Blogroll

Weekend Edition: 3-3

Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes

  • No Words Should Be Banned (“Words have power – but silence is not the answer to undermine or overcome that power, if we disagree with what that power does.”)
  • Ban This Book: An Uncensored Look At The Lorax And Other Dangerous Books (“Since the dominant ideology of the ALA, librarians, educators, and publishing houses lines up with my own, de facto censorship occurs via their judgments without any effort on my part, and I don’t have to risk looking intolerant or hypocritical.”)

Blog Headline of the Week

Blog Line of the Week

Bookish Linkage

Nonbookish Linkage


The more you read and observe about this Politics thing, you got to admit that each party is worse than the other.

Will Rogers, “Breaking into the Writing Game,” The Illiterate Digest

March Bibliolust

I may be setting myself up for a bit of failure this month. A couple of the books are a bit more serious than perhaps I would normally read. But, nothing ventured, nothing gained. And so what if I have a couple “did not finish” books this year. (Although I had one earlier in the week where, for some reason, I just lost interest more than half way through.)

I other thing I’ve noticed — my taste pendulum seems to be swinging toward nonfiction. Half the books I’ve read this year are nonfiction and four of the five on this month’s list are too.

A Brief History of Thought: A Philosophical Guide to Living, Luc Ferry — This is one of those that could be iffy. I’m not normally into philosophy books but the book came to my attention via a review offer. I was intrigued because it has been a bestseller in Europe. Realizing there was a chance I may not get it read, though, I opted to get on the reserve list at the library rather than get a review copy.

Angelmaker, Nick Harkaway — I enjoyed Harkaway’s The Gone-Away World so am eager to give his latest a chance when it comes out later this month.

The New Hate: A History of Fear and Loathing on the Populist Right, Arthur Goldwag — This is a book I’ve gone back and forth on for a bit. It was almost on last month’s list but I decided not to read it. Of course, finding out the library had it changed my mind. So now it is on the list.

Revelations: Visions, Prophecy, and Politics in the Book of Revelation, Elaine Pagels — This is my other potential difficult read. Even though I’m an atheist, I am still fascinated by the history of Christianity and Pagels is unquestionably one of the best religion historians and Biblical scholars around. I’m just hoping it’s not over my head. (And thanks to Doug Wiken for bringing the book to my attention.)

Summer of ’68: The Season That Changed Baseball–and America–Forever, Tim Wendel — For a male my age, the names Bob Gibson, Denny McLain, Lou Brock, Orlando Cepeda, Bill Freehan and Tim McCarver are still magical. If you don’t recognize the names or why they conjure up such feeling, you won’t understand why the book is on the list.

Report Card:

Calendar Year 2012

Total Bibliolust books: 8

Number read: 6 (75%)

Started but did not finish: 0

Cumulative (September 2008-February 2012)

Total Bibliolust books: 211

Number read: 168 (79.6%)

Started but did not finish: 14 (6.6%)

Our house was a temple to The Book. … Books ruled our lives. They were our demi-gods.

Nick Bantock, Griffin & Sabine: An Extraordinary Correspondence

Book Review: A Hidden Madness by James T.R. Jones

It’s a question that appears on a number of state applications to obtain a license to practice law. Do you currently have any condition or impairment which, if left untreated, could affect the ability to practice law? While it seems simple, some of the questions it can raise are not. What are the chances someone who lists diabetes will undergo a hearing to determine if they have the “character and fitness” to be a lawyer? Now what do you think the odds are if the answer is bipolar disorder or depression?

From the outset, then, those in the legal profession are aware of the stigma that attaches to admitting to treatment for mental health conditions, even if that treatment is, like insulin, successful at controlling the potential effects of the condition. James T.R. Jones examines one aspect of that stigma in A Hidden Madness, a memoir of his work as a Wall Street lawyer, federal appellate court law clerk and law school professor while suffering from bipolar disorder.

Since 1986, Jones has been a professor at the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville. He has yet to hold a license to practice law in Kentucky. Why? Because, among other things, the application asks if the applicant has been diagnosed with or treated for a number of mental health conditions within the last five years, including bipolar disorder or major depression. Over the last 30 years, Jones treated continually for that condition and was hospitalized for it several times. Jones so feared the stigma of revealing his condition that he kept it a secret from virtually everyone. In fact, he didn’t disclose it to either of his wives until he was seriously considering asking them to marry him.

Jones now believes it is a condition that had its roots in childhood and that it was tied in with an inferiority complex he developed. Yet despite those struggles, Jones was a successful student and able to intentionally plot out and make the career moves he believed necessary to become a law professor. He tells his story chronologically and doesn’t hesitate to thank those who aided him along his way. Whether due to the academic setting or intentionally, A Hidden Madness at times takes what feels like more of an objective tone than a subjective one. This also means that while the effects are unquestionably difficult to convey, the book seems to be more detached than some other memoirs by individuals confronting mental health issues.

The fact Jones has succeeded doesn’t mean it is or has been easy. It’s unlikely any of us not afflicted with the condition can really understand its effects. Jones tells of periods, such as after a divorce, where even with lithium therapy he struggled to fulfill his job duties. He talks of stress pushing him toward the extremes of the condition, often being “constantly hopeless” and irritable, lacking energy and being “chronological suicidal.” He recognizes the lithium and other medication controlled the symptoms enough that he could work but still experienced peaks and “horrible valleys.” Although unlikely meant that way, Jones makes an serious observation inn which many of those who have attended law school may well find humor: “It is difficult to teach Decedents’ [Estates] at the best of times, let alone when severely depressed, sometimes suicidal.”

Jones’ occasional suicidal ideations may reflect the dichotomy of bipolar disorder. Jones has long had an interest in guns. Even though he and others recognized they pose a risk for someone who is suicidal, he had what he considered legitimate reasons for keeping them. “I wanted to to have them around both to show I would not use them and to have them available as the tools to end my life if I chose to do so,’ Jones writes.

Jones describes some of the effects of the disease in the private practice of law, noting there were days when he was an associate in a Jacksonville, Fla., firm where he was so depressed he couldn’t put in the necessary billable hours. Yet another aspect of that depression was to ruminate over that inability, creating a vicious cycle. Although A Hidden Madness touches on this, it has an inherent limitation in addressing mental health issues in the legal profession. For example, while it unquestionably has its own pressures, most law professors aren’t subject to the pressures and deadlines their job demands, many imposed by courts and clients. Moreover, academia affords the protections of tenure. In contrast, the practicing attorney faces a conundrum. If they don’t seek treatment, they may be harming their client or forced to quit practicing law. Even those who seek treatment fear disclosure because it may result in loss of clients or perhaps even opposing counsel seeking to take advantage of the condition.

Another area Jones occasionally touches on but does not explore in detail is the advantage professionals with mental conditions may have — resources. Jones points out that his insurance paid for his hospitalization. He observes that part of the reason he was able to maintain ongoing treatment is that insurance also paid for his it and his prescriptions. Likewise, he had the benefit of disability payments. In contrast, many people who face mental health issues in today’s America have none of those things. It is almost impossible to imagine a person staying on drugs like lithium or them remaining effective without ongoing visits with a health care provider. If they lose their job, the only income replacement may be unemployment.

What A Hidden Madness perhaps explores best is the fear of disclosure. The stigma of mental illness can be too much for even highly intelligent and rational people whose mental health issues are treated and under control. Even though Jones had episodes where he needed hospitalization, in part due to the fact physical side effects of lithium forced him to stop taking it, he has maintained a highly respected job for decades. Yet even he deeply feared going public with his story. He points out the fear an applicant for law school or admission to the bar may have in disclosing what is likely their most closely held secret and perhaps even disclosure of their most personal medical records. it is clearly a conundrum. The failure to disclose could result in denial of their application; disclosure might produce the same result.

Jones makes a strong argument against the stigma that attaches, encouraging others not to be held captive by it like he was for decades. recognizing it held him captive for decades and encouraging others. As such, he is one of many professionals lending their voices to what Jones considers to be “the most stigmatized group today,” those who have and treat for mental health conditions. It is only through efforts such as his that such people and their treatment may no longer need to stay hidden.


I did wonder how many law professors take a substantial dose of a powerful psychiatric medication immediately before class.

James T.R. Jones, A Hidden Madness

Weekend Edition: 2-25

Bulletin Board

  • Saw my first college hockey game in person last night since last April’s NCAA championship game — and it, too, was an overtime game, aka “free hockey.” The Gophers maybe should take note that they’ve never lost a game I attended, including Final Five and Frozen Four championships.

Interesting Reading in the Interweb Tubes

  • Never Surrender: The Lonely War of Hiroo Onoda (“Onoda was now alone: the last Japanese soldier still fighting the Second World War, a conflict that had ended 27 years earlier.”) (via)
  • Something rotten in Arizona (“NONE of the … books have been banned… Each book has been boxed and stored as part of the process of suspending the classes.”)
  • Voluminous (“My books are not dead weight, they are live weight—matter infused by spirit, every one of them, even the silliest. They do not block the horizon; they draw it. They free me from the prison of contemporaneity: one should not live only in one’s own time. A wall of books is a wall of windows.”) (via)

Blog Headline of the Week

Bookish Linkage

Nonbookish Linkage


…one’s books are one’s biography.

Leon Wieseltier, “Voluminous

Book Review: The Commandant by Rudolf Hoess, edited by Jürg Amann

War crimes trials are a 20th Century invention. Although a vehicle for punishment and, perhaps, the reestablishment of the rule of law, one has to wonder the extent to which individual defendants truly acknowledge any real guilt.

This is seen in the autobiography written by Auschwitz camp commander Rudolf Hoess while in prison following the war. Hoess’ several hundred page work was first published some 50 years ago and has since appeared in a variety of editions and under varying titles. The latest is The Commandant, a condensed volume edited by Jürg Amann, a Swiss author and dramatist. Amann edited Hoess’ writings down to about 100 pages, what he terms a 16-part monologue conceived for the stage and as a radio play. Yet even The Commandant provides a singular view into the operations and psychology of the Nazi killing machine.

Whether an intentional construction or a reflection of a psychological compartmentalization employed by those running the death camps, Hoess almost simultaneously defends his actions, accepts a slight form of, what is to him, responsibility for what occurred, and claims to have been greatly disturbed by them. As Ian Buruma notes in an afterword, these internal inconsistencies leave us with a man who might exemplify what Hannah Arendt had in mind when she referred to “the banality of evil.”

It doesn’t take long for Hoess to lay the groundwork for thee so-called “Nuremberg defense,” the claim that “I was just following orders.” In the first chapter, Hoess tells us, “Even from childhood on up, I was trained in a complete awareness of duty. Attention to duty was greatly respected in my parents’ home, so that all orders would be performed exactly and conscientiously.” In other words, it was impossible for him to have acted any differently when told to kill Jews.

Of course, that trait was reinforced by his belief in the Nazi party. When the orders for Hoess to create a mass killing center to annihilate the Jews came down, he recognized them as “something extraordinary, something monstrous.” But he didn’t give them a thought or form an opinion about them. Why? It was not his place to be “second guessing” the Fuhrer. According to Hoess, when Himmler issued orders in Hitler’s name, those orders “were holy. There was no reflection, no interpretation, no explanation about these orders. Whatever the Fuhrer or Himmler ordered was always right.”

Still, given a chance in prison to consider those orders and express an opinion on them, he says they were “absolutely wrong.” Yet his reasoning is insightful. It was not morals, decency or even justice that rendered the orders wrong. Instead, he objects because “[i]t was exactly because of this mass extermination that Germany earned itself the hatred of the entire world. The cause of anti-Semitism was not served by this act at all, in fact, just the opposite.”

What is also disturbing is the empathy Hoess claims to have had for the prisoners. In the 1920s, Hoess was among a group of people who, invoking “an unwritten law,” killed someone they considered a traitor. Hoess suggests that the six years he spent in prison for his role in the murder allowed him to understand what concentration camp inmates were going through. “I had been a prisoner for too long for me not to notice their needs,” he wrote. “It was not without inner sympathy that I faced all of the occurrences in the camp. Outwardly I was cold, even stone-faced, but inwardly I was moved to the deepest.” It also was empathy that caused him to be encouraged by the efficacy of gassing Jews rather than shooting them. He felt that would alleviate the stress that was leading to suicides of SS Special Action troops “who could no longer mentally endure wading in the bloodbath.” Hoess doesn’t say whether this was less psychologically stressful for the victims.

This reflects Hoess’ odd view of culpability. He claims his “guilt’ began when he was first assigned to Dachau. At that point, Hoess claims it was clear to him he was not suited for concentration camp duties because he didn’t agree with the conditions and the practices followed in them. He even asserts that even though he followed orders, “I never became insensitive to human suffering. I always saw it and I felt it.” In fact, Hoess claims he used “every means” at his disposal” to halt “the horrible tortures” at Auschwitz but could not stop them. Why? “One person is no match for such viciousness, depravity, and cruelty.” It perhaps goes without saying that this is especially so when the cruelty stems from what the person considers “holy” orders.

We do not know whether these fractured rationalizations reflect the mindset of those involved in “the Final Solution’ or represents Hoess trying to somehow portray himself as merely a cog who felt sorry for his victims. However, there is no doubt Hoess ultimately agreed with the Nazi program. He believed in the need for concentration camps to lock up “enemies of the state” and professional criminals. Likewise, he seeks to “emphasize” that he “personally never hated the Jews.” Instead, he just “considered them to be the enemy of our nation.” The fact that certain results flow from those positions seems utterly inconsequential to Hoess.

Given the subject, both individually and topically, I don’t see wanting to sit in a theater to hear Hoess expound on his life and thoughts. Still, the 16 chapters Amann extracts from the original, lengthier writings are a concise recap of Hoess’ life and the concentration camp system. More important, they provide stark insight into the nature of many of those responsible for the Holocaust.


The first gassing of people did not really sink into my mind. Perhaps I was much too impressed by the whole procedure.

Rudolf Hoess, The Commandant