Literature by/about the Disabled

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

There's all kinds of different subgenres for literature. Every race and minority has their little niche. I am from a minority, too, though, and as far as I know, there is no "disabled" literature niche, which would either be literature by disabled authors, or literature about disabled people.

I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions on reading in this area. I would also be interested in reading literary theory/criticism dealing with this, as I'm pondering making this my Masters thesis.

[Alexander III]

I would be very curious to read a blind man's poem (by blind I mean born blind) - that would be greatly fascinating. Even a Deaf man would be fascinating.

But most physical disabilities would make rather dull literature.

[Charles Darnay]

There is a emerging collection of "deaf poetry" - some of which can be found online. It is poetry performed in ASL, and it is really interesting.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

But most physical disabilities would make rather dull literature.
Why?

I was going to rant about what seems to me a rather short-sighted statement, but I'll let you explain, since, for some reason, you didn't bother to in the first place.

[Vonny]

I'm sure this literature is out there, and I don't think it would be dull at all, because the story wouldn't be about the disability itself.

All I can think of at the moment is Helen Keller, but that's not what you have in mind.


(oh we cross posted Mutatis. I think just ignore that comment about dull.)

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm sure this literature is out there, and I don't think it would be dull at all, because the story wouldn't be about the disability itself.

No need to ignore it, because this was to be the crux of my reply to Alexander. The literature wouldn't be centered solely on someone being disabled, or just about the disability, just as black literature isn't solely about the person being black. It's about a person's experiences while being a black person, fighting the struggle, etc etc. The only reason I guess someone could realize this and still think literature about the disabled would be dull is because that person thinks disabled people don't, or can't, live interesting lives, fictional or otherwise.

[Vonny]

No need to ignore it, because this was to be the crux of my reply to Alexander. The literature wouldn't be centered solely on someone being disabled, or just about the disability, just as black literature isn't solely about the person being black. It's about a person's experiences while being a black person, fighting the struggle, etc etc. The only reason I guess someone could realize this and still think literature about the disabled would be dull is because that person thinks disabled people don't, or can't, live interesting lives, fictional or otherwise.

Right, the disability gives depth and another dimension to a person and that would translate into the novel.

I have a book on my shelf that I love. It's not literature exactly. It's an autobiography. Flying Without Wings by Dr. Arnold Beisser. He was a recent medical school graduate and a nationally ranked tennis player, when at 24, he became completely paralyzed by polio. It's very uplifting.

[Delta40]

do you think a person with a disability would make whatever fiction or poetry they wrote more interesting just because they have a disability? What I mean is, I have a disability but most of my work has nothing to do with it.

[Vonny]

do you think a person with a disability would make whatever fiction or poetry they wrote more interesting just because they have a disability? What I mean is, I have a disability but most of my work has nothing to do with it.


In some way it probably does Delta, because it makes you who you are.


I just remembered The Diving Bell and the Butterfly. But again, it's autobiographical.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

do you think a person with a disability would make whatever fiction or poetry they wrote more interesting just because they have a disability? What I mean is, I have a disability but most of my work has nothing to do with it.

I don't know, why wouldn't it? If it's a part of the story, then whether or not it makes it more interesting is irrelevant, because it's a part of the story. It would be integral. Without it, the story wouldn't be the same. Plus, I have a disability, and it does impact much of my poetry.

And I'm not really looking for the "I overcame this" stuff. I'm looking for something a little deeper, with a bit more substance.

[LitNetIsGreat]

There's all kinds of different subgenres for literature. Every race and minority has their little niche. I am from a minority, too, though, and as far as I know, there is no "disabled" literature niche, which would either be literature by disabled authors, or literature about disabled people.

I'm curious if anyone has any suggestions on reading in this area. I would also be interested in reading literary theory/criticism dealing with this, as I'm pondering making this my Masters thesis.

I remember this question coming up in a class by a disabled student in regards to theory. Apparently there is a branch of theory which focuses upon disabled literature out there, in the same way as feminism, queer theory etc, I suppose, though it is hardly mainstream theory, so maybe it would be interesting thesis material?

Edit: I say "disabled literature" but I really mean the attitudes to the disabled within literature over time, same as feminist lit, etc.

[MystyrMystyry]

My Left Foot comes to mind.

I Can Jump Puddles was about a polio sufferer, but I can't remember the author or if it was autobiographical.

I'm sure there's a lot of novels, as there are a lot of authors (though the majority are probably just myopic), I've never thought of it as a subgenre.

The chronicles of Thomas Covenant makes me think of extreme depression. There was a tv series called The Singing Detective you may want to check out, similar premise but completely different - I liked it a lot. The author died of cancer but that's only a loose connection.


Perhaps differently abled authors write to escape their self-perceived set-backs - not to fixate on them, and it's up to other authors to imagine what it would be like. Thus first hand experiential stories may be quite rare. If I had an extreme condition I know it's the last thing I'd be wanting to think about, even though there may be a huge receptive audience.

In the end it's the story the author comes up with that will decide whether it's going to be any good. I mean I could have acute brain wobbles or elbow trembles - this in itself isn't going to guarantee it's worth reading about (probably no) unless I can tie it into a great plot (probably yes).

'I woke up in the hospital as I had so many times before. The nurse came in for my morning sponge bath which is always the highlight of the day. She slowly peeled away my white garment and the tickling of her slender fingers delicately massaging my tender skin etc etc...'

Or the guy in a wheelchair who masterminds a Fort Knox heist - you know what I'm saying? What I'm saying is it's lunch time!

[Calidore]

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes is a good one. It's about a mentally handicapped man named Charlie Gordon who undergoes an experimental surgical procedure that roughly triples his intelligence. Unfortunately, it turns out to be temporary. The story is told in the first person by means of Charlie's journal entries.

[Delta40]

In some way it probably does Delta, because it makes you who you are.

At a subconscious level you may be right since a disability is a component of who we are as unique individuals.

[Dark Muse]

Funny you should mention this. When I was considering what book to nominate for the Neweberry Awards group read I stumbled acorss a book called The Door in the Wall that is about a young boy who looses the use of his legs.

Also the book The Game of Thrones there is a character featured who becomes paralyzied and looses the ability to walk, and while the book is not all about the disabaility, he is a signififaicnt chrahcater in the book and there is a focal point upon his struggles with what has happened to him. In the book there is also another predomainant chracahter who is born as a little person (not sure what the proper term is these days) and is outcast becasue of it and a lot of his personality is developed as a way for him to compenstate for his physcial disability and how he is treated becasue of it.

[OrphanPip]

Alexander Pope was rendered very short by his childhood acquired skeletal tuberculosis, and he had severe scoliosis, or as they said at the period, he was a hunchback. I believe there is a lot of criticism about how Pope's status as an outsider, both as a Catholic and a disabled person, influenced his satirical writings about the fashionable world of 18th century London.

Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame might be an important one as well. There is also a body of literature on the representation of hunchbacks and the mentally ill in Renaissance drama, since they were both popular stock characters in the period.

If Jozanny was still around, she would be able to help her, she is an expert in disabilities studies. Maybe send her a pm and it might notify her and lure her back.

Edit: Also, look up "crip theory" which is an emerging critical school that is influenced to a degree by feminism and queer theory.

Edit2:


Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes is a good one. It's about a mentally handicapped man named Charlie Gordon who undergoes an experimental surgical procedure that roughly triples his intelligence. Unfortunately, it turns out to be temporary. The story is told in the first person by means of Charlie's journal entries.

I think that's an interesting one as well, it makes an argument for acceptance of disability that sheds some doubt on our inclination to perpetually search for a "fix" or "cure" to disabilities.

[cafolini]

I think everyone has at least one disability, and here, in many threads I have seen quite a few.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I remember this question coming up in a class by a disabled student in regards to theory. Apparently there is a branch of theory which focuses upon disabled literature out there, in the same way as feminism, queer theory etc, I suppose, though it is hardly mainstream theory, so maybe it would be interesting thesis material?

Edit: I say "disabled literature" but I really mean the attitudes to the disabled within literature over time, same as feminist lit, etc.
Yes, this is actually more of what I'm looking for. I think a project would be better served by examining attitudes towards the disabled, and it would be very interesting if there could be a distinction between portrayals by disabled and non-disabled authors. I'm also thinking about writing about connection between antagonists and disabilities . . . that the "monster" is really just a deformed being, and part of "the other."


Perhaps differently abled authors write to escape their self-perceived set-backs - not to fixate on them, and it's up to other authors to imagine what it would be like. Thus first hand experiential stories may be quite rare. If I had an extreme condition I know it's the last thing I'd be wanting to think about, even though there may be a huge receptive audience.
I agree. Poetry is the only time I write about my disability. In the extremely rare case of me writing prose, my disability doesn't really factor into it, at least on a conscious level. That's why I'd like to read some literature by disabled authors even if what they write isn't directly about being disabled . . . maybe there are unconscious commonalities in disabled literature.

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes is a good one. It's about a mentally handicapped man named Charlie Gordon who undergoes an experimental surgical procedure that roughly triples his intelligence. Unfortunately, it turns out to be temporary. The story is told in the first person by means of Charlie's journal entries.
I've always wanted to read Flowers of Algernon, so I'll check it out for sure now.

Funny you should mention this. When I was considering what book to nominate for the Neweberry Awards group read I stumbled acorss a book called The Door in the Wall that is about a young boy who looses the use of his legs.

Also the book The Game of Thrones there is a character featured who becomes paralyzied and looses the ability to walk, and while the book is not all about the disabaility, he is a signififaicnt chrahcater in the book and there is a focal point upon his struggles with what has happened to him. In the book there is also another predomainant chracahter who is born as a little person (not sure what the proper term is these days) and is outcast becasue of it and a lot of his personality is developed as a way for him to compenstate for his physcial disability and how he is treated becasue of it.
How could I forget Martin's Song of Ice and Fire. He has an excellent take on characters with disabilities, especially Tyrion (the dwarf). Thanks for the reminder.

Alexander Pope was rendered very short by his childhood acquired skeletal tuberculosis, and he had severe scoliosis, or as they said at the period, he was a hunchback. I believe there is a lot of criticism about how Pope's status as an outsider, both as a Catholic and a disabled person, influenced his satirical writings about the fashionable world of 18th century London.
Wonderful. I've never delved deep into Pope's writing, but I will now.

Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame might be an important one as well. There is also a body of literature on the representation of hunchbacks and the mentally ill in Renaissance drama, since they were both popular stock characters in the period.
Hugo's novel is one that came to mind. Definitely a good example of how disabled people were viewed in "the old days" (and arguably how they are still viewed).

If Jozanny was still around, she would be able to help her, she is an expert in disabilities studies. Maybe send her a pm and it might notify her and lure her back.
I will.

Edit: Also, look up "crip theory" which is an emerging critical school that is influenced to a degree by feminism and queer theory.
Despite what seems a pretty offensive name, I'll definitely check it out.

Thanks a lot for the suggestions, everyone. They are much appreciated.

[Dark Muse]

Since A) I have too much time on my hands and B) I like researching things online here are some links you may find helpful:

http://www.reddisability.org.uk/famous-modem/DisAuthors.html

http://blog.barrierfree.org/novels-and-poems-featuring-people-with-disabilities

http://www.springfieldlibrary.org/reading/disabled.html

http://www.ralphmag.org/CH/disability.html

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Wow, thanks a lot Dark Muse. :)

[Dark Muse]

You are welcome. You made me currious about the subject so I thought I would see what I could find.

[zoolane]

So let me get straight, Mut want find literature writing by authors disabled?

But thing is now do know you have already? why does need said in the blur on back or front page?

I think that very author whether race, gender, what country they in live or disabled or not. Are what they are. And why should make any different to the piece writing? Would you as reader have empathy for them?

[Scheherazade]

There's all kinds of different subgenres for literature. Every race and minority has their little niche. I am from a minority, too, though, and as far as I know, there is no "disabled" literature niche, which would either be literature by disabled authors, or literature about disabled people. At the risk of sounding like I am trying to be politically correct, how do you define "disability"? Only physical or mental? Is autism one, for example?

[LitNetIsGreat]

Yes, this is actually more of what I'm looking for. I think a project would be better served by examining attitudes towards the disabled, and it would be very interesting if there could be a distinction between portrayals by disabled and non-disabled authors. I'm also thinking about writing about connection between antagonists and disabilities . . . that the "monster" is really just a deformed being, and part of "the other."

I think this would definitely work especially in relation to the gothic, where the fear of "the other" plays a significant part. You could also tie-in the fear of madness as well if necessary, or at least touch upon it. A little Foucault might be of help.


So let me get straight, Mut want find literature writing by authors disabled?

But thing is now do know you have already? why does need said in the blur on back or front page?

I think that very author whether race, gender, what country they in live or disabled or not. Are what they are. And why should make any different to the piece writing? Would you as reader have empathy for them?

I don't think this is the angle that he's looking at. Rather, the changing (or unchanging) attitudes to minority groups, in this case disabled within literature. It's not necessarily anything to do with the reader having empathy for a particular character (though that could apply) but about looking how such groups are portrayed in a particular society.

[zoolane]

OK now I understand. This link might be used http://www.booktrust.org.uk/Books/Bookmark:-Books-and-Disability.

[AjaxAscendant]

Hey, try Mark Haddon's The Curious Incident of the Dog at Night-Time (I think that's the title). That's about a differently abled boy.

[Alexander III]

Why?

I was going to rant about what seems to me a rather short-sighted statement, but I'll let you explain, since, for some reason, you didn't bother to in the first place.

"Statement" "Explain" "Reason" - they are words which simply complicate on convolute everything.

In truth it is very simple. I find the blind and the deaf to be fascinating.

On the other hand, a man paralized in a wheel chair or missing a limb or having some form of epilepsy - well I find that tedious, not fascinating.

I read to be fascinated, to abandon Taedium Vitae - the story of a blind man is fascinating. That of a cripple on a wheelchair is dull to me.

I am sorry if I have been course and have insulted any disabled member on the forums, But I thought expressing true opinions and risking hurting feelings, while un-kind is at least respectfull - sharing false opinions to not wound a ego shows that you dont have any respect for said person or people.

[The Comedian]

I would be very curious to read a blind man's poem

Never read Homer, eh? ;)

MM -- I don't know of any literary theory of literature of the disabled. But a couple of questions: do you mean literature by disabled authors, literature dealing with issues of the disabled? maybe both?

Oh, and one more question. By disabled do you mean physical disabilities, mental disabilities, or both?

Personally, I think this would be a rather unique and interesting thesis.

As for literature, the first thing that comes to my mind is the first section of The Sound and the Fury.

C

[Seasider]

There is Milton's poem On his Blindness.
Somerset Maugham's novel Of Human Bondage

[OrphanPip]

I guess that also brings to mind Jose Saramago's novel Blindness.

And as to people in wheel chairs, I can only think of Born On the Fourth of July.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

At the risk of sounding like I am trying to be politically correct, how do you define "disability"? Only physical or mental? Is autism one, for example?
Both are disabilities, but I guess I should clarify that I am looking more into physical disabilities, and even more specifically, ones that can be seen. And, I do consider autism a disability.

A disability, to me, is a medical condition that has an affecting impact on someone's life. For example; being in a wheelchair is a disability. Having to wear glasses isn't.

I think this would definitely work especially in relation to the gothic, where the fear of "the other" plays a significant part. You could also tie-in the fear of madness as well if necessary, or at least touch upon it. A little Foucault might be of help.
I'm reading Foucault right now for my lit theory class.

I don't think this is the angle that he's looking at. Rather, the changing (or unchanging) attitudes to minority groups, in this case disabled within literature. It's not necessarily anything to do with the reader having empathy for a particular character (though that could apply) but about looking how such groups are portrayed in a particular society.
Spot on. I'm curious to see, like Neely said, how disabled people are portrayed, how the attitudes against them are portrayed, and, if possible, if there is a difference in how disabled people write. Many minorities form their own "voice": Blacks, Native Americans, Hispanics, the Jewish--they all have their own literature. I'd be curious to see if the same is true of disabled authors.

And thanks to everyone else for the suggestions. They're all being noted. :nod:

[fightstarved]

I second the Sound and the Fury recommendation, and would like to suggest a theory book called Disability Theory that goes into some detail of disability studies in the vain of literary and cultural theory.

http://press.umich.edu/titleDetailDesc.do?id=309723

[Delta40]

Do you mean that disability is in the eye of the beholder Mutatis? Is a disability something that has a continuing impact on a person's life and/or intermittently disrupts it. Epilepsy for example. I've had another seizure today which puts me out of action physically and mentally I function at a sluggish rate. I'm not sure how living with epilepsy influences my writing but I think definition of disability seems to be selective and people are free to decide what constitutes a disability and what doesn't.

[Calidore]

I guess that also brings to mind Jose Saramago's novel Blindness.

And as to people in wheel chairs, I can only think of Born On the Fourth of July.

Robert Arthur had a ghost story told from the point of view of a blind newspaper seller.

Wheelchair: Nero Wolfe

[Smoke-Indigo]

I'm disabled, not physically (I have Aspergers and ADHD).I greatly enjoyed the curious incident of the dog in the night time. Oddly enough I had little similarities with the main character, I'm a lot more independent and I hate numbers with a passion, but to each his own.

[B. Laumness]

Choosing a too personal subject is perhaps risky. The thesis is not an essay. The goal of this academic exercise is not to think about your own problems, but to understand somebody else’s work or a field different from your own sphere, to use the analyzing tools you have learnt, to be able to build a reflection on the basis of your observations, to develop intellectual qualities such as critical thinking, patience, rigour, and precision. Objectivizing a subject is easier if this subject is somewhat neutral, if you are not too close, too implicated. Obviously, it does not mean an uninteresting theme: without the slightest interest in a matter, you have no amor sciendi, no will of study. It is perhaps judicious to choose a difficult subject, to study a work that is problematic for you, on which maybe you have prejudices, but you guess you will learn from. The theme should not be too broad either; otherwise your thesis will be necessarily superficial. Personally, I wanted to study the pessimism in the works of Maupassant, but my teacher said it was too philosophical, too broad, not really new, and perhaps too personal. He then suggested one novel, just one novel by Zola, an author I was not fond of. Actually it was a good choice. I add that a good teacher, who wants the student to develop intellectual capacities, will not demand that this latter read a multitude of academic papers and make a long bibliography at the end of the memoir: the thesis has a value when it is the product of your own reflection.

Is there literature for disabled people? If ever it exists, it is bad literature, like any literature addressed to a limited category, like literature for women, for black people, for poor people, etc. By definition, literature is for all the literate, sensitive and imaginative people.

Literature about disabled people may be fascinating, as Alex said it. Indeed, how does a blind person “see” the world? How does a deaf person feel the beings and the things? The subject itself is uncommon. But it does not mean that the book has literary merit.

Literature by disabled people raises very interesting questions. Those who have a disability or who are different from the common people, not necessarily because of physical problems, but because of their mental disposition, suffer from this difference. And yet, suffering is not entirely negative. In the tradition, why is Homer considered to be blind? What does this blindness allow him? Can a disability stimulate the genius? What are the causes of the desire of writing? These questions lead us to psychological, sociological, and philosophical considerations; they cannot form the body of literary studies, which should principally help the student to understand and show how a text works and which effects it produces – even if these considerations can be an analyzing tool amongst others. I admire Leopardi not because he was small, ugly and hunchbacked. I have nothing in common with his physical appearance, with his disabilities; though, I share his thoughts, I have come to the same conclusions by other ways. His writing has surely for origin his suffering, but he overcomes the individual misery and, impulsed by a desire of glory that transcends the weakness, he reaches a universal dimension. Art is not made by weak persons.

[Alexander III]

Choosing a too personal subject is perhaps risky. The thesis is not an essay. The goal of this academic exercise is not to think about your own problems, but to understand somebody else’s work or a field different from your own sphere, to use the analyzing tools you have learnt, to be able to build a reflection on the basis of your observations, to develop intellectual qualities such as critical thinking, patience, rigour, and precision. Objectivizing a subject is easier if this subject is somewhat neutral, if you are not too close, too implicated. Obviously, it does not mean an uninteresting theme: without the slightest interest in a matter, you have no amor sciendi, no will of study. It is perhaps judicious to choose a difficult subject, to study a work that is problematic for you, on which maybe you have prejudices, but you guess you will learn from. The theme should not be too broad either; otherwise your thesis will be necessarily superficial. Personally, I wanted to study the pessimism in the works of Maupassant, but my teacher said it was too philosophical, too broad, not really new, and perhaps too personal. He then suggested one novel, just one novel by Zola, an author I was not fond of. Actually it was a good choice. I add that a good teacher, who wants the student to develop intellectual capacities, will not demand that this latter read a multitude of academic papers and make a long bibliography at the end of the memoir: the thesis has a value when it is the product of your own reflection.

Is there literature for disabled people? If ever it exists, it is bad literature, like any literature addressed to a limited category, like literature for women, for black people, for poor people, etc. By definition, literature is for all the literate, sensitive and imaginative people.

Literature about disabled people may be fascinating, as Alex said it. Indeed, how does a blind person “see” the world? How does a deaf person feel the beings and the things? The subject itself is uncommon. But it does not mean that the book has literary merit.

Literature by disabled people raises very interesting questions. Those who have a disability or who are different from the common people, not necessarily because of physical problems, but because of their mental disposition, suffer from this difference. And yet, suffering is not entirely negative. In the tradition, why is Homer considered to be blind? What does this blindness allow him? Can a disability stimulate the genius? What are the causes of the desire of writing? These questions lead us to psychological, sociological, and philosophical considerations; they cannot form the body of literary studies, which should principally help the student to understand and show how a text works and which effects it produces – even if these considerations can be an analyzing tool amongst others. I admire Leopardi not because he was small, ugly and hunchbacked. I have nothing in common with his physical appearance, with his disabilities; though, I share his thoughts, I have come to the same conclusions by other ways. His writing has surely for origin his suffering, but he overcomes the individual misery and, impulsed by a desire of glory that transcends the weakness, he reaches a universal dimension. Art is not made by weak persons.

I enjoyed reading your post and I heartily agree with it

[KCurtis]

Flowers for Algernon by Daniel Keyes is a good one. It's about a mentally handicapped man named Charlie Gordon who undergoes an experimental surgical procedure that roughly triples his intelligence. Unfortunately, it turns out to be temporary. The story is told in the first person by means of Charlie's journal entries.

It is a wonderful story. Heartbreaking and well written, my son has a mental disability, so the story touched me in a very personal way. It is definitely worth reading.

[cafolini]

Do you mean that disability is in the eye of the beholder Mutatis? Is a disability something that has a continuing impact on a person's life and/or intermittently disrupts it. Epilepsy for example. I've had another seizure today which puts me out of action physically and mentally I function at a sluggish rate. I'm not sure how living with epilepsy influences my writing but I think definition of disability seems to be selective and people are free to decide what constitutes a disability and what doesn't.

Indeed.

[OrphanPip]

I enjoyed reading your post and I heartily agree with it

There are huge problems with Laumness's underlying assumptions though. When has literature ever been written for something other than a limited audience? Except for some delusional modernists who thought they were achieving some sort of universal aesthetic. Literature has always been written for specific audiences, sometimes incredibly limited ones. Sophocles' plays are recognized as great works of Western literature, but were written for a small group, of roughly 100 people, living in a city state close to 2500 years ago. What more limited an audience could you find?

The notion that literatures written within certain traditions outside of the dominant "literary" one, either because of their differing goals or audiences, are inherently inferior is operating off nothing more than prejudice. What is the universal audience that Laumness is apparently referencing? It seems like it's the experience of bourgeois white males, or perhaps in this day and age we might include the bourgeois female.

Not to mention the problem of objectifying marginalized groups from a position of power and dominance. Who has gotten to define the disabled in the past, who is continuing to define the representation of the disabled in modern society? It is obviously the able bodied. Thus, there is a serious problem in saying that the disabled have no right to be involved in analysing how they themselves are being portrayed.

Think deeply of the idea put forward here, that the only valid topics of investigation are those that apply to the universal. However, the universal can not be something you experience, only what some socially defined "normal human being" experiences. Bull****.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Do you mean that disability is in the eye of the beholder Mutatis? Is a disability something that has a continuing impact on a person's life and/or intermittently disrupts it. Epilepsy for example. I've had another seizure today which puts me out of action physically and mentally I function at a sluggish rate. I'm not sure how living with epilepsy influences my writing but I think definition of disability seems to be selective and people are free to decide what constitutes a disability and what doesn't.
Everyone's definition of what a disability is will be different, I guess. Does this mean we should not make distinctions? If you want to say someone wearing glasses is disabled and should be lumped in with people who are in wheelchairs, or those who have epilepsy (which I do consider a disability in cases such as you describe--I've known people with epilepsy who are barely affected by it, so their case would be a bit trickier to determine), you have every right to say so, just as I have the right to say I disagree.

Choosing a too personal subject is perhaps risky. The thesis is not an essay.
I am just entering my first semester of grad school, so the possibility that what I'm thinking of now will not end up being my thesis is quite probably. Still, I'd like to do some work in this are. There are plenty of essays I'll have to do before my theses, after all.

The goal of this academic exercise is not to think about your own problems, but to understand somebody else’s work or a field different from your own sphere, to use the analyzing tools you have learnt, to be able to build a reflection on the basis of your observations, to develop intellectual qualities such as critical thinking, patience, rigour, and precision.
Understood, but I don't see why me being disabled necessarily put me within the sphere of disabled literature or theory. I know almost nothing about it, and have read nothing on it. It is outside of my sphere of knowledge. Plus, I don't see how incorporating my experiences is automatically a bad thing. I realize one can't overdo this, but I don't plan to. Many critics and theorists write in the areas they have a close connection to: women write on feminism, monorites write on racism, etc.
Objectivizing a subject is easier if this subject is somewhat neutral, if you are not too close, too implicated.
Should the "easiness" of a subject bear that much weight on whether or not I tackle it?

Is there literature for disabled people? If ever it exists, it is bad literature, like any literature addressed to a limited category, like literature for women, for black people, for poor people, etc. By definition, literature is for all the literate, sensitive and imaginative people.
I'm not sure what you even mean by this. I don't think I ever said I wanted to read literature *for* the disabled (and I disagree with your assertion that anything written for a certain audience is bad literature, my reasons very much echoing Pip's below--he just elucidated on them much better than I could), and if I did, I mistyped, but literature about or by the disabled. One isn't mutually exclusive to the other.

Literature about disabled people may be fascinating, as Alex said it. Indeed, how does a blind person “see” the world? How does a deaf person feel the beings and the things? The subject itself is uncommon. But it does not mean that the book has literary merit.
I doesn't mean it doesn't have literary merit, either. Plus, why does something need to have literary merit to be used for research? Of course, if I were using a crap book to use as an example of good literature, that would be a problem, but even bad literature can be used to understand cultural perspectives, mindsets, etc.

[Charles Darnay]

Literature about disabled people may be fascinating, as Alex said it. Indeed, how does a blind person “see” the world? How does a deaf person feel the beings and the things? The subject itself is uncommon. But it does not mean that the book has literary merit.


Read Joseph Addison's Pleasures of the Imagination - he talks about the proverbial "Man in the Dungeon" - equivalent to a blind man - and how the lack of vision heightens one's ability to create poetry. The theory is that without being hindered by the vision of something, the mind is free to explore the full depths of imagination and create images that surpass what exists in reality. Now, whether this plays out in reality is a bit differently.

That being said, blind people do "see" the world (to use the term generally). Just because it is not via the eyes, does not mean he/she is not seeing the world.

I am also surprised at the "controversy" this topic is raising - not that the conversation is not a good one. But "disability theory" in literature is really no different than any other critical lens: feminist, colonial, post-structuralist, Marxist - it's approaching literature through a lens to show how literature represents group x.

I think it is a great topic for a thesis, and I'm sure it has been written about (in fact a quick Google scholar search has confirmed that).

I also disagree with the idea that a thesis has to be based on some objective neutrality. While you probably should not write yourself into your thesis, if you are working on a paper that demands a large amount of research and time investment, you better have some passion for your subject - and you cannot have passion for something if you don't have a personal investment in it. And besides, while a thesis is different than an essay, it is not meant to merely be a synthesis of already established ideas: you are trying to build upon whatever school of thought you are working on, and in order to do so, you must inject some of your own ideas into the mix. The world of thought is progressive, it must be influenced by new ideas constantly.

[kelby_lake]

I hate the term "disabled". The implication is that it means "everyone who isn't 'normal'". Because I have a form of epilepsy, I am "disabled". Someone with only one leg is "disabled". Our experiences would be totally different.

[Delta40]

I hate the term "disabled". The implication is that it means "everyone who isn't 'normal'". Because I have a form of epilepsy, I am "disabled". Someone with only one leg is "disabled". Our experiences would be totally different.

ha ha! I agree. I've never viewed my epilepsy as a disability but others do. What about the 'normal' people out there who come from dysfunctional homes? The degree of dysfunction varies of course just like any other disability and I'm confident the influence family dysfunction has on a budding writer will play a larger role - missing leg or not!

[Charles Darnay]

I hate the term "disabled". The implication is that it means "everyone who isn't 'normal'". Because I have a form of epilepsy, I am "disabled". Someone with only one leg is "disabled". Our experiences would be totally different.

While I'm not a huge fan of the label myself - being subject to it myself - some of the alternate terms in order to be politically correct come across as more demeaning than "disabled itself". "Differently abled?" "Exceptional?" The point is - no, no one is normal, and in some way, everyone has a "disability" even it's not recognized by something like the DSM-IV (DSM-V if you're reading this in the not-too-distant-future) - the term needs to exist.

[zoolane]

Suppose if you really think about everyone is disable in one way or shape or form? Are they not?

Phyiscal?
Mental?
Emotional?
So question how or why someone else have right to called anyone disabled?

Sorry if off the topic.

[B. Laumness]

Pip, you said: “Literature has always been written for specific audiences, sometimes incredibly limited ones.” I agree. I did not say the opposite. I said that literature is first for literate, sensitive and imaginative people. No matters if the reader is a male or a female, a white or a black, a rich or a poor, etc. Of course, you are going to reply that the literate, sensitive and imaginative reader is generally a rich white male. It was true in the past, less today. But what do we see now that all the people, or almost, in our western societies, go to school and are supposedly able to read literature? Do all the rich teenagers read? Do all the women read? Do all the minorities read? Do all the so-called educated people read? No. Most of the people are subjected to a mind-numbing job and spend their free time consuming it stupidly. The above-mentioned qualities are always rare, because, today like yesterday, very few persons are sensible to Beauty and Art. Literature has always been reserved to and loved by an elite, by a limited audience composed of individuals having eminent, human, universal qualities, and not of members of a social or ethnic group. My criteria are both unifying and discriminating: I do not reduce the individual to the gender or a simple affiliation to a determined group, I think that any human being is potentially capable of understanding and enjoying literature; but meanwhile, I believe that intelligence, sensibility and imagination, without which the best texts have no savour and are dead things, cannot be bought nor taught.

Did I say “that the disabled have no right to be involved in analyzing how they themselves are being portrayed”? No. Pip, you seem quick to draw groundless interpretations. But perhaps I did not well express my thoughts.

MM, you asked: “Should the ‘easiness’ of a subject bear that much weight on whether or not I tackle it?” No. I added it was judicious to choose a difficult subject.

Charles Darnay, let us be clear: I do not recommend a complete neutrality, because it is obvious one will not work on something that has no interest for oneself; I just say that a compromise can be found between the personal interest and the objectivity that is required for this kind of exercise.

[Alexander III]

I hate the term "disabled". The implication is that it means "everyone who isn't 'normal'". Because I have a form of epilepsy, I am "disabled". Someone with only one leg is "disabled". Our experiences would be totally different.

No offense here this is not a personal attack in any way shape or form - but I have a problem with the term "differently abled" - lets face it, a person with a physical disability is not differently abled - a scientist and a lawyer are differently abled, they are equals but in different manners - a normal man and a one legged man are not equals in different manners - the one with one leg is physically inferior and there is no way around that. This is not to say the the one leged man is more stupid or less charming, those have nothing to do with the "physical'. But when it comes to the "physical" he is simply inferior than the man with two legs.

What other word would you use if not Disabled ?

[cafolini]

Pip, you said: “Literature has always been written for specific audiences, sometimes incredibly limited ones.” I agree. I did not say the opposite. I said that literature is first for literate, sensitive and imaginative people. No matters if the reader is a male or a female, a white or a black, a rich or a poor, etc. Of course, you are going to reply that the literate, sensitive and imaginative reader is generally a rich white male. It was true in the past, less today. But what do we see now that all the people, or almost, in our western societies, go to school and are supposedly able to read literature? Do all the rich teenagers read? Do all the women read? Do all the minorities read? Do all the so-called educated people read? No. Most of the people are subjected to a mind-numbing job and spend their free time consuming it stupidly. The above-mentioned qualities are always rare, because, today like yesterday, very few persons are sensible to Beauty and Art. Literature has always been reserved to and loved by an elite, by a limited audience composed of individuals having eminent, human, universal qualities, and not of members of a social or ethnic group. My criteria are both unifying and discriminating: I do not reduce the individual to the gender or a simple affiliation to a determined group, I think that any human being is potentially capable of understanding and enjoying literature; but meanwhile, I believe that intelligence, sensibility and imagination, without which the best texts have no savour and are dead things, cannot be bought nor taught.

Did I say “that the disabled have no right to be involved in analyzing how they themselves are being portrayed”? No. Pip, you seem quick to draw groundless interpretations. But perhaps I did not well express my thoughts.

MM, you asked: “Should the ‘easiness’ of a subject bear that much weight on whether or not I tackle it?” No. I added it was judicious to choose a difficult subject.

Charles Darnay, let us be clear: I do not recommend a complete neutrality, because it is obvious one will not work on something that has no interest for oneself; I just say that a compromise can be found between the personal interest and the objectivity that is required for this kind of exercise.

All that jazz seems nonsense to me. Who's going to determine the recipe? You?

[MystyrMystyry]

One legged people have the possibility of bouncy feet to make them run faster and go places where frostbite might be a problem.

The idea that some are 'inferior' tells me that your use of language is a bit lax. Everyone has strengths and weaknesses, and with technology these are narrowed.

Believe it or not language and written communication are technologies - for everyone, and for everyone to use to their own or anyone/everyone's advantage. The combined human mind will eventually overcome all illness, virtually all diseases, virtually everything (though I'm still wondering where my jetpack is) except the inevitable.

There was a comment made by one of the designers of Human Revolution, where he was at the launch of the game and one of those attending had robot legs. Suddenly it was brought home to him that where once the bloke would have been considered disabled, now he was the coolest one there.

Some people have freaky genetic conditions, some have disfigured faces from burns, some have cerebral palsy etc - but it's up to the individual to own their unique differences, as I'm sure they have for millenia, and not up to anyone to attempt to condescend, which merely displays a purility/arsehology that is itself an actual disability.

Some people play football - I don't look down on them, laugh at them maybe, but as long as they're good at making my team win their shortcomings as humans don't concern me - maybe one day there'll be a cure for football, but until then I'll enjoy the game.

[CarpeNixta]

There's a book called "Ai wa Mieru - Zenmou Fuufu no Takaramono by Tatemichi Satoko"

It's about her life -she's a blind singer married with a blind musician and how was for them to get a career and form a family.

It's was also made a dorama with Ueto Aya, you can find it just as "Ai ga Mieru"

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

I'm fine with being called disabled. I am disabled. I am not able to do what people who do not have my condition can. I am also fine with the term "handicap." I hate the new PC term, "special needs." It sounds horrible, and seems to suggest even a more lacking ability of the person than simply being "disabled."

While I agree somewhat with Alexander, I think he uses a poor choice of terminology when saying a person who is disabled is physically "inferior," because it seems to suggest that person is less valuable as a human being.

[JuniperWoolf]

I hate the new PC term, "special needs."

PC terms for disabled people (as well as for people of various races and for women) suggest that those using them consider the people that they're describing too weak to handle the standard terminology.

Also, the idea that "everyone is disabled in their own way" is pretty soft. I come from a dysfuntional home but at least I don't have to worry about developing skin cancer for the seventh time at age twenty five. Bad situations and conditions come in varying degrees, you can't compare having anger issues or something to being a paraplegic. I wouldn't describe dyslexia as a disability either; I'd make sure to specify that it's a "reading disability," or even better, a "reading disorder." In order for something to be honestly described as a straight-up disability it needs to be severe, because that's what people are going to assume when they hear words like "disability" or "handicap."

Incidently, and in relation to your original post, the kid from Of Human Bondage has a club foot and it plays heavily in his character development (I think Maugham had a club foot or something similar, but I'm not 100% on that).

[Scheherazade]

Check out The Tin Drum by Gunter Grass as well if you like. I hated the book the main character is interesting.

[Emil Miller]

Philip Carey, the male protagonist in Of Human Bondage suffers from a club foot that W.S.Maugham used as a metaphor for a stammer that had plagued him from childhood. One being a physical condition and the other a mental aberration but both in their individual ways were disabilities.

[Mutatis-Mutandis]

Cool, thanks.

[Alexander III]

Philip Carey, the male protagonist in Of Human Bondage suffers from a club foot that W.S.Maugham used as a metaphor for a stammer that had plagued him from childhood. One being a physical condition and the other a mental aberration but both in their individual ways were disabilities.

A club foot is not a real disability though nowadays, as disability implies something that cannot be fixed. I was born with a club foot but had an operation soon after birth and now my foot is almost perfect.

A speech impediment on the other hand, stays with your for life and really marks you out. I don't think the two are comparable in the least.

[Emil Miller]

A club foot is not a real disability though nowadays, as disability implies something that cannot be fixed. I was born with a club foot but had an operation soon after birth and now my foot is almost perfect.

A speech impediment on the other hand, stays with your for life and really marks you out. I don't think the two are comparable in the least.

This is true but at the time in which the novel is set, there was no cure for a club foot.

[JuniperWoolf]

This is true but at the time in which the novel is set, there was no cure for a club foot.

And it played a huge role in Phillip's character development. One of Phillip's three main philosophies of life was "there is no god" and he arrived at this conclusion based on a very great scene involving his foot.

[kelby_lake]

While I'm not a huge fan of the label myself - being subject to it myself - some of the alternate terms in order to be politically correct come across as more demeaning than "disabled itself". "Differently abled?" "Exceptional?" The point is - no, no one is normal, and in some way, everyone has a "disability" even it's not recognized by something like the DSM-IV (DSM-V if you're reading this in the not-too-distant-future) - the term needs to exist.

Can't we just be specific? People are disabled because they have a specific disability. It's not a catch-all term for "people who aren't entirely normal".

[Emil Miller]

And it played a huge role in Phillip's character development. One of Phillip's three main philosophies of life was "there is no god" and he arrived at this conclusion based on a very great scene involving his foot.

After his parents died, the ten-year-old Maugham was sent from Paris, where he'd been born, to live with an uncle who was the vicar of Whitstable in the English county of Kent. His uncle tried to inculcate a belief in God in the boy but one night Maugham prayed to God that he would believe in him if by the morning his stammer had gone. When he awoke and found that it hadn't, he ceased to accept his uncle's word for God's existence.
This scene is repeated in Of Human Bondage in relation to Philip's club foot.