"Roman satirists may be thought of as functioning within a triangle of which the apices are (a) attack, (b) entertainment, and (c) preaching. If a poem rests too long on apex (a) it passes into lampoon or invective; if it lingers on (b) it changes into some form of comedy; and if it remains on (c) it becomes a sermon." Niall Rudd, Themes in Roman Satire

What is striking and original about Rudd's application of this theoretical structure for satire is the fact that he sees a good deal of movement within individual pieces; the effect is on of hovering and flitting, like a bird that never alights. (Which is why my bird traps on the ground keep turning up with nothing more than handfuls of feathers, I suppose - time to construct a bow and arrow.)

            One of my basic, but as yet unexplored and unsupported, assumptions about genre is that ‘genre’ refers to structure, and that ‘genre’ does not give a very reliable indication of content or of function. Thus, I identify Oscar Wilde’s “De Profundis” as a letter on the basis of the structural elements at the beginning and end: the piece opens with “H.M. Prison, Reading” and “Dear Bosie”, and ends with “your affectionate friend, Oscar Wilde”, as well as putting the piece into the context of a history and a potential future of correspondence. However, on page 97 right near the beginning, Wilde refers to what he is doing as “writing your [Bosie’s] life and

"...there was nothing to hold her, she was free - what a terrible thing could be freedom. Trees were free when they were uprooted by the wind; ships were free when they were torn from their moorings; men were fre when they were cast out of their homes - free to starve, free to perish of cold and hunger." -The Well of Loneliness, by Radclyffe Hall

Madness and creativity get associated, and this is not entirely inaccurate. Speaking for myself, depression and anxiety have broadened the range of my experience of the world in certain ways, have dislocated me in a way which makes me a more original and more challenging writer and scholar.

However, what I worry about is that people will only see this silver lining (which isn't common to everyone with a mood or thought disorder), and they won't understand how horrible mental illness is - the decrease in quality of life, the sheer suffering, the stigma, the lack of understanding, the expense, access to medical care, the side effects of medications, the frustration of not finding an effective medication, and so on and so on. 

Recent conversations in the emergence working group on "unintended consequences" have reminded me of a book on the problem of "unconceived alternatives", and those in turn relate in interesting ways to issues in philosophy of science, in neurobiology, in human social organization, and, of course, in life in general. Let me see if I can explain.

The Murky Politics of Mind Body, in today's New York Times Magazine, intersects in interesting ways with a conversation this week in our senior seminar course in neural and behavioral sciences. The Times article poses the question

"How much of a difference should it make to health care - and health insurance - if a condition is physical or mental?"