new evidence on causes and results of depression and importance of fighting it

NOTE: This book is written from the perspective of a clinical practitioner. It contains observations and theories about depression as an illness, its development, and its impact in society today. It is not written from a therapeutic lens and the language used is not client-centered. It may not be helpful for those in the middle of a depressive episode, however it can be interesting for those who enjoy the study of neuroscience and human behaviour in relation to depression.

I like the overall thesis of this book: that depression isn't something glamorous or romantic or necessary for artistic creation. It's a disease and it's terrible and if we could eradicate it, we should. I just don't like all of the stuff that's stuffed into the other 300+ pages. It's just one of those books that's so obviously written by an older white guy. So much philosophical rambling about dead white male philosophers. So much artistic rambling about dead white male artists. So much pontificating about dead white male authors. He couldn't think of a single woman to write about? Plath? Dickinson? Really?

Anyway. There's also the annoying (to me) insistence on some biological models of depression that are far from being medically proven. The author even says things like (and I'm paraphrasing here) "despite conflicting studies" and then goes on to talk about how depression causes holes in the hippocampus as though it's something the entire medical community has agreed upon. (It's not.) There's also some evo-psych in here. And about two paragraphs after he won me over saying (again, I'm paraphrasing) "I really dislike evo-psych, because how on earth can anybody know what our paleolithic ancestors were really doing". He then goes on to use evo-psych arguments about how men are attracted to depressed women, and about how depression could be argued to be either useful in an evolutionary perspective or a spandrel. OR IT COULD BE NEITHER OF THOSE. JUST SAYING.

Great thesis, could have been rephrased to be less pretentious-white-male-rambling and filled up about 100 pages, and then I would have liked it much more. ( )

As the author lectured on depression, after the success of his previous book “Listening to Prozac” he heard the question “What if Van Gogh had been on prozac?” many times. This prompted the current volume, a statement of why he thinks depression is a disease, debilitating, and deserving treatment, not a fashionable affliction. He cites multiple scientific studies documenting the association of depression with neuronal cell death due to stress hormone effects, particularly the work of Robert Sapolsky in cell culture. He cites numerous statistics showing how very prevalent depression is, how much is costs to care for and the significant health problems it causes. He also tackles the associations of depression in the popular mind with deep thought, with artistic creation, and the idea that depression is a state of mind that is a thoughtful response to the sorry state of the world. He notes that women who are depressed are often attractive to men of a certain type, and that depression is often viewed as charming by others. The argument is wide, citing sources from art and literature, science and personal experience with his patients. I found it convincing, and appreciated his view that depression is a lack of resilience to stress. ( )

This book is a wake up call to anyone who has been ambivelent about the treatment of depression, either in themselves or in someone close to them. Peter Kramer explains, systematically and convincingly, why depression is a disease that needs to be treated agressively and not a temperament or attitude that should be clung to for it's side benefits. The explanation is easily understood and engaging. Altogether an enlightening book. ( )