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

Biblioscopy

Summer 2026 Biblioscopy 

08.03.26 431

Book ReviewVideo

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

06.16.26 541

Biblioscopy

Biblioscopy: A Glimpse of New and Upcoming Books 

03.02.26 1515

Book ReviewFocus

The End of Days by Bernard MacLaverty 

11.03.25 785

Load More

Load More

“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.” 

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.

DAVID HSU: What do you think is the importance of medical humanities to you at this point? 

JACKIE DUFFIN: I think it is a very satisfying way of filling in the gaps that are generated by traditional medical training and medical experience. It invites reflection, and it invites growth, and it especially encourages criticism. And those things were certainly not there in my training. Therefore, it is comforting and inspiring, both of those things for me.  

When you say it that way, there’s a certain subversive quality to medical humanities. Am I catching your answer right?  

Yes, I guess that is exactly right. Subversiveness goes with the territory of what we do as historians as well. Everyone thinks that history is about the past, but the questions that we ask of the past are generated by the present and also the inherited wisdom that we have. And there has to be curiosity and a willingness to admit that the trajectory might not have been as straightforward as is sometimes pretended.  

How do you respond to the saying that basically history is written by the victors? 

That statement is also a reminder that what might be out there as the master narrative isn’t exactly the truth or isn’t exactly the whole story. And the losers will have their own story. And sometimes that’s worth exploring. Of course, my view of medical humanities is very much affected by the fact that I am a historian. And more than any other aspect of medical humanities … that’s what interests me the most. In fact, I don’t mind admitting that the medical humanities boom that we’ve witnessed in the last decade and a half or so has been a wonderful vehicle for enhancing the presence of history in medical schools​,​ and our visibility. I’m happy to hitch my wagon to it, but I don’t claim any expertise in all the other disciplines that participate.  

One of the things I think is useful for history with respect to ​present and ​future doctors is how history is a mirror image of the clinical process and the scientific process. And that’s something that I raise​d​ with my students all the time when I was teaching, that you begin with a question. As medical practitioners, you ​also ​have a question​;​ ​i​t is the chief complaint of the patient. What is wrong with me? Why do I feel this way? And as a doctor, you consult the patient, you explore the history, you do the physical examination, and then you touch base with the clinical wisdom that’s available to you through ​the medical ​literature. And you come up with a diagnosis, which ​​determines the direction of action. As a historian, you have the question​:​ where did this come from? Or why do we do this? Or what happened then? And with your question, you interrogate the past, looking at all of what has already been published, which is the equivalent of the medical literature, but also looking at things that have been ignored, like the stories of the losers, for example. And you come up with an interpretation. And that is a direct parallel with the ​process of ​diagnosis. You can push this even further to make an analogy with a scientific experiment where you have the hypothesis, the method, et cetera, and you come up with a conclusion. I think that demonstrating history as a discipline to healthcare professionals opens up their imaginations to seeing the practice of what they do is something that’s malleable, that’s anchored in time, that’s affected by culture and society. So, my role in the medical school was to do that. It was a privileged position. But I had no idea how successful I ever was. I have a sneaky suspicion that a lot of my faculty colleagues and maybe a large number of the students just thought I was there for comic relief and entertaining stories to be told in the meantime. That’s okay. I accept that if that gave me permission to weasel my way into the curriculum or introduce new ideas. 

Tell me a little bit about this medical humanities boom over the last 15 years. What’s going on?  

As you know, medical schools are evaluated. They’re accredited by committees. And things come along that are the flavor of the month. ​P​rior to the medical humanities boom, there was an ethics boom. Many medical schools didn’t have ethics, but they looked around and they thought, oh, we better get ethics because everyone has ethics. If they got ethics, it made them look ethical. That happened in the 90s. I saw that as a real problem for people teaching history of medicine. I got along great with our ethicist at Queen’s. It wasn’t her fault, but she was my biggest enemy. Because if the school had to devote some time to what they called ​“​soft science,​”​ they would rather have the ethicist than the historian because the ethicist got them brownie points on the accreditation. ​​ 

​​T​here was a time when the American Association for the History of Medicine was meeting in Chicago in May 2014. And we happened to be meeting at the same time as the Academy for Professionalism in Healthcare. So the brass of the American Association asked to have a meeting with their leaders to find out how they managed to convince all the medical schools they needed ethics and in particular succeeded in having questions about ethics education in the exit surveys. They did not really understand our problem. I think ethics had the media going for it and the power of a number of ​high-profile​ malpractice cases that had come along. ​It​ became obvious that patients wanted to make sure their doctors were legal and ethical, and ​t​he schools wanted to give the students tools to address these concepts. It became almost urgent. 

In fact, I did some Medline searches on this at the time. The number of articles addressing history of medicine basically tanked. And the number of articles addressing medical ethics soared. There was always an interest in medical ethics. It goes way back. Hippocrates even talks about this. And then there was codification in the 18th century. But what ​arose ​in the late 20th century was this concern that it should be transferred to the students as some kind of rubric that would help them in their future to ​educate them and help them ​behave ​ethically. ​And then that sort of plateaued and along came medical humanities. 

Accreditation saw ​​this as very good for student life. They saw it as very good for student education. If you could enhance the possibility of getting a positive accreditation of your medical school, then you would acknowledge that you should have something called medical humanities. But under that umbrella, there could be just about anything. And that’s the problem with it as a discipline. It doesn’t really have a single method. It embraces so many other sorts of​ fields​. That’s the beauty of it, but it’s also the confusion of it when it tries to make its way in a curriculum that is as rigid as a medical school structure. 

In Canada we now have a society for ​Medical Humanities, the Canadian Association for Health Humanities​. I’ve attended some of the meetings but the disappointing thing about it from my perspective is there’s almost never anything about history. 

I’m curious. If history is not emphasized as part of medical humanities what is? 

Presumably it’s ethics again and reactions to technology. I think ethics underpins a lot of it​,​ but medical ethics is a very distinct discipline​,​ as is history. We’re not the same thing. We respect each other but we’re very different. So medical humanities usually include, at the Canadian meetings at least, a lot of literature, of readings, both fiction and nonfiction. It includes the arts, music, poetry, visual imagery, trauma, drama, dance, etc. And often the papers in the meetings that I’ve attended are​ almost all​ about individual case studies​: ​e.g, “We tried this at our medical school​;​ and then we did an after​-​survey about whether it worked or not. Of course, our students loved it because it was fascinating​,​ and it wasn’t memorizing the elements in the periodic table. It was something that took them out of themselves.” Often medical students have other hobbies before they get to medical school, which are sadly neglected because there’s no time for anything else. And these activities provide an outlet for them to recover their previous selves and their identity.  

I think another agenda of ​Medical Humanities ​is to raise awareness of the differences between peoples — the difference between your patients, for example, and yourself, and to be prepared to tolerate it. So that’s a subliminal message of many of these things, causing you to see the world and other people in a different and more tolerant way. That’s basically what goes on in the medical humanities conferences. People get very excited about these opportunities, a drama presentation, a collect​ive​ reading, something that they might have done together, or artwork that medical students do based on their clinical learning and then having a show about it. That kind of thing gets reported. And then … it sort of sinks into an oblivion until the next meeting comes ​​​​along.  

So it sounds like the way you’re describing it, there’s a little bit of the study of history of medicine versus medical humanities. The two are not fully in sync in your mind.  

No, they’re not fully in sync in my mind, but I accept and welcome history being seen as part of ​ ​medical humanities. I think it’s an opportunity for us as historians to maintain our place and our credibility in medical schools.  

The presence of history in medical education has gone up and down over the centuries. There have been full-fledged chairs in History of Medicine. In a distant past, they went away​ and​ they came back. What is expected of it has probably also changed through time. But now, since it seems medical humanities is an easier way​ ​to open the door to medical schools, history can be part of it. I don’t know. It would be really interesting to find out if ethicists feel the same way as I do about it. I find that some medical humanities programs are peopled by or run by doctors who are so well-intentioned​–​ very, very well-intentioned​–​ but they really don’t have any expertise in anything but medicine. The best of them, obviously, are experienced clinicians who’ve had a lot of encounters and are thoughtful and reflective about those encounters. But there’s no method. It’s not a single discipline. It’s a quilt with a whole bunch of different patches in it.  

What do you think about medical humanities and maybe more specifically the history of medicine as a vehicle for the broader mass of people out there?  

I’ve written ​11 ​books and the most recent one to get published is this one. [She holds up a copy of ​Covid-19: A History​]. What I was doing was getting it down for everyone. It’s a history for everyone. It’s not aimed at medical students or doctors or anybody in particular. It’s aimed at Canadians basically, but it talks about the whole pandemic from a global perspective. What I want to do is remind people of the personal stories that go with the pandemic, about the dilemmas of decision-making and policy choices, about the scientific endeavors that are so easy to mock or make fun of. And ​clearly,​ I’m revealing my colors. I believe in vaccines. I believed in the public health measures. I point out in this book about the value of quarantine. When you don’t know what the pathogen is and you haven’t got a clue what the incubation time is because it’s a previously unknown pathogen, quarantine is not a stupid thing to do​,​ because you are waiting to find out how dangerous it ​might ​be and put some parameters around it. I think​–​ and again, I’m speaking only from a history perspective, not medical humanities in general​–​ I think it was important to unpack what was behind those decisions that many people got so angry about. And yet they were lifesaving decisions in many cases. Sometimes perhaps it was over the top, but it was because we didn’t know what we were confronting. 

During that book writing, I served as a volunteer contact tracer at the Kingston ​[Ontario] ​Public Health Unit. I had to phone up citizens all over our area and get them to quarantine because they’d been in contact with someone who had COVID. That was very eye-opening for me because I realized at what level you had to pitch why it was a good thing to do. And at the outset, when we didn’t know what the parameters were, we were telling people who’d been exposed to COVID to stay home for 14 days. Kingston was the only health unit to use volunteer contact tracers, but we worked really hard and Kingston had the best ​​outcomes of COVID cases in the country for a brief time. It didn’t last forever, but it was like a flagrant, on-the-spot demonstration of something that has been known for years, since at least 14^th-century plague.  

What do you make of that now that we’re in 2025 and people are so over this stuff now​,​ that​ ​there’s this feeling I get that people are saying we will never go into quarantine again? 

That’s why I wrote the book. Actually, I was invited to write it, and I had to think about whether I wanted to or not. One of the reasons I decided to write about it was that my thesis advisor, Mirko Grmek, wrote a history of AIDS right at the beginning of the pandemic. And I thought, well, I can’t write a history of COVID because it isn’t over and it may never be over. We may always have COVID. And then I remembered that Grmek had written that history of AIDS at the beginning of the AIDS epidemic. He set down where it came from. He studied the historical possibilities. He had the science too. I realized he was at the end of his life, and I’m at the end of my life. And I thought, OK, maybe this is what I need to do​,​ to accept the task of writing it as it is, right now. Now ​I’m very depressed​ by these negative attitudes. But I do hope that when the next pandemic comes-​-​and there will be another pandemic​,​ with a new pathogen that we haven’t seen before​,​ and there will be conspiracy theories about where it came from​–​ I hope that the public health agencies will remember that quarantine from 14^th-century plague worked really well​,​ and that’s what we need to do again if we don’t want to overwhelm our finite resources in hospitals and health care units to look after people. The more you implement those measures, the fewer people die. It makes a huge difference​,​ and you can actually see it. So the story is there. Whether or not it will be believed, whether or not the argument can convince the naysayers, I have no idea. All I did was set it down and hope.  

You have a historian hat, which is the critical, sometimes subversive side and then you also have the medical doctor establishment side, the scientific side. It gives you a unique lens to look at the COVID pandemic and the consequences that came afterwards.  

It’s been the story of my life. I worked in cancer care at the end of my career at Queen’s and patients would tell me really interesting things​.​ I loved talking to them and hearing what they thought about what was going on. And some of them held what I would think of as wacky ideas or they’d utter doctor​-​blaming ideas. Then the doctor in me would feel very defensive about their accusations of the mistakes or the neglect of my colleagues, even colleagues I’d never met. But when it comes to the history of medicine, I feel terribly responsible for the bad things that doctors may have done, even if it was not deliberate, but out of ignorance, because they didn’t know what was going to be discovered next​;​ or ​due to ​misplaced enthusiasm for something that turned out not to be as great as everybody thought it would be. And I’ve seen that with respect to certain drugs in my career. I’m old enough to remember thalidomide babies​;​ I was a child when that happened. But the impact of it was enormous​: ​what pills could do to us and how they might harm us. There’s a new biography out that I ​reviewed for ​Medhum of Francis Kelsey, the Canadian​-​born American health official who spared the United States from the damages of thalidomide. An amazing and courageous decision because there was great pressure on her to approve the drug and she didn’t. So we had the tragedy in Canada and they didn’t in the United States​,​ which was fascinating for me to learn at this stage of my life, because I remember being so horrified and ​thinking, ​how could doctors let us down? 

There are also other procedures that were once considered important to do that we have done away with, not because they shouldn’t ever have been used, but because something so much better came along. The most striking example of that that I remember are pneumoencephalograms. Pre-CT scans, if you thought there might be a space​-​occupying lesion in the brain, you put the patient under a sort of an anesthetic. You took out a modicum of CSF and injected the same volume of air. And then you strapped them to a chair and you ​​rotated them around, taking x-rays while the bubble of air moved all around the brain to see if there was a space​-​occupying lesion. It was brutal, painful, but it was the only way to find out if there was a space​-​occupying lesion in there. And of course, you could tell only if it was bulging on the surface of the brain. It took days for patients to recover with headache and vomiting. Every medical student in my class of​ ​1974 was required to go and witness one of these so that we would not order it frivolously. And in that same year, CAT scans were introduced and nobody would ever do a pneumoencephalogram again. Ever, ever, ever. But does that mean that all the doctors who were involved in ordering pneumoencephalograms or taking the x-rays were evildoers? I don’t think so. They were trying to help. They were trying to make a diagnosis. But it was excruciating.  

If you could fix medical education and its relationship to history, what would you want done?  

I’ve written about this for a long time. I was so lucky at Queen’s; I really was. They let me get away with a lot. From my hire in 1988 until I retired, I thought the best way to bring history into medical education was to infiltrate it. The historian has to be very tolerant and very flexible. But what you do is you introduce the history of whatever it is they’re studying at any given time. History of anatomy in anatomy if they’re doing the anatomy course. History of physiology in physiology. History of pathology (essentially is the history of disease) in pathology. The timing really is everything because it’s synergistic with what they’re learning at the same time.  

With that method, you are preceded by a guy in a white coat, and you’re followed by a guy in a white coat. It gives you credibility vicariously by the people who are around you. But it makes it seem relevant in a way that otherwise it ​wouldn’t be​. If you make ​it ​an optional, elective course, the students automatically know that it’s not important. So, I refused to teach electives when I got hired at Queens, which meant that I had to meet every department head to beg for time to do a history session. There were 25 departments at the time, and only three said yes. They were​–​ anatomy, pathology, and obstetrics; I’m forever grateful.  

Early on, faculty members of those departments would come to my inaugural class on the history of their discipline. I think they were slightly checking out how “nice” I would be to their field: the history of obstetrics, for example. But they approved the approach. The most willing departments were those units in the medical school with a lot of curriculum hours​,​ ​s​o they were able to feel generous. ​“​We will give her an hour.​”​ 

But one department head said to me, “I can’t do that. History, I love history. You’d be invited to give an ​after-dinner​ speech at our annual meeting. That would be really good. But we only have 80 hours in the curriculum. And if I gave you one of those hours, they might miss something important and kill somebody.”  

I said, “Oh, thank you​,​” ​a​nd I ​went​ back to my office feeling rejected. Only later did I think of the right reply, “If you don’t give me one of your 80 hours to make them skeptical about everything else you’re going to teach them in the other 79 hours, then they really might kill somebody.” That was the answer I should have said.  

It’s about the time constraint; you can’t offer an entire course. Medical students are not going to be historians. They’re going to be doctors. So what you want to do is sensitize them to the fact that what they see as knowledge now is something that has evolved through time, through human endeavor, something that is destined to change in the future. So history is a reminder of life-long learning. And if you time it right, then it is relevant and interesting. Not all students are going to like it, but they don’t all like pharmacology either. 

And the other thing that the medical school let me do, bless their hearts, is to grant my wish for one question on every exam.  

I remember this actually.  

It was a question of credibility; a way of forcing the medical school to commit to the idea that history was important.  

All right. To wrap up, we’ll get back to Medhum. what would you like to see us do in the months and years to come? 

I’m really a special interest voter on this because I was for 25 years involved with the Literature Arts and Medicine Database. And I contributed hundreds of annotations to that database​. ​I hope MedHum is a place where people who want to use literature–mostly literature is what I think of, but there​ are ​other things there, ​for example ​film​ reviews​–in a way that will deepen their understanding of a situation, or for enhancing education, or for whatever purpose, because that’s how the database was used, that it will be there, accessible to people who want those things.  

​​​​So for me, I get to go there when I feel like it. I get to browse. I get to pick around. I already knew some of the people and from our meetings, I’ve gotten to know new ones. I think you, people of your vintage​,​ should be deciding its purpose, in terms of determining the direction and the flavor of this entity, which hopefully will have a big reach and get to the people who need to see i​​t​. You​ ​​have a better sense. You’re closer to the users. I’m not trying to be gloomy about it. I just know that it’s entirely possible that it needs to go someplace that I can’t even imagine. 

Dr. Jacalyn Duffin was the Hannah Chair of the History of Medicine at Queen’s University from 1988 to 2017. She was also a practising hematologist. In 2020, she was awarded the Order of Canada. 

More importantly, she’s one of my favorite people in the world. Medical school wouldn’t have been the same without her gentle encouragement and unending enthusiasm. Dr. Duffin, thanks for everything. 

Web image by Medhum.org

Posts Written by Dr. Jacalyn Duffin

Book ReviewLitmed

The Conjure-Man Dies: A Mystery Tale of Dark Harlem by Rudolph Fisher  

04.22.26 491

Book ReviewVideo

A Civil Action by Jonathan Harr 

04.21.26 683

Book ReviewFocusVideo

Everything is Tuberculosis: The History and Persistence of Our Deadliest Infection by John Green

04.13.26 705

FocusReflection

Craftivism is Activism

03.23.26 678

Load More

Load More

At age 18, Frida Kahlo suffered a catastrophic accident that had lifelong consequences. The school bus in which she was a passenger collided with a trolley. Her spinal column was broken in three places, as were her collarbone, two ribs, her right leg and foot. The treatment was to lie on her back for one month, enclosed in a plaster cast. In addition, Kahlo had polio as a child, and one leg was shorter and thinner than the other.

This stunning portrait demands the viewer’s attention. A woman, Frida Kahlo, looms in the foreground, central to the painting, facing the viewer fully frontal, a few tears spilling down her face. She is nude, except for a sheet that is wrapped around her foreshortened lower body, and the widely spaced straps of an upper-body corset. On the one hand, the figure is passive, gazing at us almost without expression, completely still, acceptant of the scattered nails and rigid column that penetrate her body. On the other hand, the beauty of her perfectly formed breasts and well-formed upper body, the eyes that engage the viewer, subtly convey the energy of the figure’s spirit and will. At this point in Kahlo’s life, the painful physical problems that had plagued her on and off for years were becoming unrelenting. Doctors prescribed a variety of orthopedic corsets to support her degenerating spine. The portrait seems to personify pain and simultaneously some level of tolerance for pain.

Many who view the painting are reminded of images of Christ on the cross. Kahlo was certainly long-suffering and represented the physical and emotional aspects of her condition in many of her works (for example, “Tree of Hope” and “Henry Ford Hospital“), but the energy and originality of her personality and artistic vision shine through. For interesting commentary on “The Broken Column,” see Hayden Herrera. Frida Kahlo: The Paintings (New York: Harper Perennial) 2002, pp. 180-183. Also useful is Gannit Ankori’s commentary in her book, Imaging Her Selves: Frida Kahlo’s Poetics of Identity and Fragmentation (Westport, Connecticut and London: Greenwood Press, 2002, pp. 114-119). Ankori points out that the vertical fissure of Kahlo’s body and the fissures in the earth surrounding her evoke violation — consistent with Kahlo’s statement that a metal rod had entered her hip and penetrated her vagina.

Web image from Wiki Commons

Esther, daughter of a native healer who has some familiarity with and respect for Western medicine, envies and longs for Antonia’s Western training and attaches herself to her as a disciple. In her encounters with patients, Esther finds that she has an inexplicable gift for healing which baffles her as well as Antonia and complicates their already tenuous relationship. Esther’s gift forces Antonia to reexamine some of her most basic assumptions about what constitutes healing. 

The novel raises complex questions about the cultural, religious, and institutional contexts of medicine in a delicately drawn portrayal of relationships among characters whose divergent frames of reference complicate trust and understanding. One of the questions the novel addresses is not only how to heal the body, but how to heal the breach between cultures. In the development of the friendship between the American doctor and the African healer these questions are worked out in concrete particulars that fully honor both the pain and the hope involved in authentic cross-cultural dialogue. 

Antonia Saw the Oryx First
Maria Thomas 
Soho Press, New York 2007: 296 pages 

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

Additional Posts from LitMed Archive

How To Be Depressed by George Scialabba

Guy Glass 09.15.25 1292

Musee des Beaux Arts by W. H. Auden

Felice Aull 08.26.25 1778

Mandatory Evacuation Zone by Felice Aull

Cortney Davis 12.01.25 682

A Doctor’s Visit  by Anton Chekhov 

Jack Coulehan 03.11.25 1752

Interior by Edgar Dégas  

Felice Aull 10.09.25 974

The Collected Schizophrenias by Esmé Weijun Wang 

Guy Glass 09.15.25 1568

Many modern physicians minimize, or are unaware of, a second source of historical medical success: the power of language and ritual to facilitate physical and psychological healing. Assisted by his priests, Aesculapius, the Greek god of medicine, healed the sick through poetry, narrative, and ritual. Even Hippocrates, the father of naturalistic Western medicine, paid tribute to Aesculapius in his famous Oath, and emphasized in many of his case histories the importance of interpersonal and contextual factors in patient care. While the healing power of language and context was rarely explicit in the subsequent history of Western medicine, it finally emerged into consciousness during the last two hundred years, when it was given the name placebo effect. Initially considered a minor aberration in suggestible people, more recently this component of healing has been recognized as an almost universal human facility (or reaction) of varying and sometimes amazing power.  

In this essay I present a case study of a traditional healing ceremony in which the therapy consists entirely of language, especially poetry, and the ritual context in which the language is spoken and chanted. I argue that this is a very powerful example of contextual healing. I then examine our contemporary understanding of the placebo effect, which is also a form of contextual healing, albeit ordinarily much less striking and more “dilute” than the Navajo example. Finally, I comment briefly on some features of healing miracles in the Catholic Church, arguing that these, too, are powerful instances of contextual healing that suggest at their upper limit, so to speak, such mechanisms may actually be able to reverse disease processes, like cancer or neurological impairment. Of course, this outcome is rare, unpredictable, and not at all understood.  

Sarah Mailcarrier and the Night Way 

Dark cloud is at the door. 
The trail out of it is dark cloud. 
The zigzag lightning stands high upon it. 
An offering I make. 
Restore my feet for me. 
Restore my legs for me. 
Restore my body for me. 
Restore my mind for me. 
Restore my voice for me. 
This very day take out your spell for me.  

Happily, I recover. 
Happily my interior becomes cool. 
Happily I go forth. 
My interior feeling cool, may I walk. 
No longer sore, may I walk. 
Impervious to pain, may I walk. 
With lively feelings may I walk. 
As it used to be long ago, may I walk.¹ 

These lines constitute a small segment from one of the poems chanted during the Night Way, a nine-day Navajo healing ceremony. In the early 1970s, Sarah Mailcarrier was the matriarch of an extended family whose camp was at Cornfields in Beautiful Valley near Klagetoh Mesa. A healthy woman well into her 60s, she developed severe lower abdominal pain, vaginal bleeding, poor appetite, and swelling of her legs over a period of two to three months. Her family took her to Fort Defiance Indian Hospital, some 50 miles from home, where she was discovered to be suffering from cancer of the cervix, which had spread widely, blocking lymphatic ducts in her legs and partially obstructing her kidneys. The recommended treatment was palliative radiation at Gallup Indian Medical Center, a larger hospital in Gallup, New Mexico, another 30 miles distant from Cornfields. Sarah and her family declined this option and, instead, consulted a hand trembler, who diagnosed her problem and recommended a Night Way Sing or healing ceremony. The family hired a ha’a’tali or traditional healer who, along with his assistants, conducted the ceremony over nine days and nights at her camp in Cornfields.² 

According to Navajo diagnostic taxonomy, Sarah had fallen out of harmony with the cosmic narrative that defines the proper relationships among the Earth Surface People, the Holy People, and the natural world. This likely was the result of certain traumatic exposures and events in her life. Healing would require restoration of harmony through the chants, rituals, images, and stories that the Holy People had given to the Navajo for just this purpose. The ceremony was successful. Sarah’s symptoms were relieved, her energy restored, her anxiety disappeared, and she continued to function in her role as matriarch for several months until she drifted into a long sleep and died. 

To explore the nature of Sarah’s healing, I have to explain a little more about Navajo medical beliefs. In traditional Navajo thought, all illness represents disharmony, in essence a snag or gap in the interconnectedness that characterizes the dineh (people), the harmonious Navajo Way. While there are many causes of disharmony (e.g. witchcraft, demon possession, soul loss, taboo violation, and traumatic exposure, as with Sarah Mailcarrier), the goal of treatment is always the same—to restore proper harmony at all levels, from within the patient’s own heart, to his or her relationship to the cosmos.  

The ceremonies, which can last up to nine days, require the patient and family to hire an ha’a’tali and his assistants, and to invite friends and clan members to set aside their other responsibilities and participate in songs, dances, prayers, and other rituals appropriate to the ceremony. Sung by the ha’a’tali these are magnificent narrative poems that tell of the creation of the Navajo people, and how all things were originally placed into their proper order. Likewise, in ceremonial dances, men impersonate Yei Be Chai, intermediaries between the Holy People (whom we might call “gods”) and the Earth Surface People (us), and channel their healing power.  

However, the dineh have never rejected Western medicine. Instead, they have integrated Western physicians, clinics, and hospitals into their overall worldview, considering them synergistic with, rather than antagonistic to, traditional ceremonies. The dineh believe that Western health care has simply added a different set of stories and a different network of ceremonies (e.g. clinic visits, x-rays, penicillin shots, arthritis pills) onto their already existing—and far more important—traditional healing practices. The Navajo were quick to observe that bilighani treatments were effective in alleviating outward manifestations, or what we would call symptoms, of disharmony, but they also maintained that such treatments had no influence on the underlying existential disorder. In other words, penicillin shots and arthritis pills are only symptomatic treatments. While bilighani methods could make the fever or rash or cough disappear, at least for a time, the fundamental issue of disharmony would remain. Why me? What does this illness mean in my life? How does this illness reflect my relationship to the cosmos? These questions could only be answered with reference, for example, to the story of Spider Woman, or the Hero Twins, or other narratives of Navajo cosmogony.  

Returning to Sarah Mailcarrier, it appears that by undergoing a Night Way Sing, she experienced a dramatic improvement in her quality of life. From a Western perspective, why might this be the case? First, the lengthy ceremony provided extensive and intense social support, represented by the participation of her extended family and friends, their contributions of time and money³, and overall solidarity. An extensive body of research indicates that high level of social support and prosocial behavior are associated with longer life, less morbidity, less disability, and greater satisfaction. Second, Sings are integral components of religious practice. For a person like Sarah Mailcarrier, religious belief (in the Western sense of the term) and cultural practices were inextricable. Once again, considerable research indicates that frequency and intensity of religious practice is associated with the same positive outcomes. Third, the ritual chants, vivid poetic images, storytelling, sandpainting, and dancing of the Night Way embody a belief system that generates positive expectations—and restores coherence to the patient’s life.⁴  

These components—social support, core beliefs, and positive expectations—all rely on language and communication. Empathy, the human ability to “intuit” what another person is thinking or feeling⁵, is a more basic neurological property than language, but without language humans could not have created the rich symbolic world in which we live. In the 1980s the psychiatrist Donald Sandler distinguished between Navajo symbolic healing, based on an integrated cultural narrative, including symbol and ritual; and scientific healing, which he believed could be clearly distinguished from the latter and which relies solely on specific instrumental effects of drugs, surgery, and so forth.⁶ Like Sandler, today’s physicians are quite willing to make allowances for the beliefs of patients from other cultures, but at the same time they cling to the belief that scientific medicine transcends culture and our effectiveness as healers is solely, or almost solely, explained by the instrumental effects of drugs and procedures. Thus, there is a widespread belief that scientific medicine is, as a system of curing disease, intrinsically culture-free. Antibiotics kill bacteria whether the patient is a middle-class American or an Amazonian Indian. Culture may enter into the picture for the Indian, e.g. because of his mistaken beliefs about illness, but has no effect on the American, whose beliefs (whatever they are) are medically invisible.  

From Placebo Effect to Contextual Healing 

For over 200 years Western physicians have been explicitly aware of the so-called placebo effect, but for most of that time have considered it a minor and somewhat disreputable factor on the medical scene. The first person to recognize and demonstrate the placebo effect was English physician John Haygarth in 1799, who was curious about the purported benefit a popular medical treatment of his time called “Perkins tractors,” metal pointers supposedly able to ‘draw out’ disease from the patient’s body. They were sold at the extremely high price of five guineas, and Haygarth set out to show that the high cost was unnecessary. He did this by comparing the beneficial results obtained by using dummy wooden tractors with those obtained with a set of allegedly active metal tractors. There was no difference. He published his findings in a book called On the Imagination as a Cause & as a Cure of Disorders of the Body.⁷ Subsequently, the term placebo (“I will please”) was coined to mean, as in this 1811 definition, “an epithet given to any medicine adopted more to please than to benefit the patient.” 

The modern understanding of the power of placebo intervention probably originated with Henry K. Beecher‘s 1955 classic paper, “The Powerful Placebo,” in which he described his experience as a medic during World War II⁸ After running out of pain-killing morphine, in desperation he replaced it with a simple saline solution, while continuing to tell the wounded soldiers that the injection was morphine. He often found that saline appeared to be almost as effective as morphine in relieving his patients’ pain and anxiety. Despite this dramatic demonstration, the orthodoxy surrounding placebo effects for the next several decades came to include three major components:  

• A focus on the specific intervention as its cause, i.e. the pill or the procedure itself “carried” or “transmitted” the placebo effect. 

• Importance of patient vulnerability, i.e. only suggestible persons were placebo-responders. 

• Miscommunication, i.e. the patient must deceived, directly or indirectly, into believing that he or she was receiving an “active” treatment.  

However, research in the last 30 years has completely exploded this orthodoxy and replaced it with a much more complex understanding that sheds light, for example, on the power of traditional medical systems, like the Navajo, that rely on poetry, narrative, and ritual to heal. To quote Franklin Miller and Ted Kaptchuk, two of today’s most prominent investigators in the field: “To promote a more accurate understanding of the elusive and confusing phenomenon known as the placebo effect, we suggest that it should be reconceptualized as contextual healing… Factors that may play a role in contextual healing include the environment of the clinical setting, cognitive and affective communication of clinicians, and the ritual of administering treatment.”⁹ Elsewhere, Kaptchuk added, “Research also suggests that (narrative and) ritual healing not only represents changes in affect, self-awareness, and self-appraisal of behavioral capacities, but involves modulations of symptoms through neurobiological mechanisms.”¹⁰  

Contextual healing, as the term implies, occurs in the context of expectations that arise from a network of beliefs. Moerman and Jonas, highlighting the fact that context can communicate therapeutic meaning to the patient, prefer using the term “meaning response.”¹¹ In some cases these beliefs may be based on past experience, but isolated from, or not intimately connected to, deeply meaningful worldviews (e.g. that penicillin cures a sore throat). In other cases they may closely connected to robust belief systems about the nature and origin of illness and healing (e.g. the Navajo Night Way). The latter are obviously more important than the former. The net valence of one’s beliefs determines the meaning of any medical interaction or treatment and, therefore, one’s expectations of its effect. Language, communication, empathy, narrative, and ritual determine the healing context. The universality of contextual effects on symptom relief has been demonstrated convincingly in neurobiological studies, especially those dealing with pain reduction. For example, on fMRI “placebo” treatment reduces activation of pain-related areas of the brain, e.g. the dorsolateral pre-frontal cortex.^{12, 13}  

Contemporary research on contextual healing has also revealed a number of unexpected features that are inconsistent with the earlier orthodoxy regarding placebo effects. For example, 

• Placebo effectiveness does not require deception; patients may report relief of symptoms even when told they are receiving placebo treatment.¹⁴ 

• There may be a link between genetic variants in the dopamine, opioid, serotonin, and endocannabinoid pathways in the brain and placebo responsiveness.¹⁵ 

• Placebo effects (as well as nocebo, or harmful effects) can exist in routine clinical practice, even if no “intervention” is given.^{16, 17} 

• Placebo response is greater when observed in clinical practice than when measured in randomized clinical trials.^{8, 19}  

This last feature requires some clarification. This is precisely the opposite of specific medication effects, which are almost always more prominent in clinical trials than in routine practice because the populations in trials are highly homogenized (e.g. limited age range, selected to exclude co-morbidities), adhere to highly structured protocols (e.g. frequent follow-up, expert clinicians. methods to insure, or at least measure, compliance) and include only highly motivated subjects. These conditions are ideal for demonstrating the drug’s maximal specific benefit (efficacy), while at the same time somewhat less ideal for showing contextual healing power, since individual variation and personal narrative are minimized. The specify potency of a drug tends to be less in ordinary clinical practice (effectiveness) where there are a mixture of patients with different ages, backgrounds, comorbidities, and levels of compliance. However, the latter less-than-standardized conditions are likely to enhance the power of contextual healing. For example, “It seems likely that the effectiveness of placebo for pain relief in osteoarthritis can be considerably larger than its efficacy. The artificial conditions of a clinical trial constrain the extent to which context effects…” can be manifested.²⁰ 

Can Language Spoken in Context Cure Disease? 

Given that contextual or narrative healing may be a powerful force in relieving symptoms and improving quality of life, can it ever cure chronic or progressive disease? It is unlikely that Sarah Mailcarrier’s Night Way ceremony damaged her cancer cells or had any influence on their progress. However, it seems clear that narrative healing may in many cases “cure” at least some cases of major depression, generalized anxiety, post-traumatic stress syndrome, substance abuse, and perhaps even schizophrenia. Since these disorders are all characterized by abnormal concentrations or function of neurotransmitters, it is safe to say that contextual healing influences brain chemistry. Likewise, fMRI studies have shown that placebo treatments alter brain function. For example, placebo treatment in Parkinson’s disease may result in demonstrable changes in imaging, primarily resulting from increased dopamine release in certain areas of the basal ganglia.²¹ These changes may be associated with improvements in patient function. Likewise, placebo has also been shown to modulate physiological processes, like lowering blood sugar in diabetics and treatment enhancing immune responses, which may be related to neurophysiology in complex ways. ^{22, 23} 

There is a long history of rare, unexplained, but yet well-documented, cures in medicine. As medical knowledge has increased, the number of such inexplicable or “miracle” cures has diminished. Nonetheless, instances of the disappearance of widely metastatic cancer, or the resolution of aggressive autoimmune disease, do occur. Religious persons attribute these unexplained cures to supernatural intervention. Jacalyn Duffin’s 2009 book Medical Miracles: Doctors, Saints and Healing in the Modern World describes her investigation in the Vatican archives of 1400 cases of miracle cures that were cited as evidence in canonization proceedings between 1588 and 1999.²⁴ Of these, 503 cases occurred in the 20^th century and 220 of them between 1975 and 1999, the final year of her study. Most in the 1975-1999 group were extremely well-documented. 20^th century cures included 41 cases of cancer or leukemia, 109 neurological diseases (e.g. multiple sclerosis, myasthenia gravis, Parkinson’s disease), and 89 obvious orthopedic conditions. The unifying factor was that every “miracle” was associated with narrative and ritual. Prayer to Jesus, Mary, or another person, i.e. the candidate for sainthood, took place in various contexts, solitary or communal narrative associated with Masses, novenas, relics, monuments, tombs, etc. These features are all analogous to Navajo healing ceremonies. The same sort of analysis has been applied to “miracle” cures at Lourdes, a pilgrimage site in France, with similar results: a relatively small number of thoroughly documented and inexplicable cures among many thousands of claims.²⁵ 

A Note on Nocebo 

Traditional cultures also recognize the power of language to harm, as well as heal. This includes spells, hexes, curses, and similar verbal insults that produce harmful effects on the person to whom they are directed. Since the phenomenon of “Voodoo death” was described by Cannon in 1942²⁶, various other syndromes of illness and death based on witchcraft and curses were re-evaluated or newly described have been reported; for example, “bone-pointing” (kurdaitcha) in Australia and “breaking tapu” in New Zealand. Among Aboriginal people an individual targeted by bone pointing may die within 24 hours or may decline inexorably over a period of days. ²⁷ Such a curse can only be reversed by the intervention of an appropriate sorcerer. Among the Navajo, many serious illnesses are caused by curses that lead to “soul loss” or “possession.”  

Likewise, in Western medicine the words of physicians or other health care professionals, and the context in which they are spoken, may actually increase a patient’s symptoms, anxiety, and suffering. The eminent internist Eric Cassell, paraphrasing an old childhood chant, taught “Sticks and stones may break your bones, but a word can kill you.” (Personal communication) There is no room here to discuss nocebo-inducing language in medical practice, which is analyzed in detail in chapter 13 of Coulehan and Block.^{28, 29} 

Conclusion 

In this essay I make the claim that contextual healing (aka the placebo effect) plays a major role in medical practice and that language, either spoken verbally, or used internally to represent beliefs and personal meanings, is the carrier or operative agent of contextual healing. In most circumstances contextual healing has a limited, but clinically significant, range of effects. The clinician by employing “skillful means” (to use a Buddhist expression) can promote and enhance contextual healing in the clinical setting.^{20, 31} Navajo medicine is an example of a traditional medical system built almost entirely on exploiting the vast resources available to contextual healing. To a greater or lesser extent, Curanderismo, Vodun, homeopathy, Christian Science, and many other approaches to the treatment of illness are based on contextual healing. The upper limit of this healing power is normally modest, but under certain circumstances for certain people it may be quite spectacular, as in presumptive miracle cures.  

Notes 

1. Navajo Night Way Song, https://www.lindavallejo.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/Chants-Prayers-Poems-2011-2.pdf, accessed on 3 December 2025. 
2. Coulehan J. May I Walk in Beauty. Humane Medicine, 1992; 8: 65-69. 
3. Kaptchuk TJ. Placebo studies and ritual theory: a comparative analysis of Navajo, acupuncture and biomedical healing. Phil Trans R Soc B. 2011; 366: 1849-1858 
4. By “intuit” I mean the development of a theory of mind (i.e. others have minds just like me). Primates and perhaps some other mammals have an analogous ability, but presumably without a symbolic language. 
5. A Sing is expensive. The patient’s family must hire an ha’a’tali and his assistants and also provide food and drink for a large number of participants and attendees. Some participants must also take time off from their jobs or other pursuits for several days. 
6. Haygarth J MD. On the Imagination as a Cause & as a Cure of Disorders of the Body, Bath; R. Cruttwell, 1801. 
7. Sandler D. Navaho Symbols of Healing. New York, Harcourt Brace Jovanovich, 1979, pp. 265-273.  
8. Beecher HK. The powerful placebo. JAMA. 1955;159(17):1602-1606 
9. Miller FG, Kaptchuk TJ. The power of context: reconceptualizing the placebo effect. JRSM. 2008; 101: 222-225, p. 223. 
10. Kaptchuk TJ. Placebo studies and ritual theory: a comparative analysis of Navajo, acupuncture and biomedical healing. Phil Trans R Soc B Biol Sci. 2011; 366: 1849-1858, p. 1849. 
11. Moerman DE, Jonas WB. Deconstructing the placebo effect and finding the meaning response. Ann Intern Med 2002; 471-476. 
12. Brody H, Miller FG. Lessons from recent research about the placebo effect—from art to science. JAMA 2011; 306 (23): 2612-2613 
13. Colagiuri B, Schenk LA, Kessler MD, Dorsey SG, Colloca L. The placebo effect: From concepts to genes. Neuroscience. 2015; 307: 171-190 
14. Pecina M, Zubieta JK. Molecular mechanisms of placebo responses in humans. Mol Psychiatry. 2015; 20: 416-423 
15. Miller FG, Coilloca L, Kaptchuk TJ. The placebo effect: illness and interpersonal healing. Perspect Biol Med. 2009; 52: 518 
16. Stub T, Foss N, Liodden I. “Placebo effect is probably what we refer to as patient healing power”: a qualitative pilot study examining how Norwegian complementary therapists reflect on their practice, BMC Complementary and Alternative Med. 2017; 17:262 
17. Benedetti F, Pollo A, Lopiana L, Lanotte M, Vighetti S, Rainero I. Conscious expectation and unconscious conditioning in analgesic, motor, and hormonal placebo/nocebo responses. J Neurosci. 2003; 23: 4315-4323 
18. Dieppe P, Goldingay S, Greville-Harris M. The power and value of placebo and nocebo in painful osteoarthritis. Osteoarthritis and Cartilage. 2016; 24:1850-1857 
19. Haake M, Muller HH, Schade-Brittinger C et al. German acupuncture trials (GERAC) for chronic low back pain: randomized, multicenter, blinded, parallel-group trial with 3 groups. Arch Intern Med. 2007; 167: 1892-1898 
20. Dieppe et al, p. 1852. 
21. Fuente-Fernandez R, Ruth TJ, Sossi V, Schulzer M, Calne DB, Stoessl AJ, Expectation and Dopamine Release: Mechanism of the Placebo Effect in Parkinson’s Disease. Science. 2001; 293: 1164-1166. 
22. Skvortsova A, Veldhuijzen DS, van Dillen LF, Zech H, Derkson SM, Sars RH, Meijer OC, Pijl H, Evers AWM. Influencing the Insulin System by Placebo Effects in Patients With Diabetes Type 2 and Healthy Controls: A Randomized Controlled Trial. Psychosomatic Medicine. 2023; 85: 551-560 
23. Smits RM et al. The role of placebo effects in immune-related conditions: mechanisms and clinical considerations. Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2018; 14(9): 761-770. 
24. Duffin J. Medical Miracles. Doctors, Saints, and Healing in the Modern World. New York, Oxford University Press, 2009. 
25. François B, Sternberg EM, Fee E. The Lourdes medical cures revisited. J Hist Med Allied Sci. 2014 Jan;69(1):135-62.  
26. Cannon WB. “Voodoo” death. American Anthropologist, 1942; 44: 169-181. Reprinted in Am J Public Health. 2002; 92 (10): 1593-1596. 
27. Spencer, Baldwin; Gillen, F.J. Native Tribes of Central Australia. Cambridge University Press, 2010 [1899], pp. 476–477. 
28. Coulehan J, Block M. The Medical Interview. Mastering Skills for Clinical Practice. Philadelphia, F.A. Davis Company, 5^th edition, 2006, pp. 21-44 and 249-278.  
29. Hansen E, Zech N. Nocebo effects and negative suggestions in daily clinical practice – forms, impact and approaches to avoid them. Front Pharmacol. 2019 Feb 13; 10:77. 
30. Coulehan J, Clary P. Healing the healer: Poetry in Palliative Care, J Palliative Medicine, 2005; 8: 382-389. 
31. Blasini M, Peiris N, Wright T, Colloca L The role of patient-practitioner relationships in placebo and nocebo phenomena. Int Rev Neurobiol. 2018; 139:211-231.  

Web image created by Medhum.org

In “Mandatory Evacuation Zone,” Felice Aull has gathered 63 beautifully crafted poems in which she examines the intricacies of language and loss, of grief and healing.  Each of the book’s five sections considers these themes in slightly different ways, always in language that is understated, vivid, and exact.  In Section I, we read poems that focus on the author’s complicated family history and her early loss of homeland.  In “Tracings” (page 15), an unknown relative (thanks to online genealogy searches) reaches the narrator and wants to meet her.  She, however, only wishes to learn “. . . how my parents / and my infant self / made our tortuous way out . . . . ” Brought in infancy from Germany to America, the author suffers the loss of both native homeland and native language (“Notes from an Alpine Vacation” page 16).  She searches photos of her mother and ponders museum note cards illustrated by Holocaust survivors (“Museum Notecards” page 18), imagining what she can’t quite know and yet can’t quite forget.  

Section II finds the narrator as a young woman in American, awakening to sexuality (“Gay Blades,” “Camp Counselors Make Out,”  “On the Staircase” pages 29-31), becoming a wife and mother, and then a grandmother.  A grandchild’s birth is both joyful and yet another “slipping toward / the edge of separation” (“Daughter in her Eighth Month” page 37). 

In Section III, the author turns her gaze to observations of the world around her, around us, aware of how many come to loss and death.  “Be prepare to mourn,” she tells us in “Disaster in October” (page 49), and in the moving poem, “I Saw the Smoke,” re-visions September 11th in words stripped of sentimentality and therefore made more powerful. 

Sections IV and V confront bodily loss through aging and illness, noting how, in so many ways, we try both to capture and to let go: “You snap photo upon photo / hoping to grasp and preserve / what cannot be grasped” (Capturing Alaska” page 66).  We learn of the most personal losses in poems of biopsies, surgeries, and chemotherapy.  When facing the unknown, every event might seem to hold a prediction.  In “Stunning Blows,” a doorman stuns a mouse, claims that it’s dead.  But the narrator, aware of the wages of time, writes, “But I still see it, like death, / moving toward me” (page 81).  At the book’s end, we return to language, how it too can leave us (“Forget That” page 90).  Yet in the collection’s final, gentle poems, the poet is “able, finally / to walk past the park’s redbud tree / without weeping” (“Immunity” page 96).

Although there are many poems that confront loss both recalled and experienced. grief for self and others, illness and the unknown in this collection, there are also poems of great acceptance and ultimate joy: “These gifts and losses, every year, mine” (“The Key to Gramercy Park” page 98).  The poems in “Mandatory Evacuation Zone,” show us how poetry can help us to “declutter” (see “Divesture” page 99) and release, and at the same time, hold on to and embrace.

Kelsay Books, California 2017: 100 pages

Felice’s website: https://www.feliceaull.com/

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

There is nothing to read on the psych unit but a bulletin board listing the daily activities and some magazines. This makes Chihaya think about her relationship to books, which is a complex one. She muses that “it is every writer’s fear that our books will be the death of us” (p. 11) and humorously writes about how she once had a bookshelf that was so wobbly she worried it would topple over on her. However, the real damage that books inflict may be insidious. The author first began to read as an escape from her unhappy childhood, but she fears she now “love[s] books to a dangerous degree” (p. 20).  They have become her life to the extent that she does not know if she “would be anyone at all” (p.12) without them. A feature of her depression is that she has completely lost interest in reading. She half-seriously coins the diagnosis “bibliophobia” to describe her condition. It will take just the right book to cure her, and when she finds it, she begins to read again, and to heal.  

Over the course of Bibliophobia Chihaya tells us about the books that have been of vital importance to her, many of which she associates with relationships or with stages in her life. Eventually, she reads the DSM about her own psychiatric diagnosis, and she reads books that other people have written about their depression. Working with a therapist, she realizes she needs to move on, and she lets go of her academic career. By the end of Bibliophobia we learn that Chihaya has finally written a book, but it is not the one she was expecting to write. It is Bibliophobia.

Bibliophobia is an unusual hybrid of a book that is part literary criticism part memoir. The author has been influenced by numerous mental health memoirs including recent celebrated works by Donald Antrim, Esmé Weijun Wang, and George Scialabba.

The first chapter, the subsequent emotional journey of the author, and her conclusions all captured my attention. I must confess that much of the rest of this book interested me less for the simple reason that I had not read any of the books the author discusses in detail. I do not even think we have the same taste in literature. However, this may not prove to be a stumbling block to potential readers who are fans of Toni Morrison, Anne Carson or Anne of Green Gables, or who just love reading about books.

According to the American Psychiatric Association, stigma around mental health is common in Asian American communities. One praiseworthy attribute of Bibliophilia is how it calls attention to the challenges that these groups experience in accessing care. Chihaya, was raised by a Japanese father and a Japanese Canadian mother who “did not believe in the concept of mental health; everyone was either fine or just complaining” (p. 49). Growing up with the message that depression is “not for the children of immigrants [but] something that happen[s] to white people in independent films” (p. 7) it goes without saying that Chihaya cannot bring her symptoms to her parents’ attention. Filled with shame, it takes her many years until she can no longer ignore them. Fortunately, Chihaya has given us a book filled with insights that one hopes will inspire others to seek help.

Bibliophobia
Sarah Chihaya
Random House, New York, 2025, 214 pages

References:
https://www.psychiatry.org/psychiatrists/diversity/education/asian-american-patients
Web image from Wikicommons.