Thread: The Sylvia Plath Effect.

Sylvia Plath Effect

For those who can't be bothered clicking the link, the Sylvia Plath Effect refers to the idea that creative writers are more susceptible to Mental illness (especially female poets).

I thought it would be an interesting topic to debate.

My own opinion is that it might be best the other way round - that those with a mental illness are more likely to be creative writers. If you ask me, there's a lot more that contributes to whether a person has a mental illness than the mere fact they write in a creative manner.

I'd tend to think that the number of people with mental illness among writers or other creative people isn't all the different than it is for other folks. I'm not that familiar with many female poets, but how many others have mental illness? Is it that prevalent? (Present company at WF aside.)

There's a strong argument for Sylvia Plath's problems having more to do with Ted Hughes than the fact that she was a writer.

Originally Posted by Tom

Sylvia Plath EffectMy own opinion is that it might be best the other way round - that those with a mental illness are more likely to be creative writers.

What is creative writing? Incoherent babble on paper?

Blood

What is creative writing? Incoherent babble on paper?

Absolutely! If you drink a whole bottle of Jack. If you drink half a bottle you'll graduate to non-sensical writing like this here.
hiccup...

Tom

those with a mental illness are more likely to be creative writers

A fine example: Sylivia Plath, one of my favorite free verse writers, did have Bi-Polar Disorder which is clearly evidenced in her book "The Bell Jar" and confirmed by doctors.

I'm sure her tumultuous relationship with Ted Hughes aggravated her symptoms.

But what Tom is really asking is what comes first? The chicken or the egg. From what I've read there is no conclusive evidence as to whether mental illness spurs on creativity or the reverse.

But now natural temperment, as you'll note below, is now being considered as a factor which makes the matter even more baffling.

If you care to, go into the link. Some very interesting material about Bi-Polar Disorder.

Bipolar disorder has been associated with people involved in the arts but it is an ongoing question as to whether many creative geniuses had bipolar disorder.[15][16][17] Some studies have found a significant association between bipolar disorder and creativity, although it is unclear in which direction the cause lies or whether both conditions are caused by a third unknown factor; temperament has been hypothesized to be one such factor.[18][19][20]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder

I was creative possibly before I was ever mentally abnormal (I've been weird a long time), but I wouldn't say that being creative made me disturbed. I was telling stories before I could talk well and I've always had an artistic, writerly bent.

That said, my whole family for generations in at least one direction had all kinds of mental illness and yet yielded very few artists of any kind (I can think of two--one wrote songs, the other painted, and the furthest either of them got was directing church music).

Prominent figures who have mental health problems stand out and this aspect tends always to get focused on. In the creative arts there have always been a few names which get associated in this way but compared with all the creative people there have been it's a relatively small percentage.

The thing which I find disturbing is that the problems of someone like Virginia Woolf or Vincent Van Gogh will get romanticised. At the same time society will still apply a stigma to ordinary people with mental health issues. A celebrity figures becomes a partially fictionalised character who provides a romantic myth and sadly becomes a cliché. A more real understanding might benefit attitudes to ordinary sufferers but this possibility is largely lost in the glamour.

The thing which I find disturbing is that the problems of someone like Virginia Woolf or Vincent Van Gogh will get romanticised. At the same time society will still apply a stigma to ordinary people with mental health issues.

THANK YOU! I agree with you whole heartedly. I have Epilepsy (and am a strong advocate for awareness). Not a mental but a neurological disorder which people still stigmatize to this day and since the days when people with the condition were being burned at the stake. The oldest disorder and still people turn their heads. Sorry, I'm getting off my soap box.

To the point, again. What about poor ordinary Joe with Bi-Polar Disorder or Epliepsy? Must he reach fame in order to be treated as a citizen with dignity?

And what about Virginia Woolf and the Bloomsberry crowd? They equated crazy with creativity and were all in competion as to who was the craziest i.e. the most creative. The more brilliant. What I gathered from a book about the Bloomsberry set, many years back. They could afford the game. But no game for the ordinary set who got sentenced to stigmatizm.

I always wondered about this, I didn't realize it had a name. Thanks for sharing.

I would say that about anyone who is extremely creative. Take Elliot Smith, and David Foster Wallace. I think to really create and to get in that inventive mind space you need to be on the outskirts separate. It is like how Fitzgerald had to be in France to write the great American novel, The Great Gatsby. Take fashion designer, they always dress crazy, but what some come out with very beautiful pieces. To think of things in such a different light you have to be separate in a way, and that separateness effects us as creatures who are hardwired to be social to survive.

I have to admit, the reason I have been away from this forum for so long was because I was really depressed for like six years. It just took me much longer than normal people to adjust to being different and being okay with myself. And because of being in that mindset for so long and just stewing in my own thoughts, gives me a certain aspect on my life at least that other people necessary don't think of at first. And I think a good writer is one that reveals a world or ideas that are new to the reader, even if it is something mundane, just thinking about it slightly askew can make it alien, foreign, bizarre or fascinating, which keeps them hooked. If we all thought like everyone else, why would anyone want to read a story they could have thought up themselves?