subterranean cranium conundrum.
i just finished suzanna kaysen's "girl, interrupted." besides being a wholly entertaining read, it was eye-opening in the sense that, after seeing the diagnosis/reasons (whatever they might have been) that concluded with the hospitalization of suzanna and her peers, i started to think about how many of the poeple i know or have come in contact with would have been subjected to the same sort of subjection and (oftentimes seemingly perverse) treatment. the era was the 1960s; but what, if each of them (us - myself included) were sent through a series of tests, interviews, and experiments and were found to be at different extremities along the gamut between sanity and lunacy? after finishing the novel, i would honestly on certain days be able to chalk myself up to the patterns of some of these people then told that they were "crazy"- and in saying so also declaring them unfit for the real world- everyday interaction with run-of-the-mill people, encounters, situations- and unable to coalesce with their world and time. what would be said of these same people and patterns of behavior today? are they still "crazy," or perhaps just "depressed," "misunderstood," "struggling to adapt." and myself? "confused," "overanxious," "indecisive," what would the words be today?
perhaps we would find ourselves all to be considered lunatics, by standards of the past and present. perhaps writing this bewonderment is, in itself, a tic. or perhaps there's no such thing as insanity after all, and this "plain" is just one big plateau. one level, fend-for-yourself playing ground.
perhaps we would find ourselves all to be considered lunatics, by standards of the past and present. perhaps writing this bewonderment is, in itself, a tic. or perhaps there's no such thing as insanity after all, and this "plain" is just one big plateau. one level, fend-for-yourself playing ground.