This is nearly beside the point--but maybe not. I was once prescribed Elavil, as a grad student who had temporarily (but the fight lay ahead) lost custody of her small child. It caused spatial distortions--I could hardly descend stairs, let alone drive. And total loss of affect. When the script ran out I did not renew, returned to being my rationally depressed self. I do believe the neuropharmaka prescribed then and now can do unacknowledged harm to mood and judgment. Add a Freudian therapist and omg. As for the shredder--it's hard to kill off all your past selves, in cold blood.
That might be the most vivid description of taking Elavil that I’ve read. I don’t see it as irrelevant at all.
“Notes to John” doesn’t make clear whether Didion was on antidepressants for several decades straight (or whether it was just Elavil in her 30s and Zoloft in her 60s). But it does make you wonder whether some of her depression at times might have resulted from withdrawal from her meds or the meds themselves. And “rationally depressed” is exactly how Didion comes off in some of her books. In the part of “The White Album” I mentioned, she goes on to say that she doesn’t think being depressed was an irrational reaction to the events of 1968. Nor do I.
It was def easier in Didion's time to be a white female trailblazer. There just weren't as many others around or in the recent past. Also I'm not sure Didion would have the audience today she had then. There's not as much market for white (WASPY) literature--that's all I was attempting to say. I guess that's another Substack.
This publication from beyond the grave —and the literary and ethical issues it raises —all remind me of the regrettable posthumous publications of Harper Lee. Perhaps authors should periodically review the manuscripts in their bottom drawers and do some strategic shredding?
A very timely comment! The supposedly newly discovered Harper Lee short stories are scheduled to appear next month. I’m guessing that authors who don’t do the strategic shredding are ambivalent about posthumous publication. Maybe they don’t quite believe something is good enough to publish but half hope posterity will prove them wrong?
Didion especially had trouble with the all-or-nothing approach of AA. She says she had thought "AA's medical model for alcoholism was a big mistake, in that it provided an excuse for drinking by insisting the 'disease' was bigger than you were and beyond your control." [Page 94] The book has MacKinnon's response to this and other issues she raised.
I can see where AA would not have appealed to her or would have been a struggle because of her formidable, relentlessly inquiring intellect. In both AA and Al-Anon there's a measure of surrendering and stopping thinking and just believing and trusting. I can see how her proclivity to overthink would hindered her; that's what I am trying to say, not very well!
Good question. I was surprised to find in “Notes to John” a couple of mentions of Didion’s going to church at St. John the Divine. Not sure what her beliefs about a higher power are.
I don't know if I will read this newest Didion collection but having learned what I have of it, and otherwise knowing of her struggle with her daughter's alcoholism, I have often wondered if she ever participated in Al-Anon or other similar groups. It seems as if it would have been such a no-brainer. Al-Anon has been around for some 70 years so its program and resources would have been available.
She did go to at least one AA meeting with her daughter, she says. Didion may have meant Al-Anon, but she says AA. And there’s a fair amount in “Notes to John” on the matter. Didion wanted to help Quintana but had deep ambivalence about the AA approach, which she talks about with MacKinnon.
She knew the file existed. She had to know someone would publish its contents. I like the viewpoint of seeing this writing as part of the process to the final draft. I like imagining her thinking, So they think they want to see the "real" me??
Thanks, Leslie. That she gave it a title seems significant to me, too. And there’s a literary conceit there, too: addressing the letters to John when she
had no doubt already talked to him about every session.
Yes, Didion titled her running notes and addressed entries to her husband, but: "Dunne’s shadowy presence is among the aspects of Notes to John that raise questions about how much, if anything, Didion’s executors cut or edited or what she herself withheld."
I'd like to veer on Didion herself actively reducing her presence (and her Husband's) in her own notes, whether she meant them to be consumed by anyone else or not. As someone who also journals, presenting too much of myself, beyond that of default observer, cuts into chronicling the happenings around me and the observations I'm meaning to make.
Your idea that Didion was trying to reduce her presence sounds plausible. By calling her ms. "Notes to John" perhaps she was trying to convince herself that they were intended not to promote her therapy but to help him or others?
Your comment sparked another idea as well. The "letters to" device is a common conceit or technique in fiction. Perhaps she was thinking of reducing her presence further by fictionalizing the notes?
I don’t think it should’ve been published but I guess it chronicles her success. Probably won’t read it. Didion was lucky to be a trailblazer in a less competitive time (IMO) when white women could still be trailblazers. Not sure what they’d have to do now to be a trailblazer.
Not sure she came of age at a less competitive time, but it definitely had advantages for journalists of her calibre. There were so many more magazines and newspapers that would pay real money for the kind of work she did. Now everybody would be telling her, "Joan, you should be on Substack."
I didn’t think it was an act, but I can see how people would. Especially in some of the later books, I had the sense that she was playing to type or to an audience in a way I didn’t with the earlier books. But it’s just my impression, and it could be the wrong one.
Much appreciate your helpful comments, John. I may never have known the correct name for those machines. And I might not have made my point as clearly as I could have. I revised the line to reflect what I was trying to say: that the entries resemble dashed-off news bulletins more than the well-crafted essays people associate with Didion.
Re the publicity still for the documentary: Some outlets used it flopped and some not flopped. And because I haven't seen the movie, I don't know which way the film showed it. I'll try to sort that out and maybe replace the photo if I can.Thanks a million for your sharp eye and raising a point I hadn't considered.
OK, that does it for me. Thank you! I'll try to flop the picture before the ruckus that will break out at 3 p.m. on Monday if Percival Everett doesn't win the fiction Pulitzer for "James" (or another controversy about one of the literary prizes erupts).
I get tired of seeing "pessimistic, fatalistic, and depressive” attached to women, and especially mothers. Great review Jan!
This is nearly beside the point--but maybe not. I was once prescribed Elavil, as a grad student who had temporarily (but the fight lay ahead) lost custody of her small child. It caused spatial distortions--I could hardly descend stairs, let alone drive. And total loss of affect. When the script ran out I did not renew, returned to being my rationally depressed self. I do believe the neuropharmaka prescribed then and now can do unacknowledged harm to mood and judgment. Add a Freudian therapist and omg. As for the shredder--it's hard to kill off all your past selves, in cold blood.
That might be the most vivid description of taking Elavil that I’ve read. I don’t see it as irrelevant at all.
“Notes to John” doesn’t make clear whether Didion was on antidepressants for several decades straight (or whether it was just Elavil in her 30s and Zoloft in her 60s). But it does make you wonder whether some of her depression at times might have resulted from withdrawal from her meds or the meds themselves. And “rationally depressed” is exactly how Didion comes off in some of her books. In the part of “The White Album” I mentioned, she goes on to say that she doesn’t think being depressed was an irrational reaction to the events of 1968. Nor do I.
It was def easier in Didion's time to be a white female trailblazer. There just weren't as many others around or in the recent past. Also I'm not sure Didion would have the audience today she had then. There's not as much market for white (WASPY) literature--that's all I was attempting to say. I guess that's another Substack.
This publication from beyond the grave —and the literary and ethical issues it raises —all remind me of the regrettable posthumous publications of Harper Lee. Perhaps authors should periodically review the manuscripts in their bottom drawers and do some strategic shredding?
That is probably right.
A very timely comment! The supposedly newly discovered Harper Lee short stories are scheduled to appear next month. I’m guessing that authors who don’t do the strategic shredding are ambivalent about posthumous publication. Maybe they don’t quite believe something is good enough to publish but half hope posterity will prove them wrong?
Didion especially had trouble with the all-or-nothing approach of AA. She says she had thought "AA's medical model for alcoholism was a big mistake, in that it provided an excuse for drinking by insisting the 'disease' was bigger than you were and beyond your control." [Page 94] The book has MacKinnon's response to this and other issues she raised.
On more than one level, I would imagine.
AA is problematic for writers.
I can see where AA would not have appealed to her or would have been a struggle because of her formidable, relentlessly inquiring intellect. In both AA and Al-Anon there's a measure of surrendering and stopping thinking and just believing and trusting. I can see how her proclivity to overthink would hindered her; that's what I am trying to say, not very well!
Overthink, or insist on thinking for herself, free of belief in a higher power?
Good question. I was surprised to find in “Notes to John” a couple of mentions of Didion’s going to church at St. John the Divine. Not sure what her beliefs about a higher power are.
Yes
I don't know if I will read this newest Didion collection but having learned what I have of it, and otherwise knowing of her struggle with her daughter's alcoholism, I have often wondered if she ever participated in Al-Anon or other similar groups. It seems as if it would have been such a no-brainer. Al-Anon has been around for some 70 years so its program and resources would have been available.
She did go to at least one AA meeting with her daughter, she says. Didion may have meant Al-Anon, but she says AA. And there’s a fair amount in “Notes to John” on the matter. Didion wanted to help Quintana but had deep ambivalence about the AA approach, which she talks about with MacKinnon.
She knew the file existed. She had to know someone would publish its contents. I like the viewpoint of seeing this writing as part of the process to the final draft. I like imagining her thinking, So they think they want to see the "real" me??
Thanks, Leslie. That she gave it a title seems significant to me, too. And there’s a literary conceit there, too: addressing the letters to John when she
had no doubt already talked to him about every session.
Yes, Didion titled her running notes and addressed entries to her husband, but: "Dunne’s shadowy presence is among the aspects of Notes to John that raise questions about how much, if anything, Didion’s executors cut or edited or what she herself withheld."
I'd like to veer on Didion herself actively reducing her presence (and her Husband's) in her own notes, whether she meant them to be consumed by anyone else or not. As someone who also journals, presenting too much of myself, beyond that of default observer, cuts into chronicling the happenings around me and the observations I'm meaning to make.
Your idea that Didion was trying to reduce her presence sounds plausible. By calling her ms. "Notes to John" perhaps she was trying to convince herself that they were intended not to promote her therapy but to help him or others?
Your comment sparked another idea as well. The "letters to" device is a common conceit or technique in fiction. Perhaps she was thinking of reducing her presence further by fictionalizing the notes?
I don’t think it should’ve been published but I guess it chronicles her success. Probably won’t read it. Didion was lucky to be a trailblazer in a less competitive time (IMO) when white women could still be trailblazers. Not sure what they’d have to do now to be a trailblazer.
Not sure she came of age at a less competitive time, but it definitely had advantages for journalists of her calibre. There were so many more magazines and newspapers that would pay real money for the kind of work she did. Now everybody would be telling her, "Joan, you should be on Substack."
I see what you mean now. I had the same impression!
I never thought Didion's bleak world view was an act.
I didn’t think it was an act, but I can see how people would. Especially in some of the later books, I had the sense that she was playing to type or to an audience in a way I didn’t with the earlier books. But it’s just my impression, and it could be the wrong one.
1. I think the photo of Didion with her family is reversed.
2. I'm not sure what point you were trying to make with your mention of the teletype machines in old-style newsrooms.
When I worked in the AP bureau in Des Moines in the early eighties we called them teleprinters.
They made lots of noise as they printed out wire stories. But the articles were invariably concise.
Much appreciate your helpful comments, John. I may never have known the correct name for those machines. And I might not have made my point as clearly as I could have. I revised the line to reflect what I was trying to say: that the entries resemble dashed-off news bulletins more than the well-crafted essays people associate with Didion.
Re the publicity still for the documentary: Some outlets used it flopped and some not flopped. And because I haven't seen the movie, I don't know which way the film showed it. I'll try to sort that out and maybe replace the photo if I can.Thanks a million for your sharp eye and raising a point I hadn't considered.
The photo is flipped the other way on the cover of my copy of The Year of Magical Thinking.
OK, that does it for me. Thank you! I'll try to flop the picture before the ruckus that will break out at 3 p.m. on Monday if Percival Everett doesn't win the fiction Pulitzer for "James" (or another controversy about one of the literary prizes erupts).