Sorrow and Bliss

Fast-paced, witty, thoughtfully written, and gut-wrenching. I can't say I understand the comparison to Fleabag, but the sense of humour did at times feel Lorelai Gilmore-esque.

I found that Mason portrayed mental illness in a way that felt real and, refreshingly, not boring or painfully strung out in such a way that makes the reader feel depressed too. She didn't dwell where it wasn't needed, and I appreciated that she told Martha's story outside of herself and her mental illness as well. She was a person with a life, not just a person with a mental illness.

And that is one of the things I think I loved the most about this book - the depth to which the author shows us Martha's family. Her parents' character development was beautiful, and I really enjoyed the parallels drawn between their relationship and Martha and Patrick's towards the end.

Many reviews complain about Martha's unlikeability, but I believe that is the point. Yes, Martha is deeply wrong in her treatment of those around her, and yes, that makes it painful to read at times. It's so easy to just dismiss her as a psychotic woman, and be frustrated at everyone in her life for not leaving her. But that is the entire point of what the author is trying to show - loving someone with a chronic mental illness can be infuriating and painful and confusing. But dismissing people who exhibit problematic behaviours as unlikeable is refusing to see through their illnesses to who they actually are. They are still deserving of love and forgiveness and compassion. That isn't to say that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions - everybody was right for cutting Martha out when they did, and it is important for people to protect their own well-being. But I am just saying that too often, problematic and complex characters (particularly women) are simply labelled “crazy” or unlikeable or irredeemable, when no effort has been made to actually understand them. I think that Mason did a really great job of portraying the way in which mental illness affects a person's family and loved ones outside of just themselves.

However... a creative decision that I am incredibly torn on how to feel about is the redaction of Martha's diagnosis.

Coming across the first –, I was quite confused. It was very clear to me based on Martha's conversation with the psychiatrist that it was some form of either schizophrenia or bipolar disorder, but I couldn't quite figure out why the author had decided to not specify it.

After I've had more time to ponder it - and read author interviews - I understand the decision. On the one hand, it allows the story to center around the way in which Martha's thoughts and actions impact her life and the lives of those around her. It ensures that readers see her as a whole person, and are not simply perceiving her through the lens of a diagnostic label (and their own preconceptions and assumptions about people with that label). Because at the end of the day, labels are important for many reasons, they allow research and proper treatment, and can give a sense of clarity and community. But in the context of a novel exploring the ways in which an individual's mental illness has affected their life, perhaps a label is not necessary. Perhaps this allows more people to relate to the story, because many different people would relate to Martha regardless of whether they have the same diagnosis.

However, a couple of reasons Mason gave for the redaction were that she did not want to inaccurately portray a specific mental illness, and that given the humour woven throughout the novel she did not want to be insensitive or invalidating. To me, solving the fear of not representing the experience of a certain mental illness correctly by simply not stating what the illness is, feels like a bit of a cop-out. The author could realistically have spoken with psychologists/psychiatrists and individuals with the disorder to ensure that her portrayal was as accurate and validating as possible. Also, I don't think that humour cannot exist in a novel about someone's struggle with mental illness. If anything, it could be helpful to show that people with chronic disorders still have some degree of normalcy in their lives, it doesn't have to be all-consuming all of the time. But, I do see how criticism of this could have been drawn if the author were to release such an intimate novel based on a mental disorder she herself supposedly does not suffer from.

Anyway, this book was thought-provoking to say the least, hence the rambling. I deeply enjoyed it and am at peace with the redaction. A really great read.