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.

Why did you write this book?

I’m encountering more and more people over the last few years, particularly post-COVID, who have the perception that the categories we use in psychiatry have a kind of fixed, objective, and quite rigid reality. Twenty years ago, when I started as a GP, I might have seen somebody who said, “I feel anxious all the time,” whereas now I’m more likely to meet somebody who’ll say, “Well, I have generalized anxiety disorder.” That’s a shift in the way that society talks about mental illness. At the same time, a lot of people are questioning these categories’ usefulness, so there’s a paradox—a sort of polarization.

I wanted to write a book which explains, from my perspective, A, how the way we think about mental illness has always been shifting and evolving. How we think about mental illness changes with culture, time, and geography. And B, if we can adopt a more flexible and humble approach to our current understanding, that actually offers more hope to patients. Because believing “I have generalized anxiety disorder,” rather than “I feel anxious,” can sometimes be helpful, but it can also box you in and become self-fulfilled. I’m seeing that same shift across the whole spectrum of mental illness and suffering, and the book is a call to question that and reassess where we’re at in the mid-2020s—and a plea for a little bit more kindness and flexibility.

What would that look like in practice?

For example, if somebody comes to me saying, “Well, I have generalized anxiety disorder, so I can’t do this stuff,” part of my work is to help that patient adopt a more hopeful perspective: that there are strategies that they can learn, that there are medications that can help, and that our mind is shaped by many different influences. There may be explanations for their anxiety that have to do with the brain and neurotransmitters and so on. But in most people, there are also more influential factors that have to do with their early childhood experiences and their current social setup, the precarity of their relationships or their economic situation, the quality of their sleep, or the substandard nature of their housing. There are all sorts of other factors that are having a bearing on their anxiety that I would seek to help them explore, rather than them just blanketly saying, “I have generalized anxiety disorder—can you give me the pill for that?” I’m trying to encourage my patient to say, “Yeah, there are pills that can help. But there are all these other factors that we need to think about. And do I really find that label helpful?” For some people, once you start to dig into it, they don’t.

We can extend that way of thinking to people who’ve had a psychotic episode. Between 10% and 20% of people who have a psychotic episode will never have another. For substantial numbers of people, their psychotic episode is actually a product of all sorts of stressors that are on them at that time. If you can find a way to modify their stressors, put them in a more supported state, and understand what place that episode has in the story of their life, you can then make a story that makes sense of that episode as the product of a uniquely difficult moment in their life. That can help people get over that episode and also, I hope, make it more likely that they don’t have subsequent episodes. Or, if they do, then they’re able to return fully to their normal functioning in between.

You write, “For the last forty years much Western psychiatry has behaved… as if our thinking is a simple matter of chemical levels in the brain. The truth is far more complicated.” For example, a 2023 study you cite challenged the serotonin theory of depression. [1] Why do you think that the chemical imbalance narrative has persisted?

There’s a number of reasons. That hypothesis came through at a time when our lab technology was starting to be able to measure neurotransmitters, and it offered a good story. If you become depressed, you feel as if you’re lacking something—as if you’re lacking some kind of fuel or energy. That lack translates very easily, in our metaphor-making minds, to the idea that there must be some kind of lack between our brain cells.

At the same time that this technology was becoming widespread, there was the promotion of a drug which seemed to help: Prozac. There’s no doubt that SSRIs do make a difference. Again and again, they’re shown to be better than placebo. The effect is probably a lot smaller than a lot of the drug companies would tend to promote in their materials, but they do help, and I continue to prescribe them. But what that study you’re referring to was saying was that, even if these drugs help, they don’t help by boosting serotonin levels. We can’t find evidence that substantiates that theory.

The first half of the 20th century was governed by Freudian ideas. Psychiatry in much of the West was dominated by those kinds of psychoanalytic ideas. Then, during the ’50s and ’60s, as we started to develop tricyclic antidepressants and experiment with other kinds of antidepressants—the first were anti-tuberculosis drugs—the idea grew that there might be a chemical solution, which fit very well into our technologically and pharmaceutically focused medical culture. Then, from the late ’90s, there was a huge explosion of the idea that, actually, a lot of it was genetic.

Now, even the idea that neurotransmitters are strictly excitatory or inhibitory is starting to be questioned. Essentially, the whole picture is vastly more complicated than the neurotransmitter hypothesis from the ’90s suggested. I don’t take that as a great failure of the hypothesis; it was an attempt to make sense of something very complicated, and the drugs that spoke to that metaphor are useful and are still among some of the most widely prescribed in the world. But the fact that we no longer think that low mood is purely because of low serotonin is a really positive step forward. It encourages us to embrace more fully the biopsychosocial approach to mental illness. The field of psychology and psychiatry is not known for consensus, but one thing everybody agrees on is that it’s not just biology, it’s not just psychology, and it’s not just sociology—it’s all these influences that have an effect on our mental health.

Are there other common assumptions about mental illness that you think deserve closer scrutiny?

Every age uses the metaphor of its highest technology to make sense of the mind. In the 19th century, the mind was famously described as an enchanted loom; the mind was thought to be weaving our experience, moment by moment. We’ve now got these very pervasive metaphors of wiring, which I find quite unhelpful because the brain is nothing like a circuit board. It would be like a circuit board made of jelly that can fix itself. So I think the wiring metaphor, although it has its uses, has gone too far because it’s too deterministic. It’s not organic enough.

Half a century ago, Stanford psychologist David Rosenhan wrote, “A psychiatric label has a life and an influence of its own.” To what extent can psychiatric labels help, and to what extent can they hinder?

There’s a lot of controversy about the Rosenhan experiment. [2] He’s been accused of being a charlatan and fabricating quite a lot of his data. But I think the value of his reflections still stands. I’ve definitely seen in my clinical practice that people will be treated differently because of a label that has been put in their notes, even though that label might have changed several times. I’ve had patients who’ve had four or five different labels in the course of their career, while they’ve had actually pretty much the same kinds of experiences and distress throughout all of those.

What I find really helpful in my conversations with patients is the fact that we don’t always have to give a label. If someone is really keen for one, then I’m happy to explore that with them and tell them, “These are the psychiatric categories that are on offer in the current edition of the DSM. Some people find them really useful, but with every new edition of the manual, they change, so they’re not describing something discrete, fixed, or in the natural order of things. They’re a way of describing and approaching distress, so let’s talk about how much they would be helpful for you.”

Now, in the U.S., I understand that labels can be essential because of insurance-based medical payments. In a U.K. context, a label may not be as useful because our psychiatric services are organized differently. I gently explore with each patient how much for them it’s going to be transformative. If it’s going to help ease their suffering and get them the treatments that they want, then I embrace it and help them get the one that fits best. But if it’s not going to be transformative in terms of how they can access care, then I tend to try to avoid giving a label because that can allow a level of optimism and dynamism about their state of mind. It more genuinely reflects the possibility of change and adaptation, rather than risking somebody changing the way they think of themselves.

As human beings, we’ve got such a huge tendency to put shame on one another. What labels seem to do in our current moment is absolve people of that shame in a really helpful way. I’ve had patients say to me, for example, that until they got their diagnosis of ADHD, they felt so ashamed of not being able to focus properly at work, and what that label did was offer a kind of absolution from that shame because it said, “There is this category of being that is separate from you and which seems to be affecting you, but it’s not your fault.” That can be wonderfully liberating. In those kinds of situations, I’m often keen to embrace the label if it’s going to help the patient cast off their shame. But I’m also questioning: Why have we got that shame? Isn’t it a pity that people often feel that they need to embrace a medical diagnostic label in order to rid themselves of that shame?

What strengths do primary care physicians bring to mental healthcare compared to someone more specialized?

One great advantage of somebody in my kind of role is that I’m embedded in the community. I often know the whole family, and I’m seeing people for all kinds of other problems which have a bearing on their mental health. I’ve become more aware of the connections between families and individuals; a specialist only sees the one individual with a particularly distressing problem—for longer appointments, granted, but removed from that context.

There’s a wonderful GP writer in the U.K. called Iona Heath, who has written a lot about the fact that it’s in the primary care consulting room where suffering is either given a label and understood within a medical model, or not. Some people see primary care physicians as essentially holding a line, or acting as some kind of gatekeeper, between the huge mass of human experiences that are out there and which ones become medicalized. A lot of people will come and see me about something fairly banal—almost to try me out, to try and figure out whether I’m going to be kind, compassionate, friendly, or approachable. Once they’ve tried me with a symptom that they’re not too fussed about, then they’ll risk sharing the one that they’re really worried about.

As a primary care physician, I feel I have a very privileged role: You’re not part of the family, but you’re not part of the establishment—you’re somewhere between the two. I’m often the first port of call for people hoping to make sense of their experience.

One line from your book that struck me: You write that today’s DSM categories will one day “seem as overconfident as the old phrenology charts.” How literal or hyperbolic do you mean that comparison to be?

Phrenology was debunked about 130 years ago. By the late 19th century, it was already starting to lose its traction because good thinkers were realizing it was a load of rubbish. If I could fast forward to 2176 and ask the doctors of that time what they’ll make of the DSM-5, I don’t think they would see it as phrenology, but they would certainly see it as utterly obsolete and unhelpful to them because it’s a cultural document of the West in the early 2000s. We can’t imagine what Western culture is going to look like in 2176. I’d argue that it’s quite likely that it will be very different from our current culture, that our neuroscience and genetics will have progressed in huge leaps and bounds, and that the organization of our society—while it may not have progressed—will have changed utterly. The DSM-5 will be of purely historical interest. When I was born in the ’70s, they were using the DSM-II, which is now considered very much a historical document—and that’s within my lifetime. I’m hopeful that the DSM-6, if and when it ever appears, is going to be an improvement on the DSM-5.

What inspired the book’s title?

From my chair in the clinic, I don’t see people’s minds as brittle and fragile. I see people as immensely resourceful, resilient, adaptive, and dynamic. People are incredible; they always amaze me with their ability to get over even the most extraordinary difficulties, suffering, and traumas. In my seat, I see the mind as far more unfragile than a lot of the rhetoric in our culture suggests.

The Unfragile Mind: Making Sense of Mental Health
Gavin Francis
Publisher: The Experiment, New York. 2026. 256 pages.

[1] Moncrieff, J., Cooper, R. E., Stockmann, T., Amendola, S., Hengartner, M. P., & Horowitz, M. A. (2023). The serotonin theory of depression: A systematic umbrella review of the evidence. Molecular Psychiatry, 28, 3243–3256. 
https://doi.org/10.1038/s41380-022-01661-0

[2] In the 1970s, Rosenhan and eight pseudo-patients feigned auditory hallucinations to gain admission to a dozen psychiatric hospitals across the U.S. Once inside, Francis writes, they “declared themselves free of the hallucinated noises, but found it very difficult to be believed, and be discharged” (p. 47).

Web image created from book cover by Medhum.

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

Shame is the capacity to suffer under the gaze of the other. The other can be anyone, even oneself; we’re perfectly able to feel wounded by our own perceptions. There’s also a certain pride in shame—as proof of moral rectitude, of earnestness, or of competence. A patient learns that he will eventually go blind; it takes a year for him to confess this news to his family. He feels ashamed, and at the same time, he feels proud to suffer in silence. Shared emotion brings relief to the afflicted, yet it propagates his suffering; and by what right do I pass on my pain to my loved ones?

I think about this on a park bench, with a bottle of pineapple juice on one hand and no intention of calling my family. Not wanting to propagate my suffering is an excuse; if I die, my family’s pain will be far greater.

It’s the loser’s shame, then. If I pass out, I lose. Who am I if I can’t keep my blood sugar under control? You shouldn’t have eaten that bowl of ramen. It’s your responsibility. There’s this dog lying on a patch of grass in front of me, and he’s still yawning, and I desperately want to pet it. I want to tend to a garden. I haven’t been able to get out of the city yet; I’d love to go for a hike, to lose myself on some trail, to be part of a nature-driven epiphany that makes me understand how the world works and calms me down and makes me accepting of my illness, turns me into a placid, kind-eyed monk.

But I’m sitting on this bench and I can’t feel my legs, I’m sweating and panting and I can barely see. How am I supposed to play cool independent adventurer in the woods? I hear there are bears. I picture a bear yawning, and I hoist my two-liter bottle of juice to take another swig.

An illness is also a healing balm, an unguent—especially if it is socially accepted. It serves as fertile ground; it mothers your identity; it bears fruit and takes root. One benefits immensely from one’s illness; indeed, some are so eager to have one that they craft their own. They build slowly, with care. They decorate. They perform. To be ill is to be a victim, and that notion proves delightfully relaxing. Guilt is drawn out of you and replaced by a certain calmness that feels as protective as it feels alienating.

My diabetes is my greatest, most beloved excuse. It never fails. My diabetes removes me from the equation, cancels me out. My diabetes drops me inside a limbo, a liminal space. Why do I call it mine? It punishes and rewards me. It’s my biggest bet against shame; whenever the dreaded feeling bubbles up, I can use my glucose levels to run and hide, to defend myself, to set up a smokescreen.

It’s part of the intricate fabric of my body-mind, perhaps even of my soul. Yet there was a time, nebulous and distant, when I was not diabetic. I barely remember it. Was that truly me back then? Have I been two different people? I’d feel naked without my glucose monitor and my insulin pump. Every shift within my mind, every movement of my body, every lighting up of every neuron affects my illness, and my illness, in turn, influences every cell that thinks and feels. I cannot exist separately from my hypoglycemia.

Even worse so: will I ever be able to exist without shame? Shame precedes even my autoimmunity; shame has always been there. If everything’s interconnected, then I’m forced to admit that shame played a defining role in the development of my illness. It’s also playing a role in my losing consciousness; it gives and takes away.

I drink and stare at the dog. I think I’d like him to be the last thing I see. It’s a good final image. But then… what if I’m exaggerating? Maybe this is nothing and I’m making a complete fool of myself for believing I’m about to drop dead and miss out on all the beauty of life—oh, the tragedy!—and maybe this yawning dog is just a dog and not my last impression of the world and the epitome of tender simplicity.

Those who are ashamed are very good at being victims, but they will also try their best to be caregivers. Helping another wounded soul proves I’m not quite so miserable myself. Service to others is a weapon I can wield; to fight against the meaninglessness of my existence and to show I have a right to be here. My diabetes grants me the people’s pity, and unlocks a new perspective, that of the chronically ill: a vantage point to which the majority have no access. Illness touches us all, just as life does; yet autoimmunity and degenerative ailments, inevitable and relentless, are not, fortunately, a shared experience for our species. This means that there are certain things, certain feelings or ways of coping, that only us, the permanently sick, can understand. Cold comfort, I know. But to carry the bodily wisdom of a chronic ailment, to feel it, deeply and daily, carving and scarring, should also make me capable of great empathy, of great compassion.

It does not. I’d be a wonderful caregiver if I wasn’t wholly corrupted by the urge, the desperate desire to exist solely within the gaze of others. The image in their minds is more powerful than the present moment in which I live, and stronger than the reality I could build for myself. Shame is the guiding factor in all this; it turns real people into members of an audience, and one cannot fail in front of an audience. One cannot show oneself, one needs to win approval. To really care for someone includes, necessarily, that you be vulnerable and open, genuine and honest. If what I want is for others to perceive me as a caregiver, then I’ll never actually become one.

Once again, the problem lies in my inability to step outside myself.

Web image by Riley Revell 

Narrative

Isles

José Luis Marín Aznárez 05.11.26

Illness, emotion, story, and the interconnectedness of it all; a meditation on a park bench, on the verge of death

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

DAVID HSU: Tell me a little bit about this half-marathon business. What’s going on with that?

TONY MIKSANEK: I’ve been running for a number of years, which I truly enjoy, and I’ve done ten full marathons, one ultra marathon, and God knows how many half-marathons. But as I get older, I’m leaning more toward the half-marathon as the longest distance I like running.

DH: So how did this one go? Was it good?

TM: Yeah. This one was in Florida. The weather was beautiful. There were about 20,000 people, and it was at Disney World. So you run through the Cinderella Castle, you’ve got all the characters high-fiving you on the course. It’s great. I think I originally got into running as a sort of release from medical practice, where you can be outside, mindful of your surroundings and your breathing and your foot striking the pavement. Since then, it’s become just short of an obsession. A good one, a good obsession. But I’ve often thought about the similarities between running and medicine. The greatest similarity is that both endeavors require a pair of comfortable shoes because you’re on your feet all day practicing medicine. There’s also a rhythm to running, which is a very individual, personalized thing. And, of course, there’s a rhythm to our practice. The flow of taking care of patients and our style in interacting with them. In running, you have to build up a core. We call it a core of mileage that your body gets acclimated to. In practice I think that core is sort of like developing trust in the physician-patient relationship. You have to work on that. You know that saying, “trust is hard to earn but easy to lose?”

DH: Let’s talk a little bit about medical humanities. You mentioned that running was something that you did to put your head in a different space from your regular work. I assume that medical humanities would also be something that gives you a diversion from your regular work. Is that accurate?

TM: Most of my career was spent as a small town, rural area, solo family practitioner in a former coal mining town with a population of right around 8,000 people. So medical humanities, for me, for most of my life, has always been an individual thing. I read and tried to be involved in whatever peripheral way I could with medical humanities. And I did and still do derive a lot of satisfaction, enjoyment and learning from reading great literature. We can debate what the adjective “great” means when it applies to literature, but I feel there’s so much to gain from literature. When a patient comes into our office, they usually want to tell us a story. Sometimes they’re reluctant, but usually they want to tell us a story. And my belief is that most people, to be healed, need to tell that story. But equally important is they need somebody who is invested in listening to that story, that confirms their importance. and the validity of their illness or what they’re going through. And I think literature is a really great tool to help us learn how to listen intently to patients, more fully understand their stories of life and illness, and to enhance our empathy.

So again, my entry into medical humanities is probably unlike most of the people on our MedHum group. It’s mostly been kind of a solo route for a long time. Currently I’m an associate editor and a book editor for the Journal of Medical Humanities. I don’t know how far back you go with your practice, but once upon a time, the American Family Physician Journal, the AFP, had a regular column called “Diary from a Week in Practice.” And there were four contributors. I was one of them. I guess I was the token rural small-town doctor, because there was somebody from an urban practice and somebody from an academic practice. I forget what the fourth one was. And so we would take turns writing a column that was basically a chronicle of a week of practice like “what were the highlights, what were the lowlights.” I think that was important for me, because at the time, that was probably my version of reflective writing, even though it was produced in a form that would be published. You know, being a doctor is tough, albeit a wonderful, often joyful, profession. Running gave me an opportunity, I think, to kind of put myself in a place where I can sustain joy and the dedication that was required, especially being a small-town doctor where your patients are your neighbors. You run into them at church or the grocery store. The land is the connecting fabric for a small-town doctor. I mean, your kids’ friends are almost always your patients. So it’s a very vivid, organic, dynamic relationship.

DH: How big was your practice? How many patients did you have?

TM: I practiced in our town for a little over 30 years, as a solo family physician, 24/7, unless it was time for vacation or a meeting. And then, you know, I had an agreement with a couple other physicians for coverage if we were gone, but it was a very full practice. The only thing I didn’t do as a family physician was OB.

I loved to make house calls. I used to make them in my Jeep Cherokee. And I’ll never forget the first house call I made. I brought my nurse with me because I was new to town, and I didn’t really know where the address was. And we pulled up in front of this very, very small, weathered house. And I remember as they opened the door to let us in, the floor was dirt. It was a dirt floor. And having been born and raised in Chicago and then later some of the suburbs, I was dumbfounded. That was really my experience — people that were really struggling to make a living. But the dirt floor was, I mean, it sounds like an oxymoron, but it was clean. And the home was well-kept. There were a lot of eye-opening experiences being in a small town.

DH: What’s the name of the town?

TM: Benton. Illinois. Wonderful town. Great people.

DH: How did you stumble across the humanities and arts connection to medicine? Was this something that you were aware of as a student or at some point as you started working you started to realize that novels had something to do with your job? How did you make that connection working solo?

TM: I’ve always been an avid reader, as I think most physicians are. And actually, I got a head start because our medical school, the medical school I attended and where I am now a volunteer faculty in the Department of Medical Humanities, was one of the first medical schools in the country to actually have an independent medical humanities department. So as a student, I was already interested in medical humanities. I guess as a prelude to that, as an undergraduate student at the University of Chicago, we had what they called a core curriculum when that was not a popular thing. Every student, no matter what your major was, had to have competence in basically all the major disciplines. So, if you were going to be a biochemistry major, you still had to take the History of Western Civilization, Art Appreciation, etc.

I’ve always been involved with literature. Once upon a time, JAMA and the New England Journal had book review sections, and I did book reviews for those two journals. The sad thing is, they haven’t had a book review section for a number of years now. There’s no interest, I presume? I don’t know. They just kind of vanished in the night. So, during my early years of clinical practice, I was writing reviews mostly for JAMA. They would send me all kinds of books, some of which were very peripherally connected with medicine. And so I think maybe when they had a book that looked interesting, they would say, “well, we’ll just send it to Tony.” Which was great. But that was in the days even before internet. I remember I would be sitting at my kitchen table with a typewriter typing these reviews to mail to JAMA or New England Journal. And it was kind of wild. But life was so much simpler then, too, on the other hand. Anyway, I would say that medical school, a love of literature, getting involved in book reviewing from early in my career was kind of the springboard for me, into medical humanities.

DH: Can you give us a few medical humanities book titles that we can spotlight for the audience?

TM: One book that I really was impressed by was Do No Harm. There’s an aphorism in medicine, “do no harm.” That’s the title. And it was written by a neurosurgeon in England by the name of Henry Marsh. It’s a beautiful book because like the very best memoirs, he presented his vulnerability as an individual and as a physician, a surgeon, so beautifully. You couldn’t help but be moved by his sincerity. In fact, he had a line, I’m paraphrasing it, but the line was something like, “I am a vessel for my patients to pour their misery into.” And you know, on the one hand you can say, “well, that sounds a little pontificating, a little arrogant,” but on the other hand, it’s like, “isn’t that part of the job description?” So that would be one: Do No Harm. Another by a physician author is Cutting for Stone.

DH: By Abraham Verghese.

TM: He’s out at Stanford and he’s written a lot. The Tennis Player, and others, but Cutting for Stone is one of these lengthy novels that you’re reading and you’re like, “this author’s all in.” He’s not saved any good stuff for another book. It’s just all there. So that’s another one I would recommend to people.

I’m also a very big fan of Richard Selzer because first of all, most are short stories or short essays you can read in a single sitting. I’ve met him a number of times and he admits that he lies, because these are not true stories necessarily, and they may have had their genesis in some kernel of truth. So there is a lot of exaggeration and hyperbole but there’s still something that he’s able to successfully impart to the reader about a doctor’s vulnerability. When I trained, we were told to suppress our emotions and have clinical detachment. You can’t survive if you get too involved with your patients. And of course there is truth to that. It can get to the point where you lose yourself in someone else’s situation and it’s not healthy for you or them. But I think we’re in a renaissance of saying, “Okay, maybe you can’t be too empathetic, but it’s okay to be vulnerable.” We’re not superheroes. I still struggle with that.

I had a lot of older folks in my practice who were huggers. Early on, I was always like taking a step backwards as they were lunging toward hugging me. But then my nurse, in her wisdom, said, “You know, they need to hug you.” That’s how they’re acknowledging your value to them and what you mean to them. I’ve done a lot of thinking about vulnerability and physicians. What is the optimum amount of being vulnerable? In the old days, if we had a very difficult situation, we would just go in our office, close the door, and have a cry. I mean, we would weep. We would never think of demonstrating our sorrow in front of a patient or something. And I think that comes from the training back then. But as you know, there’s no template for being a good physician. And it’s kind of a learning experience for all of us.

DH: It has something to do with how to be a good human being.

TM: Yes, exactly. And I think the whole point of medical humanities, as I alluded to earlier, is about that soul, that spirit of medicine, which is not just about how we practice medicine and interact with other people, but also with being self-aware of who we are, what we can offer, what our strengths and our weaknesses are, and trying to embrace both. Understanding that there are things we don’t do as well as we’d like, things we could do better. But again, it goes to that understanding of our vulnerability and accentuating our strengths and trying to minimize our weaknesses, while understanding that all human beings are some unequal combination of both.

DH: Switching gears a little, as a retired family physician, what’s your view of medicine today? Is it pessimistic? Is it optimistic? Do you think we’re moving in the right direction or are things worse than they were back when you were going through it?

TM: I think medicine is a completely different enterprise now than it used to be. I remember the joy of holding a paper chart and writing my notes with a pen on paper. I think my notes were adequate or good, but they had just the right amount of information that was necessary. There was nothing superfluous when you had to write your own note because you had a certain amount of time that you wanted to get the note done in. And I understand the utility of the electronic health record and its portability. But I think there’s something about looking a person in the eyes, giving them 100% attention, and even though back in the day I used to scribble down some notes so I wouldn’t forget certain things, 90% to 95% was just one-on-one. And then after the visit, I would write the note in the chart, or later I had the ability to dictate a note, which was great. So I think the electronic health record, on balance, has been a detriment to the practice of medicine.

Also, the amount of time you spend with a patient has become very restricted. For example, I was very cognizant of people waiting in the waiting room. Back at my peak, I was seeing 30 to 35 people a day in the office. In addition, I admitted and cared for all my patients requiring hospitalization. The local hospital that we have, 50 beds, still does not have a hospitalist. And so you had to make rounds. You took care of people in the ICU. You saw your patients in the ER. It was a full-service experience for patients and the physician. It was hard. There’s no question. But there was something very gratifying about being able to do all those things right and being a small-town doctor. People just called you at home. We had one rule in the house, and the rule was that as a family — we had three children — we would all have dinner together and that one hour was just for us. What happened with the kids during the day at school and their activities and how work for my wife went. And I just remember laughing and laughing, but we carved out that time. But otherwise, it was all hands on deck all the time. SoI think medicine is different. Whether it’s better or worse, I don’t know.

I really do feel sad that we’ve become such a technological profession. You hear students saying, “Well, what’s the point of trying to listen to a murmur? We’ll just get an echocardiogram.” Back in the day, you relied on your clinical acumen and you formulated your differential diagnosis. And then you thought, “well, what is the most likely diagnosis?” And then you would do testing to support that diagnosis or refute it and move on. And now I feel it’s like people immediately get tested.

We used to have to listen to people. You probably have the same experience. I think all medical students do. You have some wise professor that says 90%, 80%, 85% of the time, the patient will tell you exactly what’s wrong. You just have to listen to them. You may have to nudge them a little bit to give you more information. But now I don’t know that we’re giving people enough time to tell us what is really wrong with them before we kind of take the leap to do these tests. And I think, unfortunately, patients are getting so comfortable with the notion of getting tests that that is all they want. I’ve had patients that say, “Well, can we do a CAT scan? Can we do this or that?” Of course we can do it, but tests come with risks. False positives, incidentalomas, radiation exposure in some cases and so on. So on balance I’m going to say, although it was not Nirvana or Eden back in the day, and we had our own issues and problems, it seemed closer to the aim of healing.

DH: Well said. What would you like to see MedHum do in the coming months and years?

TM: I think what I would like to see is just MedHum continue on its trajectory and grow to become a go-to resource for people interested in medical humanities or just people that are curious about medicine in general. I would like to see the website continue to grow and become a valued resource where people, if they’re interested in the depiction of medicine in the humanities and in the culture of medicine, they can read articles, they can listen to podcasts. There’s a lot of interesting material on the website already. I think as we grow and expand and include more contributors, the possibilities are limitless for what it can become.

DH: That was great. I had a good time. We should do this again.

TM: Me too. We’ll look forward to talking again.

Posts Written by Dr. Tony Miksanek

Book ReviewVideo

Do No Harm: Stories of Life, Death, and Brain Surgery by Henry Marsh 

06.16.26 355

Biblioscopy

Biblioscopy: A Glimpse of New and Upcoming Books 

03.02.26 1363

Book ReviewFocus

The End of Days by Bernard MacLaverty 

11.03.25 646

Book ReviewLitmedVideo

Tell Her Everything by Mirza Waheed

10.20.25 815

Load More

Load More

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

“I am we, we are a year, we year, we are rest, we rest.” 

In winter 2024, Sop had a severe relapse of myalgic encephalomyelitis, also called chronic fatigue syndrome (ME/CFS), leaving them housebound in South East London.

That summer, in the days leading up to a friend’s birthday celebration, the artist rested carefully so they would be able to attend. The night before, they started taking what was touted as a “magic” pill for insomnia. They didn’t sleep at all and had to miss the party. But in a sleep-deprived haze, they wrote, as they described in a recent interview [1], “a solidarity rant, a kind of letter to other disabled people stuck indoors.” 

When Shape Arts, a UK disability arts organization, approached Sop with a commission, they decided to adapt the essay into a script for We Year, a mixed-media love letter to others living with energy-limiting conditions. The short film premieres at RestFest—a film festival and virtual space by and for the disability community—as part of a program co-organized by The Remote Body, Resting Up Collective, and Ort Gallery. 

With a poetic voiceover and ethereal soundscape, We Year immerses viewers in a chronic illness flare during a sweltering summer, blending decades-old archival footage from when Sop was well enough to move outside freely with recent phone footage shot at home. Shifting between past and present and between interior and exterior, the experience is at once isolating and unifying, claustrophobic and liberating. 

We Year also features 16mm direct animation, a technique that involves drawing and scratching moving images directly onto film stock rather than recording with a camera. Here, Sop used ink to overlay the orange stress bars from their Garmin watch across the entire film—a constant representation of their body that acts as a symbolic barrier between them and the audience. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity. 

When did you begin to think of yourself as an artist? 

I always wanted to be an artist. Even as a kid, when I was asked, “What do you want to be?”, I was like, “An artist!” I honestly have never thought about doing anything else. I grew up in the deep countryside, and there wasn’t much access to contemporary culture, although I was obsessed with music and music magazines. There was this teen music magazine called Smash Hits that I loved, and I made collages and scrapbooks of pop stars. When I was 13, I went to a big retrospective of the massive British artist David Hockney, who just died, and it was the first time that I’d seen contemporary art. It blew my mind, and that’s the first time I remember thinking, “Oh, this is something serious that I want to do.” 

What questions or themes does your art usually explore? 

I find it hard to make work that isn’t about my life and the things that I’m dealing with. What I do always ends up being ultra-personal. That’s not something that a lot of people do, necessarily. The act of living as a chronically ill person means that you have to live in the world in a very different way from people who are not chronically ill. Chronic illness is a fertile area for ideas. You’re living the life and thinking about the life at the same time. If you’re an artist or someone who thinks about things in conceptual ways, you can’t help but try and interpret your life into art-making, projects, or ideas. Everything’s interesting. It’s like living life wonky.

As a chronically ill person,  I can’t do a 9 to 5. I can’t necessarily keep to plans, and I can’t always do basic things, like sometimes even look after myself in a normal  way. The agency that I have is to interrogate what this life means and the challenges that it poses and what is interesting about that. What can I say that’s beyond how I would perhaps describe being sick to a stranger? Like, what’s within that? All of the work that I make—even if it looks not about that—is going to be about that.   

And then the other part of it is that I grew up in the field and was a tomboy covered in mud. My understanding of the world was through nature, and now I’m in a flat without a garden. I can see some trees in the park just over there, but quite often, I’m not well enough to go and hang out in the park. I am pretty obsessed with nature and the fact that I can’t get to it. I can’t really have that life currently.  

In your bio, you describe yourself as “a torn and crooked leaf, a root embedded in the dirt, a shoot reaching to the sky.” Would you please elaborate on what this means? 

When I wrote that bio, I was making work about my body being the same as the microbiome in the soil. “A torn and crooked leaf” is being chronically ill. “A root embedded in the dirt” is really what it sounds like, within the context of that specific work. And the “shoot reaching to the sky”—my work deals with pretty hefty emotions, but there’s always hope. My life is not a miserable life; it is hopeful, and I do believe there’s something so crucial in being chronically ill that you absolutely have to keep hope alive. It takes a lot of work to do that and to get there. It’s not easy, but it’s super important. If you have this restricted life, you absolutely have to shoot for the sky. Because time just goes on.  

What does working in crip time [2] look like for you? What are your long-term goals as an artist? 

If you’re truly working in crip time, it’s fairly impossible to have long-term goals. You haven’t really got a choice when you work. You can do your very best to carve out time or space. Currently, I have about a couple of hours in the early morning when I can manage to do something. My afternoons and evenings—I simply can’t make work then. If you have such a limited time to make work, the amount of work you make is going to be low. It will have to meet your capacity, and that doesn’t fit well with current art market production timelines or expectations. Sometimes, you can’t make something for a year because the thing that you should be working on—and the thing that is your work—is your health. That’s your full-time job.  

I deeply believe that making in crip time actually is truthful to the world. We would probably all be better off if we did. Really, it means making work to your capacity, and that can mean a lot of things. You don’t need to be ill to make to your capacity. 

It’s a more authentic timeline of meeting yourself where you’re at, rather than forcing yourself to meet arbitrary or toxic timelines. 

You haven’t chosen to have chronic illness—you’re forced into doing that. And I don’t think that’s a bad thing necessarily. Asking what would I like to do for my long-term goals—I find it very hard to answer because, first of all, I live, like, day to day and, second, when I think about what my long-term goals would be, it’s from the perspective of someone without a disability because I currently cannot see how I would be able to do more than what I’m doing unless I had an enormous amount of more support. 

How did you decide which media to work with for this project? 

Films and writing have always been the two mediums I mostly turn to, and actually they’re the most accessible things for me to do now, being housebound. When I was asked to make the film, I just didn’t have it at all in my means to film new work or leave the house, so I had to kind of figure out how to make a new work out of what I had, which was this personal essay I wrote about being stuck inside in the summer. I made the film throughout another summer of being stuck inside. A lot of chronically ill people turn their camera or phone or whatever onto their surroundings, so I had bits and bobs that I filmed. When I started making films, I would just film tons of different stuff. I had my little Hi8 video camera around the whole time, so I had lots of little clips that I hadn’t used, and I didn’t actually think that I was ever going to use them for anything. But that obviously wasn’t enough, and I didn’t really want to make a film which was just a film inside my house—there’s plenty of films like that. I had a whole bunch of old footage from the 90s. I digitized all of these tapes a few years ago, and they looked so great. A lot of that stuff was filmed out of the house, and then there were funny effects that I filmed which made it into the films. There’s a lot of blobs of color, which are actually motorway lights and ended up being this really nice kind of texture, which floated over and broke up some of the images.  

Hi8 and MiniDVs are the two cameras I was using in the past, so I have footage from both of those. And then there was 16mm direct animation. Each section of the film has a different animation running over it, but the animation is quite transparent, so it’s always there. It’s textural and has multiple meanings. And then I commissioned my friend to make the soundtrack. 

Would you elaborate on the meaning of the title of the film? 

The thing that’s turned me on most about this film is the fact that I can try and get “to year” and “yearing” adopted as a new way of describing spending all this time being sick. I think the word “year” is long enough for people to imagine, “Whoa, you are sick for a whole year. That’s a really long, unbearable time.” But then you make it into “yearing,” and then it could be even less than a year, but it’s probably closer to a year or multiple years. Then I was interested in what would happen if the years were then broken up with periods of being well, with relapses included as well.  

I find it really tiresome to have to explain the last five years of my life. So to not have to say, “Well, I was sick for a couple of years, housebound and bedbound, and then I got well again, and then I had a relapse”—it’s just like, “I was yearing.” I would love for it to become part of the lexicon of chronic illness.  

What does it mean to have “We Year” screened at RestFest? 

There’s this informal network of crip friends who work with each other. Not everyone works together, but we all know each other and there’s really close friendships within this group. They’re all small, crip-led organizations that have been made pretty much for the same purpose, which is remote events, screenings, and workshops. I was just really keen to connect and uplift all of these organizations. We created this program together, and I’m really proud of it. It’s been a lot of work, but it’s really nice making things with your friends. The access intimacy side of it all is real. Creating or programming with your friends is a very accessible way of making because we all understand each other and our capacities. I’ve said capacities a million times. 

You need to coin a new term for that as well. 

Okay, I’ll get on that for next time. 

We Year, through July 12 (if you start watching on June 28); RestFest Film Festival. “I am we, we are a year, we year, we are rest, we rest.” 

[1] “Interview with artist-filmmaker Sop + a Special Screening of their New Film.” RestFest, 2026,
https://restfest.substack.com/p/interview-with-artist-filmmaker-sop. 
[2] In her 2013 book Feminist, Queer, Crip, disability scholar Alison Kafer writes, “Rather than bend disabled bodies and minds to meet the clock, crip time bends the clock to meet disabled bodies and minds.” 

The trajectories of tuberculosis (TB) and opera met in the mid-nineteenth century most notably with the production of La Traviata in 1853, and then La Bohème near the century’s end. With eminent scholars Linda and Michael Hutcheon, we talk about how these trajectories converged and how these resulting two operas then brought attention to the medical effects of the infection and the sociocultural influences on its spread. We also discuss how the discovery of germ therapy during the time between the staging of these operas affected the way social behaviors changed accordingly, that is, from understanding TB as hereditary to understanding it as infectious. We play audio clips from parts of the operas pertinent to perspectives provided. 

A big thanks to Drs Linda and Michael Hutcheon who in addition to providing their expertise and perspectives during the podcast, also contributed ideas for the production. 

Links
– The combined bio for Linda and Michael Hutcheon.
– The New York Metropolitan Opera on-demand video service where you can get access to high-quality video productions of La Traviata and La Bohème among many other operas and performances. (There could be a 7-day free trial available).
– Homer Simpson performing as Rudolpho in La Bohème singing Oh Dio! Mimi!
– We covered the effects of TB as an aesthetic ideal of beauty during the nineteenth century as represented in paintings earlier in episode 5.

Audio Credits
La Traviata
Preludio (National Philharmonic Orchestra; Richard Bonynge cond London Records 1979)
Prendi, Quest’È L’Immagine (Orchestra of the Opera House, Rome; Tullio Serafin cond; Victoria de los Angeles (Violetta); EMI Records Ltd 1960; digitally remastered 1992)

La Bohème
O Soave Fanciulla (Berlin Philharmonic; Herbert von Karajan cond; Mirella Freni (Mimi); Luciano Pavarotti (Rudolfo); Rolando Panerai (Marcello); London Records 1972)
Si. Mi Chiamono Mimi (ibid)
Mimi È Una Civetta (ibid)
Mimi È Tanto Malata! (ibid)

La Bohème photo from wikicommons

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.