
The Noonday Demon: An Atlas of Depression
Dear Jim,
I've never read Robert Burton's Anatomy of Melancholy (1621). But Andrew Solomon's description of it--as a "subtle, self-contradictory, badly organized, hugely wise volume" that synthesizes existing scientific knowledge and the author's own experience of depression--convinces me that it was the model for The Noonday Demon.
Except that Solomon's book is very deftly organized. Solomon is a novelist in his late 30s, family-oriented, Yale-educated, smart, intellectually and physically vain, bisexual, adventurous, unmarried, rich (or so one gleans from his descriptions of jetting off to house parties in England), and not prone to boozing or drugs. He believes his first breakdown--a real doozy--was occasioned by his mother's death in 1991. He's had two depressions since, one major, one minor.
But this is not just a late-arriving crazy-person memoir of the sort that Elizabeth Wurtzel, Caroline Knapp, and Michael Ryan were writing five or 10 years ago. One gets the feeling (and it's a funny feeling to get from a novelist) that Solomon distrusts "mere" stories. His bent is more scholarly than literary. He's read most of the literature on depression and suicide, and The Noonday Demon can be read as a commonplace book of Great Thoughts on Blue States, from Coleridge, Goethe, A. Alvarez ("There is, I believe, a whole class of suicides who take their own lives not in order to die but to escape confusion, to clear their heads"), and Primo Levi.
Solomon's own story forms a hub from which his explorations of depression radiate. He starts by describing his breakdowns and those of others. Sleeping for 18 hours at a stretch, unable to stand upright, vomiting. ... No one will close this book doubting that depression exists. (No one will open this book doubting that depression exists, either, but that's another story.) An implicit attack on those who don't think of depression as a "real" medical ailment is about the only agenda this book has.
Solomon is admirably reticent, though, about exactly what depression is. The model he follows throughout is that it's a disease of both the mind and the brain. It's obvious that brain disorders affect what you think, but only recently has science come around to the idea that what you think can reshape your brain. So the romantic vision of depression (that a trauma or "deep thoughts" can provoke it) and the scientific one (as a deficit of certain neurotransmitters) are not at odds. Good for Solomon! What I admire most about this book, aside from its overall agendalessness, is that it's forever slapping the mental-health conventional wisdom vigorously in the face. The chemical fetishism of newsweekly readers--the scientific folklore that depression's relationship to low serotonin, say, is as straightforward as diabetes's to low blood sugar--richly deserves such a slap.
Solomon moves on to treatments, from different classes of anti-depressants (Prozac, Elavil, Nardil, Effexor) to shock therapy (he's a fan) to talking cures to Senegalese ndeup therapy (which seems to involve mud baths, drinking blood, and the company of women). This, surprisingly, is one of the least satisfying parts of the book: first, because he doesn't know (any more than anyone else does) exactly how these treatments work. And second, because they lure him into a wonkish, term-paper prose that vitiates long stretches here and elsewhere. He really makes the reader pay for his insights with sentences like: "Many substances are said to help contravene the sexual side effects of antidepressants: serotonin antagonists such as cyproheptadine and granisetron; alpha-2 antagonists such as yohimbine and trazodone; cholinergic agonists such as bethanecol; dopamine-enhancing drugs such as bupropion, amantadine, and bromocriptine ..." And on and on.
From there he looks at different subpopulations' relationship to depression. He's excellent on the aged ("The elderly depressed are chronically undertreated, in large part because we as a society see old age as depressing") but p.c. on race ("Unlike gender or age in depression, ethnicity does not appear to harbor biological determinants"--this optimism is belied by Solomon's own interviews with the Inuit and will strike anyone who has spent time in Ireland as dubious) and inexplicably chicken about challenging crackpot feminist theories of depression (Dana Crowley Jack's assertion that marriage--per se!--is a depression trigger strikes Solomon as just a "moment of excess").
Solomon again gets verbose and wonkish in his chapter on the history of depression--as sloth and accidie, spleen and Weltschmerz--but the results are better this time. In particular, there's fascinating material on medieval delusions, such as the belief that one's buttocks are made of glass and will break if one sits on them. (Your ass is glass!) His chapter on politics is excellent, much less tendentious than his demographics chapter. Particularly fruitful is his riff on the politics of coerced treatment, of whether it's better "to imprison some people who should be free, or to free some people who will destroy themselves." (Although, since he asserted a "right to suicide" earlier in the book, it's illogical--and wrong--of him to urge that we err on the side of imprisonment.)
Before closing, Solomon has a chapter called "Evolution." This is the core of a deep and wide-ranging discussion of why depression exists and what it does for us. Quite a lot, Solomon would say. However much he fears his depression, he's clearly proud of it on some level--and he's not necessarily wrong to be. He is, after all, of the people of Tolstoy and Churchill. This chapter is yet another example, by the way, of how evolution has become our metaphysics. As the sermon was in the 18th century and the novel was in the 19 th, it's the venue for discussing the Big Questions of human existence in a generalist way. But we'll save that for another time.
What I'd most like to talk about tomorrow is Solomon's disturbing account of his mother's assisted suicide, which he is probably right to see as the proximate cause of his depression. But maybe you'd like to take a crack at that first.
Best,
Chris
Happy Birthday, Smokey Bear
Are Gas Grills More Eco-Friendly Than Charcoal Ones?
He-Man: Briefs of Rage and Other Toy-Inspired Movies We're Dying To See
Kaus: Seven Possible Theories Explaining Palin's Resignation
The U.S. Embassy in Djibouti Cordially Invites You to a Fourth of July Cookout
The Week's Best Editorial Cartoons












Reader Comments From The Fray:
[Notes from the Fray Editor: One line in the piece "The chemical fetishism of newsweekly readers--the scientific folklore that depression's relationship to low serotonin, say, is as straightforward as diabetes's to low blood sugar--richly deserves such a slap" got a lot of attention. A couple of readers talked about diabetes and depression, here and here, and Mangar also took issue, below. Cato the Censor was more interested in the idea of taking pride in depression: "Contracting tuberculosis, for example, would not be occasion for pride because Keats shared this disease." Some readers gave their personal stories, below and here.]
If the idea that there's something else to depression besides just chemicals was a radical idea, a refreshing slap in the face, then mental health would look a lot different. We would be seeing a slow invasion of counselors (who talk to people and work on changing their thinking) into a world dominated by psychiatrist (who generally prescribe and monitor medication). In fact, it's a damn sight harder to get 15 minutes with a psychiatrist than an hour with a counselor, and medication is generally considered a "good adjunct" or "facilitator" to the work of therapy. Sure, meds help, but you're not likely to find a good psychiatrist who doesn't prescribe a healthy dose of counseling along with their Zoloft.
I'm curious to see where the writers come from on their pending discussion of evolution and depression. I have yet to read a convincing argument about the "use" of depression in an evolutionary sense. I've read some perfectly preposterous ones in the meantime, such as the "superorganism" concept put forth by Howard Bloom in The Lucifer Principle.
--Mangar
(To reply, click here.)
I am one of those chronically depressed people who the author writes about. I've been depressed since childhood, have attempted suicide, seen dozens of therapists, battled drug addiction, and have been prescribed levels of anti-depressants that are listed as overdoses in the medical literature. So I qualify as depressed, and yet have no interest in reading this book.
There are several reasons for this. One of the hallmarks of depression is despair. We depressives do not go in for self-help books---why bother? Anecdotes about fellow sufferers are of no interest to me. The fact that other people are equally miserable does nothing to make me feel better. If anything, it makes me feel worse. Anyhow, in my case, I feel that discussions about depression are irrelevant. Born with a congenital bone disease that has left me dwarfish and deformed, I have never had a girlfriend (or boyfriend) and nobody wants to hire me, despite my job skills. Frankly, faced with a lifetime of loneliness, ridicule, poverty and misery, depression seems to be the only sane attitude to have. And I suspect that many other depressed people feel the same way.
--Steinmetz
(To reply, click here.)
In my case (45 years old and suffering increasingly severe bouts of depression since early childhood) there is absolutely a direct relationship between events of significant loss and major depression. I don't suggest or believe this is true for all depressed people, but it's the foundational element of my trouble. And one more thing, related: I can easily name for you the one overwhelming emotion, or feeling, or whatever you want to call the thing depression is/has been for me, and that's this: Terror. Pure, horrific, terror, so unrelievedly painful I would repeat to myself (during episodes, one as long as 10 months) "I just can't believe this is happening to me."
--Dian
(To reply, click here.)
(6/21)