The Shaking Woman, by Siri Husvedt is a very interesting read. It is classified as a memoir and it does have those elements in it, so I can see why. But I have to agree with one of my classmates, who’s name escapes me and I do apologize, about how the book reads more like an essay rather than a memoir. There is a quote about one of her “shaking speeches” that essentially says; “It was like a doctor and a patient in the same body”.
I can see how she is trying to explain to her readers and her audience what she is going through on the inside when it comes to her shaking condition. Yet at the same time she brings in secondary sources and turns the book toward an academic read. The whole thing does balance out though. She tries everyway possible to clarify her explainations.
She makes you empathize with her and has a way in her writing of separating herself from the subject. Giving it an “objective” point of view. Again; “It was like a doctor and a patient in the same body.” I think this quote is very true to the entirety of the book. In fact, it could define it in one sentence.
I think you point out one of the most important quotes in the book, Kaitlyn. It’s an odd combination of subjective with objective, but it works. The book combines both Husvedt’s personal history with theoretical texts and the historical accounts of the convulsive condition, but it’s all very appropriate. Like with NeuroTribes, I think … well, I don’t quite have the right words for this, but it’s rather important to gain as broad/big a picture as possible (that sounds weird/vague, so I’ll try to clarify). For instance, Silberman could easily have devoted one paragraph to the DSM’s current definition of autism, but a greater understanding on how people consider autism is gained when tracking the evolution of that DSM definition (along with the important players and their intents on shaping the language on the topic). Similarly, Husvedt is able to move both herself and the discussion of conversion disorder away from antiquated ideas of hysteria just being a female issue, and into a place of greater understanding (even if there isn’t a full knowledge/grasp of what is going on, similarly to autism [and many forms of neurodivergence]).
I think she wants to show the readers from two perspective, how she felt during that time. It’s similar to, in one body two people soul or spirit has entered and the one making it act good and the other one makes it act bad in front of everyone. “the shaking woman cuts me in two” ( 165). It makes her divide into two people at some point which she didn’t like it and want help from everyone to solve her dilemma. I do agree with you this quote revolves around the whole story that she tries to tell us.
The Shaking Woman is trying to find an answer to her disorder. Instead of visiting numerous doctors who’s all going to diagnosis her with the same problem or tell her that’s she is perfectly fine, she took matter’s into her own hands. Like Jasbir pointed out the Shaking woman is divided into two people. Her secondary sources help’s her to find answers to her disorder. I have seen people having seizures but none that’s speaking while shaking, The Shaking Woman herself cannot understand how it’s possible. She have a disorder that no one have an answer for or treatment. I can see why she is going crazy looking at all these secondary sources. I would.
Here’s a question: Do you think Hustvedt’s book can be both an essay and a memoir? What would that mean?