracy and is frequently frustrated by England’s National Health Service.

Sometimes the shoe falls on the other foot, and the doctor learns what it is to be a patient. He suffers a retinal detachment. He falls down some stairs and fractures his leg. His mother succumbs to metastatic breast cancer. His three month old son requires surgery for a benign brain tumor.

As his career winds down, the author grows increasingly philosophical. He acknowledges his diminishing professional detachment, his fading fear of failure, and his less-hardened self. He becomes a sort of vessel for patients to empty their misery into. He is cognizant of the painful privilege it is to be a doctor.

The title of Do No Harm is spot-on. After all, this commandment is a crucial caution to all doctors. And for neurosurgeon Marsh, it signifies the restraint he must exercise in his medical decision-making. His approach to the doctor-patient relationship features a gentle medical paternalism that incorporates plenty of honesty and kindness. He writes about his struggle (and occasional clumsiness) with breaking bad news.

His professional life is portrayed as paradoxical – constant anxiety and contagious confidence, phases of futility and strings of inspiring operative accomplishments. The gift of forgiveness, how uncertainty tortures doctors, and the process of dying are significant topics for Marsh. In the last few decades, there has been a proliferation of medical memoirs. Do No Harm rises above them all. The book informs doctors that it’s okay to be vulnerable and fallible, as long as they are also compassionate, truthful, and caring. 

Primary Source Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery 
Publisher Thomas Dunne Books/St. Martin’s Press 
Place Published New York 
Edition 2015 
Page Count 288 

A previous version of this review was published in the NYU Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database.   
Web image by Medhum.org.

Tooker depicted waiting for a more specifically governmental bureaucracy in his painting, “The Government Bureau.” In that painting, the waiting people are reproduced several times to emphasize their anonymity, and the multiple bureaucrats peer out from frosted windows with only their eyes and noses visible — bringing to mind the concept of the “medical gaze” promulgated by the French philosopher,  Michel Foucault.

In another Tooker painting, “Ward,” he renders patients’ anonymity and a sense of abandonment in the hospital setting–with government bureaucracy invoked by the American flags hanging on the wall.

Image Credit
The Waiting Room, George Tooker, 1959. Collection of the Smithsonian American Art Museum. Image used for educational and critical commentary purposes.

George Tooker documentary videos from Columbus Museum

The short story follows a woman who has been sent by her physician to a colonial mansion in the country as treatment for postpartum depression. The woman, who remains nameless, is constantly dismissed and belittled by her husband, who is also a physician. He speaks to her patronizingly and ignores her protestations that the “treatment” she is being given is making her worse instead of better. She is told not to think, and not to write, and her husband believes that since he sees no reason for her suffering, it does not exist. She is kept upstairs in the mansion’s nursery, isolated behind bars and gates that she believes to be there for children’s safety, when in actuality they function to keep her imprisoned. As time passes, the woman believes that she perceives something in the wallpaper and becomes convinced that it is a trapped woman. She believes the woman is confined behind bars within the wallpaper, which mirrors the trapped feelings that she herself is experiencing living day in and day out inside the confines of the nursery. Her desire to help the woman escape, which mounts to a frenzy, is reflective of her own desire to be free from the nursery and the rest cure.

Throughout the story, the titular wallpaper functions almost as another character as it’s brought to life in the narrator’s mind. She contrasts the vitality of the wallpaper with the “dead paper” upon which she is writing the journal entries that make up the narrative. Her fascination, and disgust, with the wallpaper drive the story as she investigates its pattern and condition, and then ultimately determines that there is someone living within it. The narrator’s disdain for the paper is obvious in her descriptions; for instance, in her first mention of the wallpaper, she writes “I never saw a worse paper in my life” (p. 793). She later writes that the print was “One of those sprawling flamboyant patterns committing every artistic sin” (p. 793). On the topic of its hue, she writes that “The color is repellent, almost revolting; a smouldering unclean yellow…a dull yet lurid orange in some places, a sickly sulphur tint in others” (p. 793). For all of her disgust with the wallpaper, and its damaged and torn condition, she still finds herself fascinated by it, and this fascination turns into obsession, which later turns into madness.

“The Yellow Wallpaper” works so effectively because it allows the reader to step into the mind of a woman as she is driven to madness. The structure of the story, which is told in an epistolary format, adds to the reader’s affiliation with the narrator as there is an intimacy in reading her journal entries and being in on the secret that she is writing against her husband’s orders. This affiliation helps to build empathy between the reader and the narrator, which contributed to the concern that I felt for the woman when she slowly lost her mind. If the story helped to save people, as Gilman hoped, it did so because it made them see the human being at the center of the “illness” and “treatment,” forcing them to understand what truly happens when you isolate someone and take away their ability to do what brings them joy. We bear witness as the woman loses her mind, leaving us with an intimate picture of what the rest “cure” could truly do to someone’s psyche. Instead of viewing postpartum depression solely as a condition to be treated, “The Yellow Wallpaper” makes readers realize that there is a person at the center whose needs and voice deserve attention.

In a patriarchal era in which women’s voices and lived experiences were ignored in favor of what the men around them deemed to be “best,” “The Yellow Wallpaper” offers an important and valuable perspective – that of the woman herself. By placing the female patient’s voice at the forefront of her story, Gilman gives her narrator the agency that had previously been stripped from her, to tell the story of her postpartum depression and how the prescribed treatment drove her to madness instead of restoring her health. It is a reminder to each of us that the voice of the patient is of paramount importance in any instance in which an embodied condition is being treated. When we ignore the patient, and what they need, they are lost, pushed to the background, and left to disappear into their own metaphorical wallpapers.

Works Cited
Gilman, Charlotte Perkins. “The Yellow Wallpaper.” The Norton Anthology of American Literature, edited by Nina Baym and Robert S. Levine, W.W. Norton & Company, 2012, pp. 804.

Originally published by The New England Magazine, Boston, 1892

Image Credits
Illustration for ”The Yellow Wall-paper” by Joseph Henry Hatfield, 1892 from Wiki Commons
Book cover by Small, Maynard & Company, 1901 from Wiki Commons
Web image from Medhum

Film ReviewVideo

Obsession and “The Yellow Wallpaper” 

Rudy Malcom May 29, 2026

The film highlights the peril of love that demands possession.