Someone has come up with the theory that Janet Frame was autistic. Autism had barely been identified as a specific condition at the time Janet Frame was cleared of having a mental illness when she lived in the UK. I have read and appreciated most of her work. Just the other day I bought her newly published novel, Towards Another Summer, and look forward to reading it with pleasurable anticipation.
This new ‘diagnosis’ leaves me with mixed feelings and a number of questions. Firstly Janet Frame died in 2004 and can no longer answer for herself. Secondly shouldn’t her writing stand for itself? Should we forever analyse it and her in terms of what condition she had and not simply accept her writing for what it is, exceptional. Of course there should be no shame or stigma or different judgement attached to the work of many creative people who also have impairments and experience disability.
Does it matter whether she had a ‘condition’ or not. If she were ‘treated’ as the promoter of this theory in a medical journal suggests would her writing have been different, or as good? If she had not been labelled mentally ill, and undergone the searing experience of the primitive treatments she endured, her writing might have been entirely different. Would she have written as well, or indeed at all?
I also find myself asking why there is this need to label, to find explanation for behaviours or states of being, rather than accepting and celebrating the richness of the human condition and the consequential richness of world views. If she was autistic so what? How many other artists in different fields could be diagnosed with a variety of conditions, and what would be the point? Where might all this categorising lead us?
All of this is of course, mere speculation. Her writing stands firmly on its merits. She did not, thankfully, undergo a frontal lobotomy, and we are left today with the essential paradox of her life and work, for which we can be grateful, whether or not she was autistic.
Hi Robyn,
Many thanks for this interesting post on Janet Frame and whether she was autistic and whether we are ‘over analysing’ this.
As you know, I identify as someone on the autistic spectrum. For me, it DOES matter whether she was autistic or not. This is because Janet Frame could be seen as a great role model for people on the Autistic Spectrum. Her writing serves as a powerful expression of how ‘different ways of thinking’ can be of great value to society generally.
I was also surprised that you used the term ‘answer for herself’ in terms of her diagnosis and death in 2004. My question to you is ‘why should she have to answer for being autistic?’ I was very saddened that members of Janet Frame’s family immediately denied that Frame was autistic when the article was released as if this was something to be ashamed of. I certainly don’t see it as such. While I agree that retrospective diagnosis is something which should undertaken with great care, I still feel that the reaction to the ‘diagnosis’ was unfortunate from my point of view.
I do agree that the ‘treatment’ methods outlined in ‘An Angel at My Table’ were grossly awful and that the ‘labelling’ which resulted in those treatments were absolutely not okay. But reading that amazing account from Frame about this ‘treatment’ gives me actually a sense of historical perspective on the ‘treatment’ of people with autism in our society.
So to me, it DOES matter that Frame’s impairment is explained and its impact on her writing explored. I think such an examination would give deeper insights into her wonderful writing.
Many thanks Robyn,
Cheers, Matt.