Resenhas
This was a wonderful book. The amount of research Debbie Nathan put into her book is staggering. I can't help but shake my head at how Shirley a.k.a. Sybil, Dr. Wilbur and Flora managed to pull the wool over everyone's eyes with the story. Shirley may have been mentally ill, but I certainly don't believe she was a multiple. I believe Dr. Wilbur wanted her fame and recognition in this field as a psychiatrist so she latched onto Shirley and ran with her problems. She drugged and manipulated the woman and took advantage of Shirley's loneliness and attachment to her. Then together, they roped Flora into writing Sybil. Flora had her doubts, but she too wanted her fame and recognition, and she was conned with the fake diary that Shirley and Dr. Wilbur gave her. These three women all needed something: Shirley needed attention from Dr. Wilbur, Dr. Wilbur, as a woman, needed recognition as a woman in her field of psychiatry, and Flora needed fame and riches from a bestseller. They kept this lie under wraps and deceived the world and the disservice that Dr. Wilbur did not only to her patient(s) but to the field of psychiatry is shameful. Debbie Nathan has done a great job of breaking down the stories of all three women and exposing the lies and each woman for what they were.
But why is multiple personality disorder something that speaks to so many people? I think it's because of the way that feeling fragmented into multiple parts of self is such a core part of the human experience, while the myth of the continuity of a single self still dominates the human narrative. For instance, rushing from work, I summarized my day to my husband and we both noticed at the same time that in clinic, I am calm and collected in a crisis, while only minutes later, in a different context: late to daycare, I easily become anxious and struggle to quickly make a plan. I think the story of Sybil speaks to that.
And I think the story behind the story of Sybil speaks to so much else: the way in which psychologic manifestations and the perception of self is contagious; the way in which uncertainty about gender roles can subconsciously be subverted into ways to get women back out of the work place (first post-WWII with MPD, a very neat analogy for the way women were torn between the work place and home, but also, as it hit epidemic levels, a way to get women back out of the workforce; and later, during the recession of the 80's with the satanic panic vilifying daycare); the way in which things that we take for granted, like a scientific approach to medicine and professional ethics, had to evolve and belong to a place and a time.
And honestly, that's really what this story is about: that things that seem "normal" and perpetual to us belong to a place and a time. Nathan makes the point that MPD, a disease of middle class white women during the 50's-70's belongs in the back of the DSM with the other "exotic" disorders that only occur in cultural contexts. So does the psychiatry of Dr. Wilbur's age -- giving the patient excessive amounts of barbiturates, amphetamines and other psychoactive drugs, then hypnotizing them -- clearly barbaric to our eyes. But Nathan treats her very sympathetically, making it clear that Dr. Wilbur pioneered a field, enjoyed all of the professional accolades of the time and did scholarly work. The point is not character assassination, but rather to cause us to question what modern precepts only exist within our cultural context. I found it very interesting reading.
Nor does Debbie Nathan bother to get into a real/not real discussion of multiplicity. It is possible, at times, to guess her opinion, but she keeps it strictly to herself.
This is simply a straight up, factual narrative of the lives of three women who cut a deep impression in psychology and the public imagination, even to this day.
I can't tell you how many times I shook my head in sadness or pain at what this poor woman when through her entire life.
It's a saddening, maddening story that, unfortunately, is all too common.
As is so often the case, fiction is accepted as truth the few people pointing out problems being largely ignored.
"There have been other books published after the fact, challenging the facts of Sybil's therapy sessions. A few examples of these are SYBIL in her own words, Sybil Exposed, and After Sybil." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_(Schreiber_book))
I listened to an audiobook version.
Almost four years had passed since Shirley [the real Sybil] first walked into Connie's [Dr. Wilbur] office as an upbeat graduate student with nagging but bearable emotional problems. Now, after hundreds of hours of therapy and countless pills, shots, and machine-induced convulsions, she was a thirty-five-year-old junkie who spent most of her time in bed and who, when she did get up, checked her mailbox for money from her father, or wandered the streets muttering to herself.
Mid-book, I actually stopped reading to email two of my professors, telling them that this book should be required reading for graduate school students, as a warning: "This is why we tell you to not do this and never do that!"
Shirley Mason, the real name of the afflicted woman, was not so much treated as manipulated by psychoanalyst Cornelia Wilbur, who clearly created false memories of horrific abuse and created "alternate personalities" through hypnosis and drugs. These false memories and manufactured personalities were further distorted when Flora Schreiber was commissioned to write the famous book. Nathan shows us many instances of Schreiber blatantly fictionalizing aspects of Shirley's story for the sake of reader appeal and sensation.
Near the end of the book, Nathan suggests that Shirley's neurotic symptoms had an organic cause which could have been easily addressed if her doctor had been more interested in helping than exploiting her. It is a very sad story of a human life sacrificed to a big lie.
But, as the meat of the book was addressed, the author won me over with her chronology of events in the life of Shirley Mason, the real woman behind the famous “Sybil” phenomenon, and her dysfunctional relationship (even by the standards of the day) with her avaricious doctor Connie Wilbur. The publicity surrounding this case influenced the practice of psychiatry for decades, irrevocably changing American society.
It's a pretty persuasive case, if you just take it all at face value (not that I'm suggesting you do so). The psychiatrist was an ambitious woman in a field where women didn't tend to get much recognition. The same goes for the journalist. And Sybil herself was a troubled young woman who wanted to be liked. Once she had started to give the "right" answers and get praise, she wasn't able to back out and tell the truth. Add into this that the psychiatrist used far too many drugs in her treatment of Sybil, and that she asked leading questions, and suddenly everything is called into question.
The worst part of the entire affair is the treatment that Sybil didn't receive, which might have actually helped her. The second worst part is the treatment that Sybil *did* receive, which definitely didn't improve things and probably made them worse. And in third place for the worst part was the proliferation of repressed memories and multiple personality cases that created an atmosphere of hysteria (no coincidence to use that word, either, as related diagnoses became practically expected for troubled women).
Some things are pretty clear: Sybil needed help. The psychiatrist was entirely too involved in Sybil's life. The journalist had to have her story, even if it required making some of it up. Just about everything else is open to argument and interpretation.
A note about the audio version: there were some moments where the sentence phrasing got seriously strange, as if the narrator was reading along on teleprompter and thought there was going to be a comma where there wasn't or vice versa. She also has some very jarring mispronunciations, like "pundint" instead of "pundit" and "piqued" pronounced like "pee-cued." I'd probably recommend reading this one instead of listening to it.
If you haven’t read Sybil, I highly suggest you do so (I reviewed it recently!), and then I suggest you grab Sybil Exposed as a sequel. Just so you know, if you haven’t checked out Sybil yet, you can still read this review because it’s not going to give away Sybil spoilers.
Debbie Nathan dives into research about one of the most famous cases of multiple personality: Sybil. She uncovers facts that show that the nonfictional story of Sybil is a fabrication.
For the full review, visit Love at First Book
But this review is about Sybil Exposed, not my own observations. Nathan does a good job of presenting the information clearly and concisely. She spends way too much time in the beginning on back story, starting out before Mason is even born. *Yawn* She goes into a lot of detail about Mason's early life but most of it isn't referenced and it's unclear how much is speculation, how much is from the book, and how much is from research. (And good heavens was she focused on how "rail thin" Mason was! I lost count of how many times Nathan referred to her that way.) She also includes too much of the biographies of Wilbur and the other woman in the case, the book writer Flora Schreiber. But once the actual story gets going the book becomes more interesting and flows more smoothly. I still found myself speed-reading because parts were rather monotonous.
The Good:
Nathan used hundreds (thousands?) of documents, tapes, and interviews for her book and she uses footnotes extensively throughout the text. She spoke with as many people as she could including doctors, friends, neighbors, relatives and so forth to supplement the tapes. She also doesn't just say that Wilbur gave Mason gobs of psychotropic medication but describes which medications, what common side-effects they have, what they are prescribed for now, and how they interact with each other (and she footnotes these). I checked the footnotes periodically, especially on those items that I found contentious and most of the time they referenced tapes or other appropriate materials. The ones I was worried about often referenced direct sources such as interviews which alleviated my concerns.
The Bad:
If you actually check the footnotes you'll see that some don't actually reference anything to backup a statement but to refer you to something mentioned in the text. For example, Nathan footnotes a passage where she claims Mason spent hours cutting out letters from magazines and sorting them into matchstick boxes in order or later use them to write stories without actually doing the physical act of writing. When you check the footnote, however, you are referred to the actual magazine archives which has nothing to do with what needs to be footnoted.
In the same paragraph she explains while doing this that she most likely saw an article on such and suck. The footnote again, refers you to the article and in no way gives any proof that Mason would have read such an article. This time of inference is often drawn: "quite probably" and "most likely" and "maybe" are often used in the book to describe something Mason may have done that could possibly have affected her later behavior. Some of these were extreme reaches like the articles, particularly one that appeared in a magazine a couple of months after Mason's father stopped subscribing to it. But Nathan says that Mason got magazines from other people sometimes and maybe one of them was that magazine and she maybe read that article. Really? And I may have read that article on penis envy that was in that magazine that was in that box of "please take me" freebies in my doctor's office but I didn't nor would I ever.
I don't have the book in front of me anymore but some critical stuff she doesn't footnote are on page 155 and the top of page 164.
The Ugly:
She really, really hates Schreiber. I see Schreiber as far less of a problem than Wilbur, who I think is about as evil as someone who doesn't believe in evil can think someone can be.* Nathan condemns Schreiber for using Mason's story to make a buck, but isn't that what Nathan is doing?
But despite all the problems, most of the points raised by Nathan don't need any significant documentation. Common sense and a brief review of what other Psychiatrists have publicly said about the Sybil case specifically and other "Multiple Personality Disorder"** cases in general will help in understanding what a profound con the original book was. I went into this book believing that there were actually people with multiple personalities because Sybil had been real, right? Halfway I began to question all of my preconceptions and began to supplement my readings. I came out of it convinced that what the media and books like Sybil and [b:The Three Faces Of Eve|462534|The Three Faces Of Eve|Corbett H. Thigpen|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1302191081s/462534.jpg|2288585] try to make us believe is actually not what it appears to be at all but something much more sinister. Nathan's book is interesting and I believe far closer to the truth than Sybil but it's only an example of how mental illness is used to manipulate and confuse and to sell.
I really need to go get that next degree in psychology.
*That sentence is why my reviews are extra-special. ;)
**I purposely use that description because what is now called Disociative Personality Disorder isn't really the same thing.
2 
maybedog | outras 28 resenhas | Apr 5, 2013 |
maybedog | outras 28 resenhas | Apr 5, 2013 | But this review is about Sybil Exposed, not my own observations. Nathan does a good job of presenting the information clearly and concisely. She spends way too much time in the beginning on back story, starting out before Mason is even born. *Yawn* She goes into a lot of detail about Mason's early life but most of it isn't referenced and it's unclear how much is speculation, how much is from the book, and how much is from research. (And good heavens was she focused on how "rail thin" Mason was! I lost count of how many times Nathan referred to her that way.) She also includes too much of the biographies of Wilbur and the other woman in the case, the book writer Flora Schreiber. But once the actual story gets going the book becomes more interesting and flows more smoothly. I still found myself speed-reading because parts were rather monotonous.
The Good:
Nathan used hundreds (thousands?) of documents, tapes, and interviews for her book and she uses footnotes extensively throughout the text. She spoke with as many people as she could including doctors, friends, neighbors, relatives and so forth to supplement the tapes. She also doesn't just say that Wilbur gave Mason gobs of psychotropic medication but describes which medications, what common side-effects they have, what they are prescribed for now, and how they interact with each other (and she footnotes these). I checked the footnotes periodically, especially on those items that I found contentious and most of the time they referenced tapes or other appropriate materials. The ones I was worried about often referenced direct sources such as interviews which alleviated my concerns.
The Bad:
If you actually check the footnotes you'll see that some don't actually reference anything to backup a statement but to refer you to something mentioned in the text. For example, Nathan footnotes a passage where she claims Mason spent hours cutting out letters from magazines and sorting them into matchstick boxes in order or later use them to write stories without actually doing the physical act of writing. When you check the footnote, however, you are referred to the actual magazine archives which has nothing to do with what needs to be footnoted.
In the same paragraph she explains while doing this that she most likely saw an article on such and suck. The footnote again, refers you to the article and in no way gives any proof that Mason would have read such an article. This time of inference is often drawn: "quite probably" and "most likely" and "maybe" are often used in the book to describe something Mason may have done that could possibly have affected her later behavior. Some of these were extreme reaches like the articles, particularly one that appeared in a magazine a couple of months after Mason's father stopped subscribing to it. But Nathan says that Mason got magazines from other people sometimes and maybe one of them was that magazine and she maybe read that article. Really? And I may have read that article on penis envy that was in that magazine that was in that box of "please take me" freebies in my doctor's office but I didn't nor would I ever.
I don't have the book in front of me anymore but some critical stuff she doesn't footnote are on page 155 and the top of page 164.
The Ugly:
She really, really hates Schreiber. I see Schreiber as far less of a problem than Wilbur, who I think is about as evil as someone who doesn't believe in evil can think someone can be.* Nathan condemns Schreiber for using Mason's story to make a buck, but isn't that what Nathan is doing?
But despite all the problems, most of the points raised by Nathan don't need any significant documentation. Common sense and a brief review of what other Psychiatrists have publicly said about the Sybil case specifically and other "Multiple Personality Disorder"** cases in general will help in understanding what a profound con the original book was. I went into this book believing that there were actually people with multiple personalities because Sybil had been real, right? Halfway I began to question all of my preconceptions and began to supplement my readings. I came out of it convinced that what the media and books like Sybil and [b:The Three Faces Of Eve|462534|The Three Faces Of Eve|Corbett H. Thigpen|http://photo.goodreads.com/books/1302191081s/462534.jpg|2288585] try to make us believe is actually not what it appears to be at all but something much more sinister. Nathan's book is interesting and I believe far closer to the truth than Sybil but it's only an example of how mental illness is used to manipulate and confuse and to sell.
I really need to go get that next degree in psychology.
*That sentence is why my reviews are extra-special. ;)
**I purposely use that description because what is now called Disociative Personality Disorder isn't really the same thing.
The powerful character(s) of Sybil has been absorbed whole-heartedly into American culture since the 1973 release of the international bestselling psychological bio. Like millions of people who have read the book or seen the film adaption, I thought I knew the story behind the 20th century's most widely known multiple personality case, but the thorough investigation and captivating reporting of author Debbie Nathan has opened my eyes to one of the greatest psychiatric hoaxes of all time. Delving deep into the case history and lives of the three women central to the story of Sybil -- Shirley Mason, renamed Sybil in the book, her doctor Cornelia Wilbur, and author Flora Schreiber -- Nathan presents a thoroughly convincing argument detailing the manner in which in overly ambitious doctor with a pet theory played on the damaged psyche of an sensitive, insecure woman to create a psychiatric case that brought them fame and fortune, but not healing. A fascinating read.
There are many who are absolutely angry at this book and how it discusses the poor medical approaches used by Dr. Wilbur and exposing the truth behind the manipulations in the Sybil case (Shirley Mason was kept drugged to insensibility for years, she lived in a strange, jealous arrangement with Dr. Wilbur after Wilbur's husband died, and she suffered from pernicious anemia, a condition which explains everything Wilbur observed that made her immediately diagnose Sybil as having MPD before she ever saw an "alter" and so much more). These people think that discrediting the Sybil case somehow discredits the idea that atrocious abuse happens to children.
They're wrong. The Sybil case became a beacon for child abuse advocates and shined a light on child abuse, especially sexual abuse victims. But it also spawned hideous copycat books like When Rabbit Howls and Michelle Remembers, it created a bad protocol for dealing with memory in therapy and it created moral panics, like the Satanic Panic in the USA, wherein many therapeutic and law enforcement resources were wasted on shadows and diverted from real and less sensationalist abuse and people who entered therapy for mild problems left therapy shattered and estranged forever from their families.
This is an absolute must-read for anyone who is interested in how hoaxes can be perpetrated, sometimes with the best of intentions, and how the therapeutic community engaged in some really bad work stemming from Dr. Wilbur's famous case. Moreover, it is an excellent sleuth read as Nathan goes back in time and picks the case apart. Fascinating book, utterly fascinating.
1 oddbooks | outras 28 resenhas | Jun 9, 2012 |
oddbooks | outras 28 resenhas | Jun 9, 2012 | Nathan certainly has a strong case when it comes to the treatment administered by Dr. Wilbur. Recent history has brought devastating revelations about the misguided psychiatric "therapies" used in the past. Nathan's anger comes through clearly when she describes how Dr. Wilbur's use of electroshock and irresponsible amounts of addictive drugs left her patient a helpless wreck during what should have been the most productive years of her life. But Nathan goes further: she accuses the doctor of forcing Sybil to sever ties with everyone from her past and live a cloistered existence in her doctor's shadow in order to preserve her own anonymity after the book was published and became a massive bestseller. Meanwhile, Dr. Wilbur became a star in the psychiatric world.
It's harder to assign blame to Schrieber, the author of the book. She was an ambitious writer of popular magazine stories who shaped the book to make it a bestseller. Here Nathan speculates that the constraints placed on female accomplishment in the early to mid-20th century drove both Schrieber and Wilbur to self-aggrandizement at the expense of the woman whose story they were supposedly telling. An interesting theory, but not much more than speculation.
The least satisfying part of the book involved Sybil's actual early life. I well remember the oppressive, gothic atmosphere conjured by Schrieber in describing Sybil's home town. But Sybil's childhood was 80 years ago; records have been destroyed, and witnesses have died out. There's really no way to know why so many people described Sybil's mother as "strange." I did note that Nathan mentioned the physical illness that Sybil suffered from is hereditary, and that her mother had symptoms -- is it possible that Sybil was affected by instances where her mother acted strangely because of this illness?
In all, a very intriguing and well-written book. Nathan makes her case that Sybil was probably not what Dr. Wilbur claimed she was -- but she cannot satisfactorily answer the most interesting question: what was really going on in her life?
1 sophroniaborgia | outras 28 resenhas | Mar 11, 2012 |
sophroniaborgia | outras 28 resenhas | Mar 11, 2012 | Este site usa cookies para fornecer nossos serviços, melhorar o desempenho, para análises e (se não estiver conectado) para publicidade. Ao usar o LibraryThing, você reconhece que leu e entendeu nossos Termos de Serviço e Política de Privacidade . Seu uso do site e dos serviços está sujeito a essas políticas e termos.
As is so often the case, fiction is accepted as truth the few people pointing out problems being largely ignored.
"There have been other books published after the fact, challenging the facts of Sybil's therapy sessions. A few examples of these are SYBIL in her own words, Sybil Exposed, and After Sybil." (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sybil_(Schreiber_book))
I listened to an audiobook version.