One of the most interesting moments about Siri Hustvedt’s The Shaking Woman or A History of My Nerves, I found early on on when she is describing the second time she experiences one of her shaking episodes. She writes;
“A friend, who had been a professor of mine at Columbia University when I was a graduate student and who was also a participant in the seminar, told me afterward that it had been like watching a doctor and a patient in the same body. Indeed, I had been two people that day— a reasonable orator and a woman in the middle of a personal quake. Entirely against my will, I had demonstrated the very pathology I was describing.”
It is interesting to hear Hustvedt describe herself as two different people, as both a doctor and the patient being described in the same body. It is one thing to hear a case study from the perspective of an observing professional, it is another when you also get the exact thoughts, feelings, and reactions from the patient. Throughout most of the readings we have done, there have been many times where I wish I could have heard what the patient is actually thinking, even when their words or actions might fail them or cause others to think that their mind or thoughts are elsewhere. This made me think back to Higashida’s description of laughter or spinning in circles, involuntary acts that many times failed his actual thoughts and feelings, but unknown to those around him and unfortunately, out of his control. It provoked this idea within me that we may never really know what goes on inside the minds of some patients, and thats very unfortunate because we cannot help what we don’t understand.
Hustvedt, Siri (2010-02-27). The Shaking Woman or A History of My Nerves (p. 30). Henry Holt and Co.. Kindle Edition.
As Jay said before, Hustvedt writes in a similar manner as Sacks – a mixture of case studies, scientific essays, and narratives. With Hustvedt’s work, actually being able to be in the mind of the patient is a bit refreshing in regards to the other works we’ve read. The difference I would say between Higashida and her work is that Higashida never identified as a patient. In addition, his form was more of a Q & A. In my opinion, Hustvedt balances the personal and the breakdown of the scientific. Moreso, I would go as far to say that the scientific aspects make the heightens the personal in the narrative. We are being pulled deeper and deeper into her world the more she informs and educates us.
I like your post, Daniela, and also value the patient’s experience/feelings. In regards to this book being similar to Sacks in manner and mixture of writings, The Shaking Woman somehow felt a little more dense of a read. I think it might be because, as Grace put it, the reader is getting pulled “deeper and deeper into her world the more she informs and educates us.” I’m not sure if this is the case (and perhaps reaching the end of the book will prove the following statement otherwise), but Hustvedt might be saying that an individualistic attention–with acknowledgement of both the personal past and history of others–need be given for the diagnosis of a person. I’m pretty sure I stumbled over my words, but I might be saying that there are so many factors/histories that play into how a person is pathologized that the diagnosis is simultaneously personal yet universally linked.
I really like how you went out of your way to compare this text to former texts because it helps to make the connections much more clearly. Though, I had not seen all of the ones you bring up before, but was able too now thanks to your post. It is true that with every new text we take on new if not more questions arise because each text serves a different purpose to us in terms of how we relate to it as well as how we understand them I like most the way you phrase your thoughts, ” It provoked this idea within me that we may never really know what goes on inside the minds of some patients, and thats very unfortunate because we cannot help what we don’t understand” this ending to your post allowed for greater thoughts in my own interpretations of the text and I feel will help in providing me a sense of comfort when I don’t find answers as I often do try to by “reading between the lines” as though they have the answers I seek instead of admitting there may not be any. Thank you.
It was nice to hear both sides of a situation from one person. But since she was both sides, doesnt that make one side or both side some sort of biased or untrustworthy? Hustvedt could have had some sort of brain malfunction while she was experiecing the shaking. That malfunction didnt have to affect her speech or awareness, but is that the only way to tell something is wrong? The brain works almost insync with the body. Its hard to believe that she experienced a drastically abnormal physical response and no parts of her brain were affected. Thus, her recollection of the events that happened to her, even if she experienced them, are unreliable.
It is very smart of her to play double role, but as a reader, we want to see the two people instead of her taking all the role. I feel like somewhere it is also confusing for her to put into words and explain exactly what she is going through, “ I am not able to put it into words. The idea is hidden somewhere else. The question is, Is it possible to find it?” ( 32). She herself also looking for the help to find out and want to ask everyone to help her figure it out the exact answer to her ( disability). She feels like she have no control over it and when others sees her react that way it is shocking to them.