New York, NY: W.W. Norton & Company
2026, 192 pages 
ISBN 9781324105695 

Your body speaks to you every moment of the day. In normal circumstances (good health), we hardly pay attention to those signals – the reassuring metronome-like steadiness of the radial pulse or the soft, regimented inhalations/expirations of respiration. But in bad times (illness and injury), we cannot ignore altered rhythms and abnormal emanations – the miserable throbbing of a migraine or wormlike twitching of the muscles of the hand. Megan O’Rourke, a poet and author of the superb memoir The Invisible Kingdom: Reimagining Chronic Illness (2022), has assembled a pensive and probing anthology of illness poetry that addresses altered states of the body. These 83 poems are organized into five sections: diagnosis, clinical encounters, caregiving, “metaphysical reckoning,” and recovery. A sense of betrayal by the body, shame, helplessness, isolation and loneliness, altered interpersonal relationships, and an inescapable confrontation with mortality are some common effects of illness expressed in these poems. Yet other poems communicate impressive fortitude, resiliency, revelation, receipt of compassion, and hope. Many notable writers are represented in the collection including Emily Dickinson, John Donne, Sylvia Plath, James Dickey, Gwendolyn Brooks, and William Blake. In “lumpectomy eve,” Lucille Clifton eerily depicts the difficult night before scheduled breast surgery where a fear of loss is just one of many emotions felt. Ted Kooser’s “The Urine Specimen” combines imagery and whimsy about the excreted waste product (“the heat of this gold your body’s melted and poured out into a form”) with a bit of scientific prophecy (“for the doctor, who in it will read your future, wringing his hands”). “A Story About the Body” by Robert Hass is a prose poem skillfully and sorrowfully addressing infatuation and imperfection. A single poem cannot reliably rescue us from sickness or other misfortunes, but the best of them are certainly capable of offering connection, illumination, and comfort. 

The Human Remains: Drawing Out Compassion in Medicine by Nathan A. Gray 

University Park, PA: Graphic Mundi (an imprint of Penn State University Press)
2026, 256 pages 
ISBN 9781637791059 

The experience of gross anatomy lab in the first year of medical school has a heavy, haunting presence in this graphic memoir of medical education. Employing primarily grayscale art technique, author and illustrator Nathan Gray (a palliative care physician) holds nothing back in this sometimes grim recollection of his training. He describes the required dissection of a cadaver as “dismantling a human body” (p10) and worries about fainting or vomiting. He has recurrent macabre dreams of dancing with the cadaver. Gray begins having doubts as to whether he even belongs in medical school. Fortunately for him, one member of his dissection team provides a well-needed dose of humor and bravado. In his second year of medical school, Gray gets married. His third year clinical rotations start with the surgery clerkship where feelings of insecurity, uselessness, and fear pester him. Yet Gray is emotionally and psychologically aided by receiving small acts of kindness, his sustained wonder of the human body, and a genuine interest in the patients he treats. Upon completing medical school, he enters an internal medicine residency noteworthy for a strenuous schedule with nights on call and some shifts spanning more than 30 hours in the hospital. He labels residency training as “a cruel matchup that pitted our own sanity and survival against the needs of the people we cared for” (p170). Gray chooses a palliative care fellowship where his compassion and joy for practicing medicine are reinvigorated thus completing the arc of his journey infused with the humanity and empathy he originally began medical school with. The Human Remains is the second graphic medical memoir (See One, Do One, Teach One by Grace Farris is the other.) published in 2026. Both are cautionary tales (albeit with “happy endings”) reminding us that medical trainees are at high risk of having the most important things that propel them to choose to become a physician – compassion and service to others – gradually eroded. 

“The News from Dublin” in The News from Dublin: Stories (pages 67-87) by Colm Tóibín 

New York, NY: Scribner
2026, 289 pages 
ISBN 9781476785141 
[The story was first published in New Irish Short Stories.] 

Maurice Webster, a teacher at a Catholic high school in Ireland, has good reason to worry about the condition of his youngest brother. Stephen has a severe case of highly infectious tuberculosis and is confined to home, (At the time this story takes place – prior to the wide availability of streptomycin in Europe around 1948 – there is no antibiotic treatment for TB.) Maurice is afraid to visit his brother and risk spreading TB to his wife and children. Reports surface of a promising new drug that can cure tuberculosis – Streptomycin. The antibiotic is almost impossible to obtain as it is still being tested and likely won’t be accessible for more than a year. Poor Stephen will not live long enough to receive the medication. Maurice travels to Dublin for a meeting with the minister of health in an attempt to procure Streptomycin for his brother. Although sympathetic, the health official says he is unable to help and recommends that Stephen be admitted to a sanatorium. A morose Maurice returns home understanding that Stephen and family were counting on him to retrieve the antibiotic. He has failed them. The only thing he has brought back from Dublin is bad news. With ever diminishing hope for his brother’s recovery, even a miracle seems out of the question. Maurice decides, “There had been enough prayers said, and they had made no difference” (p86). This compact, touching tale about the effect of serious illness on family members highlights their desperation and guilt, withering hope and reluctant resignation. 

Web photo by Wes Hicks

The collection opens with a poem, “Dedication” (p.1), dedicating the poems that follow to those “dear friends” who share, and so understand, the sufferings of ongoing illness. The implication is that healthy people cannot, yet, truly enter that world and, in fact, “fear” those who must live there. Yet Silver’s poems are a way into that universe. Tender and fierce, the poems in this collection seem to arise fully formed from the deepest part of Silver’s existence. The poems in section I present us with the harsh realities of illness and the anticipation of loss. In the acknowledgements, (p.72), the author notes that the poems in this section are “in honor of my sisters with inflammatory and advanced breast cancer.” In “Advent, First Frost,” she likens that “feathered prophecy” to “a bowl of frozen tears” (p.6) and in “Stage IV,” she writes that she is “taboo, now,” that she and others use words that once embarrassed them, “courage, prayer, miracle.” Even so, she is aware that “Our passports have been stamped– / our wrists and collar bones have been marked” (p.7). In a lovely prose poem on page 11, she writes in memory of her friend, Susan: “Ulysses will sail the storms till he dies. And so, my dear ones, will we” (p.11), combining, as she often does, the reality of approaching death with hope, dignity, and strength. In “Leaving the Hospital” (p.23) and “On a Line from Virginia Woolf’s Diary,” Silver celebrates the return, even if temporary, to life: “And the day takes my body back simply, / the way a mother dresses her child” (p.14). For me, the most moving poem in this section is the title poem, “I Watched You Disappear” (p. 22-23). It is a litany of regret, loss, anger, and pain, related not in poetic images but in plain and deeply human language: “I hate spring, its prettiness. / Your heart kept beating. Why didn’t it just stop?” 

Section II consists of seven, short one-stanza poems based on images from Grimms’ fairy tales. It seems that the first two lines of each poem serve as metaphorical statements about the realities of advanced breast cancer. “Owl Maiden” begins “No transformation’s instant. / Her hair fell out first, replaced by quills” (p.29). “Strawberries in Snow” begins “Belief comes easily to the ill. / Miracles fall from their lips like gems” (p.31). And “The Flowered Skull” offers these opening lines: “The magician finds them, young or old, / mothers, maidens–to him–no matter–” (p.34). The final poem in this section is a tale told to her son, Noah. In “The Hazel Tree,” Silver is the mother who “died and grew into a tree,” “each nut a word she’d grown to tell her son / now that her speaking human voice was gone” (p.35).  

In Section III, she turns, as she did in her first collection, to poems about her family. She visits again the (actual) doors of her life (“Doors” p.39), expresses regret at being impatient with her son, “Ubi Caritas Deus Ibi Est” (p.41), and in other poems examines moments of her family life, especially those shared with her son, father, sister, and husband. This section’s poems rarely mention illness, yet as they share family stories, they hint at the inevitability of loss. The final poem in this section, “Sea Glass,” ends with lines that could be applied as well to the way poems might be born from the wages of a life: “Something salvaged, sunlit, / gem-like. Something saved / from the grinding into grit” (p.55).  

Section IV, like section II, contains only seven poems, three of them commentaries on paintings and, through those commentaries, observations on illness and suffering as well. “Late Renoir” speaks of how the artist painted to “smudge away doubt” and to submerge “the mutilations of war, his dead wife, / the black he banished from his palette” (p.59). The long poem “Valentine Gode-Darel (1873-1915)” is a reflection on the five paintings by Ferdinand Hodler that captured his lover’s sickness, decline, and death (p.60). “Portraits in the Country,” (page 63), offers a glimpse into the poet’s resignation and acceptance of death, a mindset supported by her faith in both the human and the holy: “But I will not rush to put down my sash. / Instead, I will turn the leaf of my book. See with what gentle gravity God / lets it hover, in balance, then fall to its side.” The book’s last poem, “The Firebird,” suggests that words, especially poems, might hold truths that sound louder than the approach of death: “The bell ringing in your throat will drown / out the train’s slow grieving” (p.67). 

These poems are beautifully crafted, often primal, and they touch the deepest reaches of personal illness and the shadow of mortality. Readers who have breast cancer or who have family or friends living with breast cancer, might find these poems difficult to read–others under the same circumstances might find them difficult and yet, at the same time, essential. For me, dealing with the reality of an aggressive breast cancer afflicting someone I love, these poems provide a window into an experience I can only observe from a distance, even if that distance is only an embrace away. These poems provide a portal into the emotions, fears, regrets, and pleas that might be hiding behind a patient’s or a loved one’s exterior of cheerful optimism and determination. We can’t walk the path that a woman with advanced breast cancer is traveling. But these poems help us be companions on the way. 

Miscellaneous 
“Strawberries in Snow” was first published in the Bellevue Literary Review (V12N1).  

Publisher Louisiana State University Press 
Place Published Baton Rouge 
Edition 2014 
Page Count 73 

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

DAVID HSU: What are you up to these days? What are you working on?

JACK COULEHAN: In terms of creativity, I’m working on a new collection of poems that I’m editing now. I’m also the book review editor of The Pharos magazine, and that takes up an unexpectedly large amount of time.

DAVID HSU: Do you practice medicine at all anymore?

JACK COULEHAN: No, actually, I retired about 12 years ago now, but I do still teach medical students as a volunteer. It’s a class that I began back when I started at Stony Brook in 1991. It’s called Medicine in Society, and it’s a first-year seminar course that deals with human, social, and interpersonal issues in medicine. We use a lot of literature and film in that and so I’m still a group leader. We also have a master’s degree program in medical humanities, and I teach a course in that. So I still keep my hand a little bit in teaching.

DAVID HSU: Given that you’re doing all this work in the humanities, what do you think about the relationship between medicine and the humanities?

JACK COULEHAN: You know, that’s a surprisingly difficult question for me, because I’ve always had this kind of love/hate relationship with the term medical humanities, because I think it doesn’t quite capture the problem or the issues that we’re trying to address and what we do. In a lot of my work, I tend to cite a piece that Rafael Campo wrote in JAMA in 2005, entitled “The Medical Humanities, For Lack of a Better Term.”  What I’ve really always thought is that what we’re trying to do is to teach students and ourselves, really, to become more reflective and more thoughtful…[Campo] used the terms reconnection, renewal, and meaning. . I think we’re not necessarily encouraged in our profession to become aware of our own needs, to become reflective, thoughtful, to become focused on the personhood of patients and so on. And so I think, through discussion, through examples in literature, film, etc., we can really try to address these issues. I guess the term medical humanities is fine as a placeholder, but I wish there was a better term for it. But, aside from reflecting on the name itself, those are the things I think we’re trying to address in medical humanities. 

When I started in this business, pretty long ago, I was thinking about [medical humanities] mostly in terms of becoming a better doctor by improving one’s empathic skills and reflecting on the patient as a person. But as time has gone on, I’ve become more aware that I think it’s really something that makes you a better person and also more able to cope with the stresses and the challenges of modern medicine. So, I think it works both ways.

DAVID HSU: What are your criticisms of the way medicine is practiced now, since people aren’t doing all this [reconnection, renewal, and meaning]?

JACK COULEHAN:  First of all, I think medicine has to be understood in our current overall culture of increasing subspecialization and focusing on narrower and narrower fields [of practice], using more and more technological instruments, tools, and machines. Also, medicine is more and more controlled by larger interests that are not necessarily oriented towards the primary values of medicine.  There are virtually no constraints on the use of technology, the focus is entirely on disease, on narrow perspectives on disease.  

What I’m saying is that all this detracts from the ability necessary to see the patient in terms other than as an object that has a disease or a person who has a specific problem that needs to be addressed.

Just to give my personal examples, when you get to be 81 years old, as I am, you have a lot of opportunities to experience being a patient. I saw a cardiologist a couple of weeks ago who is an older cardiologist, and he was what I would call an ideal physician. He does interventional cardiology, he’s a professor, well-published, and yet his approach, I would consider to be very therapeutic–very positive, trusting and good eye contact. He wasn’t looking at the computer. He was just a genuine person, genuinely interested. I’ve also gone to a urologist who was just the reverse. Equally specialized in the same medical system, but one who was all about the particular issue, the particular organ, and the particular thing that’s happening to that organ.

It’s possible, you know, when you start talking about the kind of values and the kind of stresses that modern physicians are under, the first response you get is that, “Oh, yeah, that’s great. That’s what we should do.”  But you know, we only have 15 minutes [and] we have to deal with the EMR, etc. But that belies the fact that there are physicians out there who are very good at actual doctoring and others who aren’t, and I think that’s because, well, let’s say, look at those two things on a spectrum…I would say that there is the opportunity, even in today’s world, to help students keep their belief, which most of them have, I think, when they begin, that doctoring is really interested in persons. And I think we could increase the percentage of physicians who feel that way and practice that way.

DAVID HSU: I’m curious because you mentioned that you’re 81. You’ve been around the medical system for decades. How has the system changed from when you first started in it until now? Is it getting worse, or has it always been like this?

JACK COULEHAN: Well, that’s tough. I definitely think it’s worse, but I also think it’s romanticism, you know, to look back and say, “Oh the good old days.” 

I graduated from medical school in 1969 and graduated from my residency and fellowship in 1975. Those were the days when I was learning to take a history. Taking a history–that’s another phrase that I dislike. But we had a little black book, that had 100 or 140 questions to ask in it. There was no concept of medical interviewing, nor the  teaching of it. I had the feeling that a lot of the values of good doctoring were kind of implicit and not necessarily taught in those days.

And so we’ve gone through a whole phase of learning that the medical interview is a therapeutic tool, and now I think we pay a lot of lip service [to it], but I don’t know that we necessarily carry it from its place in the curriculum to its place in the clinic or the hospital.

But there’s no question that it’s gotten worse [although] the technological advances are just so incredible. I remember at some point, as a student, you have this idea that the CT scan will give the answer, or the lab result will give the answer. The patient’s story is secondary. And I remember some instructors saying, no, no, wait a minute, you should know 80% of the time what the answer is before you even request the test. The test is not meant to be, the be-all, end-all of everything, but, definitely, that is the case now. Even within practice, every advancement that happens in technology kind of nudges us closer to thinking of the computer as a solution for everything.

Let’s say, one patient comes in with chest pain or nausea. I think the tendency now is to focus on those symptoms, to think of what disease might cause them, and to do various tests, rather than sitting down with the patient and trying to understand what their situation is.

DAVID HSU: You mentioned this earlier, and I wanted to follow up on this little comment you made about how the practice of humanities and writing has a self-care component to it, and that as you’ve practiced it more, it’s helped you handle stress and different challenges. Can you elaborate a bit about this?

JACK COULEHAN: As a high school, college, and even a medical student, I had this inexplicable urge to write poetry, which I did. It’s pretty juvenile. But anyhow, I did it. Then of course, I gave it up because I was a doctor. I was practicing, I was doing research, etc. And in my mid-40s, I was reaching, I think, what you might call burnout. That might be a little too dramatic, but I felt that there was something missing in my life, in my career, and I happened to have a patient who was a professor of poetry at the University of Pittsburgh, where I was teaching at the time. And one thing led to another, and she encouraged me to start writing again. And I did, and I found very quickly that by writing about…my experiences in medicine, I was able to…work through them and understand my reactions better, and so I think that poetry is a reflective practice that in a sense provides occasion for you to grapple with experiences, issues that have been troubling you, or that on the other hand have been very happy. It can work both ways.

Getting back to medical humanities, I think what we’re trying to do in medical humanities is to stimulate that kind of process in young physicians or young clinicians, whether it’s through poetry, through writing journals, through just meeting in small groups…that kind of thing…and to use not only personal experiences, but literature, poetry, film, etc. as stimuli for that.

DAVID HSU: Let’s wrap up with what you would like to see medhum.org do? How would you like to see it grow in the months and years to come? What type of topics or articles do you want us to tackle? 

JACK COULEHAN: I like the concept of being provocative. I’d like to encourage people to come in through material that’s kind of leading edge. I’d like to see people have conversations, comments and so on.

DAVID HSU: Thank you, Jack for participating in “Meet the MedHum Editors.”   It’s been a pleasure to speak with you.

Written by Jack Coulehan on Medhum.org (View All)

Alphonse Daudet and Intractable Pain

26.05.2026 623

Children Who Remember Former Lives 

6.04.2026 9720

The Anatomist by Frederico Andahazi

17.02.2026 665

Rethinking Medications by Jerry Avorn

20.01.2026 801

The Word Is an Instrument of Healing 

16.12.2025 860

Stuck By Heidi J. Larson 

3.11.2025 787

The narrator in this three-stanza poem observes men in a mental hospital who suffer from what at the time (World War I) was called shell shock and now might be labeled post-traumatic stress disorder. In any case, they are insane; they relive the “batter of guns and shatter of flying muscles.”

For these tortured souls, “sunlight seems a bloodsmear” and “dawn breaks open like a wound that bleeds afresh.” They cannot escape their hideous memories of the warfare. The narrator sees them as living in hell, and he accepts for all society the blame for what has happened to them–we, he says, have “dealt them war and madness.”

Wilfred Owen is recognized as the master poet of the First World War. Writing from firsthand experiences, both in combat and in a hospital recovering from battle fatigue, Owen gave us image after image of how horrible this war was — how the idealized notions of heroism and manly valor meant next to nothing when one was trying to survive gas attacks and bombs dropped from planes. Owen was killed a week before the armistice.

In this poem he opens with a series of questions about who these mental cases are, why they rock back and forth in some kind of purgatory, why they are so tortured with panic and misery. In the second stanza, he answers the opening questions: these are the men whose minds have been ruined by their war experiences, for whom the grotesque carnage of the war was “rucked too thick for these men’s extrication.”

In the final stanza, he explains why these men are so tortured by their memories. And, typical of Owen, he points out that everyone who supported the war contributed to the madness of these mental cases.

📖 Read the poem

The Poems of Wilfred Owen
Wilfred Owen
Publisher: W. W. Norton
Edition: 1986
Editors: Jon Stallworthy
Place Published: New York

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

This eloquent statement against the madness of war is the first novel in a trilogy that includes The Eye in the Door (1993) and finally The Ghost Road (1995), which was awarded the Booker prize. The story is closely based on the publications and annotated literary papers of three real men who met at Craiglockhart in 1917: psychiatrist W.H.R. Rivers (1864-1922) and two poets: Siegfried Sassoon (1886-1967) and Wilfred Owen (1893-1918). Owen wrote some of the most moving war poetry and the knowledge that he would be killed in action at age 25 simply adds to the poignant sense of futility.  

Pat Barker (b. 1943) probed the tenacious role of class within the military hierarchy, while the society, which the military purports to defend, is rapidly being transformed by the converging lives of domestic servants and aristocrats. Her descriptions are powerful: the yellow skin of women who work in the munitions factory; the surgeon who can no longer bear the sight of blood; the young soldier who cannot eat because his nose and mouth had once been filled with rotting flesh when he was hoist by a grenade into the decomposing belly of a dead German. Rivers helps the men to recall and to understand the origins of their ailments by gentle, patient conversation–a treatment that he described in Lancet, 2 Feb 1918. 

Regeneration
Pat Barker
London: Viking Press
New York: Plume
1991, 256 pages)

From the Vault: In these times, certain works of literature seem to be as relevant to us now as when they were published — possibly more relevant than the times that they depict. From the vault of the now closed Literature, Arts and Medicine Database, we will pluck a few items for their power and timeliness. 

Web image by  National Library of Medicine

“Prof. William Osler, of the University of Pennsylvania, was summoned by telegraph this afternoon to go to Walt Whitman’s bedside. The aged poet had a relapse, and it was feared that he was dying. When the doctor came away from the little frame house at 328 Mickle Street, Camden, at 8 o’clock tonight, he said the poet was resting easily and about holding his own.” 

Osler first visited Whitman in 1884, shortly after moving to Philadelphia to take up his position as Professor of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania. Dr. Maurice Bucke, a Canadian psychiatrist and mutual friend, had asked Osler to look in on Whitman, who was complaining of dizzy spells and fatigue. The professor obligingly ferried across the Delaware River to Camden and made a house call. Osler reported that the poet had no residual neurological deficits from his earlier stroke. He was unimpressed with Whitman’s current symptoms and, in fact, later described him as “a fine figure of a man who had aged beautifully, or more properly speaking, majestically with a large frame and a well-shaped, well-poised head…“ ^{1, p. 21} 

However, four years later the situation was more serious. On June 14, 1888, Whitman developed slurred speech, prostration, and confusion “such as we know are not uncommon with sclerosis of the arteries of the brain.”^{1, p. 178} When Osler was called in, he recommended general supportive care and issued a cautiously optimistic prognosis (as the Times reported), but evidently did not present his patient with a specific diagnosis or discuss pathophysiology. Whitman recovered over the following weeks, but his health gradually deteriorated over the next several years until his death in 1892. 

During the years Osler served as the poet’s primary care physician, their relationship was respectful, but not ideal. Whitman frequently complained about the great clinician’s rosy bedside manner. “Osler made light of my condition,” the poet wrote. “I don’t like his pooh-poohs. The professional air of the doctor grates on me.” ^{1, p. 50} On another occasion he told his friend Horace Traubel, “I confess I do not wholly like or credit what he (Osler) says. I do not fancy the jaunty way in which he seems inclined to dismiss my troubles.” ^{2, July 3, 1888} Evidently, Osler continued to speak in generalities, rather than addressing specific concerns that Whitman raised as he became progressively feebler.  

This situation contrasts with some of the poet’s earlier medical experience. For example, shortly after his stroke in 1873, Whitman consulted Dr. Mathew Grier who must have explained the etiology of the problem. Whitman later wrote to his friend Peter Doyle, “Did I tell you that Dr. Grier here says that my real disease is the brain not being properly furnished and nourished with blood…” ³ The poet’s other physicians included Drs. Silas Weir Mitchell and his son John Kearsley Mitchell. The famous neurologist and champion of neurasthenia made house calls on Whitman twice in 1878 when the poet reported symptoms of rheumatism and prostration, which he had self-diagnosed as a recurrence of his previous stroke. Mitchell assured him that the stroke, which had resulted from a ruptured blood vessel in the brain, was not responsible for the current symptoms. These, Mitchell claimed, were caused by chronic stress, perhaps exacerbated by anxiety over a public lecture that the poet was just then preparing to give.³ In other words Mitchell considered the illness a manifestation of neurasthenia. He prescribed travel, mountain air, and vigorous outdoor activity, which was Mitchell’s generic regimen for neurasthenia in males, quite the opposite of his more famous regimen of complete bed rest for female neurasthenics. ³ The poet took Mitchell’s advice seriously and embarked on a trip to Colorado, after which he professed himself cured.  

While Osler’s optimistic persona must have pleased many patients, it irritated Whitman. He judged his doctor’s cheerfulness to be insincere, or at least questionable. The elderly poet was an eccentric who fiercely valued his independence. While at times he showed a sweet and gentle side, he could also be touchy, irascible, and assertive. As the poet grew progressively frailer during 1888 and 1889, Traubel recorded a series of house calls during which Osler assured him that he would soon recover. “Do not take a gloomy view of Whitman’s case,” Osler told Traubel, “he will come around.” ^{2, July 3, 1888} In this short poem, I try to resurrect the poet’s attitude toward his famous doctor: 

Walt Whitman Reflects on His Doctor’s Bedside Manner 

As an old rat that must be allowed to die 
in his own way, I start with a prejudice 
against doctors. Never mind worrying 

about your sickness, he scolds me,  
I’m seeing to all that. The man tinkers  
with platitudes and conceals his thoughts.  

In his gospel of encouragement 
I’m supposed to be agreeable and dumb 
while he puts the best construction  

on what’s happening. What does he know 
about Whitman, the old rat? A shoemaker  
tells his customer the shoe fits just right 
but the shoe pinches the fellow wearing it.  

Whitman was a master of self-promotion. He appeared to encourage members of his inner circle who viewed him as a prophet, as well as a poet. Dr. Maurice Bucke even wrote a book claiming that his friend was one of the few humans who had achieved “cosmic consciousness.” The others included Jesus, Mohamed, and the Buddha. Did Osler fail to understand that his one- size- fits- all approach to physician-patient communication might not be appropriate for a patient with Whitman’s complex and eccentric personality?  

Although dissatisfied with Osler’s bedside manner, the poet respected his doctor’s clinical abilities. Several months after the medical crisis in 1888, Whitman wrote, “As for Osler: he is a great man—one of the rare men. I should be much surprised if he didn’t soar way, way up—get very famous at his trade—someday. He has the air of something about him—of achievement.”^{2, December 26, 1888} Indeed, by that time, Osler had already accepted the position of Professor of Medicine at the new Johns Hopkins medical school in Baltimore.  

Osler was a sensitive, cultivated man, but also a rationalist, who initially looked askance both at Whitman’s exuberant poetry and the cult that had grown up around its author. Although he admired the man, he had no wish to become a disciple. He loved poetry and enjoyed quoting passages from Shakespeare and the Romantic and Victorian poets. Regarding his first impressions of Leaves of Grass, Osler later wrote, “Whether the meat was too strong, or whether it was the style of cooking—‘twas not for my pampered palate.” ^{1, p. 22} He found his new patient’s long, unruly poems and earthy subject matter self-indulgent and lacking in discipline. The boisterous persona reflected in Whitman’s poems jarred Osler’s methodical mind. In the following poem, I imagine the clinician’s response to his early encounters with the Good Grey Poet: 

Dr. William Osler Remembers His Call on Walt Whitman 

I took the ferry that day and found him 
in the front room of a small house 
on Mickle Street, buried to his chest 
in papers, magazines, and musty  
brown bundles. Push yourself a path, 
he said. I reckon you’re a friend of Bucke’s. 

His famous head had aged majestically— 
unkempt white beard; smooth, clear cheeks; 
a fissured, geographic forehead. 
His voice was pitched a shade too high,  
but strong like the rest of him. Of symptoms 
he said but little–remarkable 

for a man of 65. For a moment 
I felt that sweet aromatic presence 
his disciples spoke of–for me, though, 
the edge of chaos. I sometimes wish 
the man had made a difference in my life, 
opened me up, but how could I forego 

my restraint? Or professional kindness? 
For a man like me, a man of substance, 
what could be worse than falling in love 
with Whitman? I listened to the music 
of his tongue, but could never cross the line 
that reads, Who enters here, abandons discipline. 

Yet, in his later years, Osler grew to respect his one-time patient’s poetry, as well as his charismatic personality. In fact, at the time of his death from pneumonia in 1919, he was in the process of writing an appreciative reminiscence of his encounters with Whitman. 

The uneasy, but respectful, relationship between these giants in their respective fields provides interesting material for reflection. If the poet was so dissatisfied with Osler, why didn’t he go back to Weir Mitchell or his son, who were more easy-going and communicative? Mitchell’s reputation as a clinician easily equaled Osler’s, and he was a poet as well. Could it be that Whitman benefited in some way from Osler’s staunch optimism, or had developed deep trust in Osler’s judgment, despite the constant complaints he issued to Traubel and others? Alternatively, why didn’t Osler modify his paternalistic approach, since it seemed clear that Whitman preferred to play a more active role in the relationship? And those time-consuming house calls that required taking a ferry across the river! Why not recommend a more pliable colleague?  

References 

1. Philip Leon, Walt Whitman & Sir William Osler, ECW Press, Toronto, 1995. 

2. Horace Traubel, With Walt Whitman in Camden, vol. 2, at http://whitmanarchive.org/criticism/disciples/traubel (accessed December 30, 2024) 

3. Feinberg CE. Walt Whitman and his doctors. Arch Intern Med 1964; 114: 834-842. 

Photo of Sir William Osler and Walt Whitman from WikiCommons.

The narrator has enjoyed a mostly healthy life. He has traveled to Europe and once was treated for syphilis while there. He has been together with L for seven years. Both men are writers who teach at the university. Now, the pain that grips him defies exact description (even for a professional writer). The closest comparison that he can conjure is having someone’s hand plunge into his body and twist his guts along with the sensation of being kneed in the groin. He’s reluctant to seek medical attention since medical facilities are especially risky during the pandemic. So he waits and hurts. The pain is soon accompanied by fever, chills, and aching of the limbs. 

He decides to go to urgent care. After a brief evaluation, he’s referred to the university medical center ER. Covid testing is negative. A CT scan reveals an aortic dissection (tear in the aorta) associated with aortitis (an inflammation of this large blood vessel). He is told that such a tear is frequently fatal. He’s lucky to be alive. The narrator is placed in the ICU and treated with IV antibiotics, fluids, and antihypertensive medications. The vascular surgeon recommends holding off on any operation (either a stent or a graft), hoping the tear and inflammation will stabilize and heal. 

Hospitalized for a week and a half, the narrator confesses his feelings of helplessness, shame, bewilderment, and fear. He is intrigued by the bustle of the hospital – almost electric with human energy – but despondent over the seemingly omnipresent suffering there – his own, that of fellow patients, and even the distress of healthcare workers. He is most impressed by and appreciative of his ICU nurse, Alivia. As for the physicians involved in his care, the narrator notes the stark clinical detachment of many doctors. Reflecting on a visit from a rheumatologist, he concludes, “I was nothing to her, really, I was her job, she would clock out and enter her real life” (p124). He craves to sense some vulnerability and genuine concern emanating from his physicians. As for empathy, the narrator reveals some of his own when he decides, “it must be hell to be a resident” (p129) in training. 

The search for possible rare etiologies of his condition comes up empty. As his condition slowly improves, the narrator still worries about his current predicament and the future: “I was an enigma, they said, a conundrum, they were running out of ideas” (p121). The waiting for and indecision about any kind of surgical intervention wears on him. He wonders if it might be best to have an operation. 

But the narrator never has surgery. A repeat CT scan confirms stability of the aorta and resolution of all inflammation. He is discharged home on oral medicines and continued IV antibiotics. Frequent follow-up appointments with his doctors and imaging studies of his aorta are scheduled. His partner L lovingly tends to his needs. His sister G arrives to help too. The narrator’s prognosis is murky. Did he dodge a bullet? Or are further problems with his aorta inevitable? How does a person cope with such chronic uncertainty. Although the narrator is weak and emotionally rattled, he is happy to be alive, pain-free, ambulatory, and home with his lover. Shouldn’t that be enough? 

The novel reads more like a memoir than a work of fiction. It is impressively authentic and accurate about medical matters – the lingo and professional behavior of physicians, nursing care, clinical procedures, what it feels like to be a patient. Readers will rightfully consider whether the book’s author is perhaps recounting his own experience with a serious health problem.  

In this novel, the human body is depicted in many ways: sensuous, serviceable, surrendered to others, surreal when sick. The narrator’s experience of illness includes a warping of time, the pull of memory, the weight of regret, the need for truth, and the magic of love.  

The poet-protagonist is occasionally irritated by the language and metaphors spewed by doctors and nurses. The use of broad-spectrum antibiotics is explained to him as a “carpet bomb approach.” He is warned about the caustic effect of IV drugs and that his veins might “burn out.” This medical lexicon prompts the narrator to ponder “who taught these people, who gave them their vocabulary, their stock of images” (p86).  

We don’t need a novel (even an exceptional one like Small Rain) to remind us about the randomness and chaos of ordinary life, the uncertainty of health in the future. But we can look to great literature for inspiration, to help us understand and cope with those looming, difficult experiences. The word rain is both a noun (drops of moisture or a spiritual blessing) and a verb (something sent down in abundance). Whether it is tears (of pain and emotion), love, or gratitude, the rain in this story is hardly small.  

Small Rain: A Novel 
by Garth Greenwell 
New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2024, 320 pages 
ISBN 9780374279547 
Web photo by Pawel Nolbert 

Cyrus aspires to be a poet but is drowning in self-pity and drug use. He wants more than anything to achieve renown and martyrdom and to die after having made a lasting mark in the world. Interwoven with these tragic human circumstances are antic elements that collide with this depressing narrative. The novel opens abruptly with a humorous but disconcerting encounter between Cyrus, who is working as a surrogate patient in an introduction to medicine class, and a student, who is clearly in the early stages of her education. Cyrus is having a bad day and cynically takes on the role of the difficult patient, nearly driving the student to tears. There is a zany episode when Cyrus and a friend take on a home maintenance and wood chopping job for a man who lives alone and who monitors their work wearing only his underwear.  

Dream sequences in which Cyrus receives guidance from figures ranging from Kareem Abdul Jabbar to a thinly disguised, now President Trump materialize without warning. An uncle, his mother’s older brother, passes through the story several times appearing as a figure draped in a black hooded cape and riding on horseback across the blood-drenched Iran-Iraq war battlefields. His mission is to reassure the dying soldiers that they will ascend to paradise. Yet, despite these disparate elements, the book has a powerful coherence and momentum. One of the most striking features of the book is its extraordinarily imaginative similes– “he was skinny in a scrawny way, not like a runner but like a mathematician who forgets to eat,” “the middle school teacher… offered him a racial slur, like a juicy orange they might peel together and share.” These phrases demand that you slow down the pace of your reading and take note of the author’s creativity.  

Engagement with language and its communicative limitations emerges as a key theme of Martyr!. Cyrus comments frequently on the arbitrariness of language and the terrifying consequences that can arise from the words we use. Akbar embeds this idea in his writing by implying that plain words alone are inadequate to capture the essence of things, and the only reliable way to convey meaning to readers is by creating vivid and arresting comparisons. The plot of the book takes off when Cyrus is encouraged by a friend to go to the Brooklyn Museum and visit a featured exhibit, DEATH-SPEAK. It consists of an artist who is dying of cancer sitting on a chair and talking with the visitors about death during the final weeks of her life. An unanticipated bond is quickly established between the artist named Orkideh and Cyrus. He feels compelled to return and speak with her over the next four days. Their conversation is genuine and moving. There is more to the artist and her art than meets Cyrus’ eye, and those unexpected twists drive the story to its blazing finish.  

What is one to make of this wholly original and emotionally charged novel? I will restrict myself to three thoughts that have had staying power after finishing the book a month ago. First, as mentioned above, Martyr! raises provocative questions about the limitations of language and our ability to communicate with one another. Cyrus (and Akbar) questions the capacity of words alone to express meaning, as if each of us has our own private language. If we can firmly ground our language with references to concrete, real life experiences, which is precisely what Akbar does with the beautiful and jarring similes that are interwoven into the entire book, then we may be able to convey meaning. That Akbar can introduce such a recondite idea, a variant of playing language games, into a best-selling novel is a feat worth noting.  

Second, there is a yearning to be healed that drives Cyrus’ quest. Martyrdom is the outer expression, but it is a quest for meaning that is the true driving force that motivates Cyrus to take healthy action in the novel. He attends a group therapy program and has a tough-minded supervisor to help him detox from his drug use. Ultimately, it is the new awareness that Cyrus gains about his parents that enables him to achieve psychological equanimity and peace of mind.  

Finally, what is the martyrdom that Cyrus longs for? He is not looking to wrap himself with explosives, kill the infidels, and gain entry to paradise. One could say that what he so desperately wants is lasting fame and renown for an act or artistic creation that will be seen as unique and cherished, that will survive after him, and that will keep his name eternally alive. The Book of Martyrs, a fictional collection of poems written by Cyrus that are interspersed in the text, could conceivably represent this hoped-for act of martyrdom. However, the ending of the novel suggests that Akbar may have a less explosive and more intimate notion of what martyrdom means. The knowledge that Cyrus gains over the course of the novel and his interactions with Orkideh spur him to finally achieve the martyrdom he seeks. His ultimate fate on the final page is actually a bit murky. But the vision that one is left with is that Cyrus has indeed achieved a life of meaning because it is a life of meaningful interpersonal connections.  

Martyr! 
Kaveh Akbar 
Alfred A. Knopf, 2024, pp 332 
Web image by Levi Meir Clancy

“At once it struck me what quality went to form a Man of Achievement, especially in Literature, and which Shakespeare possessed so enormously — I mean Negative Capability, that is, when a man is capable of being in uncertainties, mysteries, doubts, without any irritable searching after fact and reason.”¹ 

The young physician then went on to cite Samuel Taylor Coleridge as a poet whom he considered deficient in negative capability because he was “incapable of remaining content with half-knowledge.”¹ What exactly did Keats mean? That Coleridge was too curious or too intellectual to be a great poet? We’ll never know because Keats, who died of tuberculosis less than four years later, never referred to negative capability again, either in his letters or other writings.  

A single mention in a private letter is not much of a pedigree. Nonetheless, Keats’ casual turn of phrase has generated plenty of writings by others in the centuries that followed. Literary critics generally interpret negative capability to mean being open to the world without having preconceived theories, a willingness to suspend judgment, and/or the ability to function imaginatively in the face of incomplete knowledge (e.g. uncertainties, mysteries). In recent decades notable psychoanalysts and philosophers have championed the importance of negative capability in their own fields. In fact, with the enthusiasm of a dilettante who knows little about literary criticism, I’ve gone so far as to argue that negative capability is an important quality for clinicians to develop.²  

Wait a second! There’s something wrong with this picture. Physicians not “searching after fact and reason”? Doctors “remaining content with half-knowledge”? How can negative capability be a positive quality in scientific medicine? It sounds negative for sure, but not very capable.  

What did John Keats have in mind when he invented the term? In 1816 he had successfully passed his examination for a medical license and joined the Worshipful Society of Apothecaries, yet had also become increasingly ambivalent about a career in medicine. By late 1817 he and his brothers had rented a house in Hampstead, where John devoted himself to writing poetry, as well as taking care of Tom, who was dying of tuberculosis. Keats had given up the idea of practicing medicine. Yet could medical training have had any influence on his concept of negative capability?  

Medicine has a long tradition that attributes a special quality to the diagnostic and therapeutic thought processes of good clinicians, an attribute independent of intelligence, medical knowledge, or even logical deduction—with all due respect to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle and his teacher, Dr. Joseph Bell, who served as the model for Sherlock Holmes. When I was a medical student, my teachers referred to this quality as clinical intuition or clinical judgment. Yet the word “intuition” was always suspect because it smacked of mysticism, and “judgment” was co-opted in the 1970s by clinical epidemiologists, like Alvan Feinstein, who characterized it in mathematical terms of probability and utility, which sounded good but didn’t capture the experiential quality of medical thinking.³  

In an episode of “Star Trek,” when Spock questions Captain Kirk about an apparently foolhardy decision that has endangered the entire crew of the USS Enterprise, Kirk replies, “It’s not logical. It doesn’t make sense. It’s my gut feeling!” Kirk, as usual, had chosen the right course of action and by the end of the episode saves the day. However, even if clinical judgment can’t be reduced to an algorithm, surely it must have more going for it than gut feelings. I recently found an interesting, and I think plausible, definition in the nursing literature: “a judgment in which visual and verbal cues are so rapidly and subliminally observed that their contributions to the final decision are virtually forgotten.”⁴ 

Yet visual and verbal cues can’t stand alone. They require something to integrate them, a process, a creative spin. Some years ago Edward de Bono coined the term “lateral thinking” for an indirect approach to problem solving, involving ideas that might not be obtainable by using traditional step-by-step logic. (Parenthetically, I imagine that for de Bono the more traditional approach to problem solving must logically be entitled “medial thinking, i.e. closer to the center, whatever that means.) De Bono’s lateral thinking seems roughly equivalent to today’s favorite metaphor for creativity, “thinking outside the box.” Alternatively, those of us who slavishly adhere to reason are doomed to remain trapped inside the box, like Schrödinger’s cat, neither dead nor alive.  

Whatever you call it, I find something attractive about attributing a special openness and curiosity to the art of medicine, an openness that permits a greater variety of information to enter the box, rather than kicking the logical brain out of it. In his famous turn of phrase, Keats obviously chose to give “negative” a beneficial meaning. Negative in this context implies passivity, receptivity, and humility , yet it seems these qualities are precisely what made the difference between a competent poet like Coleridge and a truly creative one. Does this sense of negativity have a place in the art of medicine? Does it tell us anything about the difference between merely competent and master clinicians?  

One aspect of the comparison fails immediately. Unlike Keats, whose primary goal was beauty, physicians are heavily invested in truth. So “searching after fact and reason” is the name of the game in medicine, not the road to mediocrity. But other aspects of negative capability seem more promising. What if you view negative capability as intellectual and emotional openness, a willingness to be reflective and mindful about one’s practice? While “reaching after fact and reason” may be a defining feature of scientific medicine, clinicians confront a human reality that remains opaque, even after machines and lab tests have yielded their results. If we as clinicians predicate our care entirely on “irritable reaching,” or abandon patients because of “uncertainties, mysteries, doubts,” we lose much of our effectiveness as healers.  

Of course, poetry is only one of many tools that can assist us in developing the habit of reflectiveness, but for me it offers a glimpse into the paradox of the art of medicine: the ability to function at the interface between detachment and engagement, steadiness and tenderness, resilience and vulnerability, science and art. In pursuing the steadiness and detachment required to master clinical practice, it is tempting to neglect the more difficult project of nourishing engagement and tenderness in our relationships with patients—and with ourselves. In an address to medical students at McGill University, William Osler claimed,  

“Nothing will sustain you more potently in your humdrum routine… than the power to recognize the true poetry of life—the poetry of the commonplace, of the ordinary man, of the plain, toil-worn woman, with their loves and their joys, their sorrows and their griefs.”⁵  

That “power to recognize the true poetry of life” is a function of negative capability. Notice that Osler speaks of sustaining the physician through the “humdrum routine” of professional life, not specifically of patient benefit. Could it be that physicians who develop negative capability are happier, more productive, less likely to burn-out? 

I’ll end with an example close to home. In my narrative medicine elective at Stony Brook, I used to ask students to keep a clinical journal. In one of her final entries, one fourth year student, reflecting on her experience in medical school, wrote, “The practice of medicine is simply poetry in motion. The art of medicine is the validation of everything that makes the human experience. I learned more about myself than I ever imagined….”  

Simply poetry in motion.  

I wonder what John Keats, who rejected medicine for poetry, would have to say about that?  

References

1. Keats J. The Complete Poetical Works and Letters of John Keats, Cambridge Edition. Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899, p. 277. 
2. Coulehan J, Clary P. Healing the healer: Poetry in Palliative Care, J Palliative Medicine, 2005; 8: 382-389. 
3. Feinstein A. Clinical Judgment. Baltimore, Williams & Wilkins, 1967. 
4. Cioffi J. Heuristics, servants to intuition, in clinical decision-making. J Adv Nurs 1997; 26: 203-8. 
5. Osler W. The student life. In Osler’s ‘A Way of Life’ & Other Addresses With Commentary & Annotations, eds. S Hinohara and H Niki, Durham, Duke University Press, 2001, pp. 305-330.  
   

Web image from Keats Letter Project.

Charles Glass is a news correspondent who has written several books. His latest, Soldiers Don’t Go Mad: A Story of Brotherhood, Poetry, and Mental Illness During the First World War gives an account of a remarkable bit of history. Craiglockhart, a hospital near Edinburgh that had previously served the “worried wealthy,” is requisitioned in 1916 for the treatment of victims of “shell shock.” Although the facility operates as Craiglockhart War Hospital for only thirty months, during that time it treats 1801 officers. Two of those men, Wilfred Owen and Siegfried Sassoon, meet and become friends there and go on to be remembered by posterity as the two most celebrated British World War I poets. 

The author makes it clear that, at the time, the very idea of treating shell shock (nowadays PTSD) is revolutionary. The condition is barely known, but as the result of new weapons and means of waging battle, it has quickly escalated into an epidemic. As a result, only four months into the war the British Army has lost 10% of officers and 40% of enlisted men. The situation is not helped by the widely held perception that those with symptoms are malingering. Desertion is punishable by death. Many “treatment” facilities dispense nothing but electric shocks and verbal abuse “to eradicate what [the doctors there] define [ ] as cowardice rather than mental illness” (p. 238). In contrast, it is the aim of the psychiatrists at Craiglockhart to adapt Freudian psychoanalytic methods for use with this population, and to show that humane treatment yields superior results. (Albeit that the measure of those results is how quickly a soldier could be returned to the front.) 

In 1917, Wilfred Owen arrives at Craiglockhart. He has witnessed horrors, and he suffers from “trembling limbs, halting voice, and confused memory” (p. 77). He has only written a few poems, but within two months he becomes editor of the hospital’s literary journal The Hydra. A few weeks later, Second Lieutenant Sassoon is admitted. He has already made a name for himself as a poet and has been decorated with the Military Cross for bravery. 

At first Owen puts Sassoon on a pedestal, while Sassoon dismisses the less experienced poet as “a rather ordinary young man” (p.154). As each thrives in his therapy, their friendship blossoms, they critique each others’s work, and their poetry rises to extraordinary heights. At first, Owen’s “bellicose dreams” (p. 146) are filled with “images of caves, bulging eyes, demons, and blood” (p.179). After he manages to harness this imagery for his writing, his psychiatrist observes that “he fears them no longer” (p.181), and he produces the landmark poem “Anthem for Doomed Youth.” 

Owen’s return to the front has been repeatedly denied by the medical boards. Once he is transformed from “a trembling shell-shocked subaltern [to] a self-confident officer capable of leading men in battle” (p. 216), he finally gets the approval. He is killed at the age of 26; in a sad irony, his mother receives the “dreadful telegram” (p. 276) on Armistice Day. 

The subject matter of Soldiers go Mad is a fascinating chapter in the history of psychiatry, and the book provides a convincing example of the healing power of poetry. 

The celebrated novel Regeneration by Booker Prize winning author Pat Barker (1991) was also based on Craiglockhart and features many of the same characters. 

The building that was formerly Craiglockhart Hospital is now a part of Edinburgh Napier University. One can visit the War Poets Collection and see original issues of The Hydra: https://www.napier.ac.uk/about-us/our-location/our-campuses/libraries-and-heritage-collections/heritage-collections/war-poets-collection. 

Penguin Press, New York, 2023,  352 pages