Latest news with #Prozac
Indian Express
5 days ago
- Entertainment
- Indian Express
‘Tu kya hai:' What does it mean to belong? Ghalib, grief, and the global identity crises
Har ek baat pe kahte ho tum ki tu kya hai Tumhīn kaho ki ye andāz-e-guftugū kyā hai You ask me, again and again—Tu kya hai? But you don't wait for an answer. You scroll, you swipe, you double-tap. These days, identity isn't something we discover. It's something we design. With filters. With follower counts. With hashtags that harmonise with hurt. With bios that boast belief systems in 150 characters or less. We pin pronouns and political positions like badges on a virtual lapel, hoping someone, anyone, will see us and say—there, that's a person who belongs. In this world of hyper-influence and algorithmic affirmation, we're all chasing aura over authenticity. We're measured not by meaning but metrics. Not by truth but trends. Not by what we say, but how many repost it with a moody track playing in the background. We don't ask 'Tu kya hai?' with curiosity anymore. We ask with suspicion. With side-eyes. With subtext. Are you Left or Right? Religious or secular? Rich or aspirational? Savarna or Scheduled? Are you one of us—or one of them? Na meñ ye karishma na barq meñ ye adā Koi batāo ki vo shoḳh-e-tund-khū kyā hai There's no magic in the flame, no beauty in lightning, like that fierce, unrelenting presence of someone who dares to differ. But in today's climate, difference is danger. Nuance is a nuisance. Complexity is cancelled. And people—people are pixels, played with, packaged, politicised. Look at America. The so-called standard-bearer of democracy now plays host to a dangerous drama starring a man with a microphone and a messiah complex. Donald Trump, the unfiltered, unfettered force of chaos, has turned the Constitution into kindling, and yet, millions follow. Millions cheer. Because he gives them a gift: identity. The angry white man with a pickup truck. The Christian mum who misses church choir more than climate science. The jobless twenty-something who's never read Marx but hates the word 'woke'. He tells them: You matter, because you're mine. And they believe. Ye rashk hai ki vo hotā hai ham-suḳhan tum se Vagarna khaūf-e-bad-āmozi-e-adū kyā hai It's envy. It's fear. It's power dressed in populism. And it's not just in the West. Across the globe, strongmen strut across stages of collapsing democracies like peacocks on Prozac. They peddle pride and paranoia in equal measure. They brandish religion like a weapon and nationalism like a narcotic. They ask you not who you are, but whether you're with them. And if you're not, you're expendable. The world isn't asking tu kya hai with wonder. It's asking with a warning. Are you a believer? Or a betrayer? Are you a capitalist? Or a communist? Are you citizen enough? Or suspicious? And we, like sheep searching for safety, keep tagging ourselves with temporary labels hoping they'll protect us from persecution. #Feminist #Patriot #AntiFascist #ProudBrahmin #ProudDalit #QueerMuslim #NonBinarySikh #SelfMadeSonOfTheSoil We wear our pain like performance. Our caste like costume. Our convictions like clickbait. But the algorithms are not interested in our truth. They want virality, not vulnerability. And in this noise, we are burning. Jalā hai jism jahāñ dil bhī jal gayā hogā Kuredte ho jo ab raakh justujū kyā hai The body burned where the heart was already ash. Why pick through the soot for sparks? We do, though. Every time we open the news. Every time we vote. Every time we comment on conflict from our couches. We're all trying to find fragments of ourselves in the ruins. Fragments that haven't been co-opted. Fragments that haven't been turned into marketing campaigns or manifestos. Because what does it even mean anymore, to belong? What does it mean to be from a country that hasn't made space for your kind of grief? What does it mean to be of a faith that's been hijacked by fundamentalists? What does it mean to be human in a time when being human is the most dangerous identity of all? Ragoñ meñ dauṛte phirne ke ham nahīñ qā.il Jab āñkh hī se na ṭapkā to phir lahū kyā hai We don't believe in blood unless it bleeds from the eyes. Injustice must be seen to be believed. Pain must be performed to be validated. And so we perform. We document our despair. We livestream our losses. We curate our cries. Because otherwise, we're invisible. Unless you go viral, did it even happen? Unless you trend, do you even matter? And in the background, the old questions keep humming, haunting: Tu kya hai? Where's your passport from? What's your surname? Do you pray standing, kneeling, or not at all? Even at the UN, where suits and salutes replace soul, these questions remain. Even there, the old power play persists. Five countries hold vetoes that silence the other 188. Colonisers still cast the longest shadows. Refugees sit outside the room. Victims are reduced to statistics. And entire nations watch from the sidelines, hoping someone will ask not 'Who are you with?' but 'Who are you?' Because maybe that's what Ghalib was really asking. Not for answers, but for agency. Vo chīz jis ke liye ham ko ho bahisht azīz Sivā.e bāda-e-gulfām-e-mushk-bū kyā hai That heaven we crave—is it not the heady, intoxicating fragrance of freedom? Of fairness? Of finally being allowed to be? Ghalib wasn't just writing couplets. He was coding consciousness. He was telling us that language is legacy. That identity is not inherited—it's insisted upon. That belonging is not bestowed—it's built. And maybe, in this maddening moment of memefied ideologies and political cosplay, we need that old sher more than ever. Har ek baat pe kahte ho tum ki tu kya hai Tumhīn kaho ki ye andāz-e-guftugū kyā hai You ask who I am. But maybe, just maybe, I get to ask the same. Who are you, to decide my destiny? Who are you, to demand my allegiance? Who are you, who silence and scroll in the same breath? Because in this world tearing itself apart over tribe and tongue, over theology and Twitter handles, maybe it's time the uninvited spoke. The unheard. The underrepresented. The unknown. Maybe it's time the global South stopped waiting for permission. Maybe it's time the marginalised redefined the mainstream. Maybe it's time the forgotten remembered who they were. And maybe, just maybe, it's time we build a table where everyone eats. Not just the ones with old money and older empires. Not just the ones whose power is printed in passports. But us—the people. The ones who've survived dictatorships and droughts, who've lived through lynchings and long queues at embassies. The ones who've danced at weddings with no dowries, who've sung lullabies in languages that don't get translation toggles. The ones whose pain isn't profitable, whose power isn't platformed. Maybe we are the new superpower. Maybe Ghalib wasn't mourning. He was warning. That unless we know who we are—really know—we'll always be someone else's pawn. Huā hai shah kā musāhib phire hai itrātā Vagarna shahr meñ 'Ghalib' kī ābrū kyā hai He's bragging now that he's close to the king. Otherwise, who in this city even respects Ghalib? And isn't that the question we need to ask the world? Who gets respect—and why? And more importantly—what will we do when we realise it's ours to reclaim?
News18
28-05-2025
- Health
- News18
The Prozac Paradox: 50 Years On, Why Is Mental Illness Skyrocketing?
Last Updated: The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1 in 8 people globally—i.e., 970 million or 12.5 per cent of the world's population—live with a mental disorder today I write this piece on the eve of 75 years since the birth of modern psychopharmacology and 50 years since the discovery of Prozac, once touted as a miracle drug to treat depression. Before the advent of DSM-III and the arrival of Prozac, cases of mental disorders were limited. However, with the introduction of more and more drugs, the incidence and severity of mental disorders have skyrocketed. An Alarming Increase The World Health Organization (WHO) estimates that 1 in 8 people globally—i.e., 970 million or 12.5 per cent of the world's population—live with a mental disorder today. In the US and UK, the percentages are 23.1 and 25 respectively, while the proportion of Indians suffering from mental illness at any given time is 16 per cent. Humongous Consequences The consequences of the rapid growth in mental illness are immense. According to the WHO, the burden of mental health problems in India is 2,443 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) per 100,000 population. It also estimates the age-adjusted suicide rate per 100,000 population as 21.1. The Most Common Disorders Major Depressive Disorder (MDD) and Generalised Anxiety Disorder (GAD) are the most common mental health conditions. As per WHO estimates, 280 million people globally suffer from depression, 304 million from anxiety disorders, 40 million from bipolar disorder, and 24 million from schizophrenia. A Soaring Burden The Lancet, between 1990 and 2019, global DALYs due to mental disorders significantly increased from 80.8 million to 125.3 million. A few pressing questions arise at this juncture: I will attempt to answer these questions a little later. Suffice it to say, for now, that after the discovery in 1975 of fluoxetine—the first SSRI, marketed under the tradename Prozac—and its projection as a 'miracle drug," the following consequences ensued: Prozac was sold as a 'magic pill" to treat depression and other mental ailments including anxiety disorders. But was it? The editorial of the May 2025 edition of the prominent medical journal The Lancet sums it up succinctly: 'But 50 years on from landmark developments in drug treatment (with the arrival of Prozac) that were the cause of so much hope, we remain a long way from providing the level of care that so many people need, and this need continues to demand the attention of the scientific and medical communities." Psychiatric Bible Or Unreliable Dictionary I begin with a brief account of the DSM—the so-called psychiatric bible—and its controversial role in the proliferation of mental illnesses. The DSM first appeared in 1952 as a crisp 32-page document when the Committee on Nomenclature and Statistics of the American Psychiatric Association (APA) published the first edition, DSM-I. From those original 32 pages, the manual expanded to 494 pages in DSM-III, culminating in 1120 pages in the latest version, DSM-5-TR (Text Revision). DSM-I bore a distinct Freudian imprint. It also drew from the seminal work of eminent European classifiers of the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries—German Emil Kraepelin and Swiss Eugen Bleuler. Everything changed in 1980 with the publication of DSM-III. DSM-III marked a significant shift: the classification of mental disorders moved from 'aetiologically defined illnesses" to symptom-based 'categorical diseases." This was ostensibly done to create a more standardised and reliable framework for diagnosis. Ironically, DSM-III ushered in an era of medicalisation and chemicalisation of mental illness. It contributed to an exponential rise in diagnosed mental illnesses, broadened the scope of psychiatric intervention, and fuelled a dramatic surge in the sales of psychotropic drugs. The result? From fewer than 100 classifications of mental illness in DSM-I, the number swelled to more than 220 in DSM-5-TR—pathologising a wide range of human emotions and behaviours. The latest addition to this list is 'prolonged grief disorder." Moreover, despite eight iterations of the DSM over seven decades, its diagnostic system—based solely on consensus among contributors—continues to suffer from a lack of both reliability and scientific validity. DSM diagnoses are based on agreement over clusters of clinical symptoms, not on objective laboratory measures. Hands Off Unsurprisingly, in 2013, Dr Thomas R. Insel, then Director of the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), announced that the agency would no longer fund research based on DSM criteria. Insel cautioned that the DSM's supposed precision and reliability had been overstated for decades: 'While DSM has been described as a 'Bible' for the field, it is, at best, a dictionary, creating a set of labels and defining each." And, he added, it is not even a particularly good dictionary. Complicity, Collusion, Or Blind Following? Symptom-based diagnoses, coupled with the exponential increase in conditions attributed to brain chemistry, had a profound impact—resulting in a proliferation of drugs purported to treat or cure such disorders. While these medicines brought relief to some, for many they caused unmitigated side effects without meaningful improvement. Nonetheless, the psychiatric community—emboldened by pharmaceutical claims of 'miracle" cures and slavishly adhering to DSM classifications—accelerated the push for ever more medication. Often, this occurred in tandem with pharmaceutical companies, for whom SSRIs, SNRIs, antipsychotics, and mood stabilisers became blockbuster profit-making drugs. Pressure from pharmaceutical companies contributed to a massive rise in psychiatric prescribing and an increase in labelling patients to justify that prescribing. Critics of DSM-5 pointed out that: 'Seventy per cent of people serving on its committees to define specific diagnoses had financial ties to pharmaceutical companies—up from 57 per cent for DSM-IV." Multibillion-Dollar Industry It is difficult to accurately assess the annual sales and growth rate of the entire psychotropic drug market. Nonetheless, various estimates place the current market size at around USD 40 billion, expected to grow to USD 75 billion within the next decade. It is now time to examine the birth and rapid expansion of psychopharmacology—particularly over the past five decades since the discovery of Prozac. The Birth We now live in the age of psychopharmacology. Such is the discipline's dependence on psychotropic drugs that, were they to be removed, psychiatry as we know it would collapse. The key question is: when, where, and for which condition was modern psychopharmacology born? The best estimate is 1949, with the serendipitous discovery by John Cade of the effectiveness of lithium salts in treating mania in bipolar disorder. Shortly afterwards came the synthesis of chlorpromazine in 1950 to treat schizophrenia—both marking foundational milestones. But for me, psychopharmacology was truly born in 1949, when John Cade successfully treated ten patients with 'psychotic excitement" using lithium salts. Those 75 Years In the 75 years since, psychotropic drugs—particularly the SSRI class of antidepressants—have become blockbuster medications. Prescription rates have grown exponentially, gradually sidelining psychotherapy. How did this happen? It's The Chemistry, Stupid The aetiology of mental disorders is complex. Understanding it requires an integrated approach accounting for the interplay of multiple factors—genetic, neurochemical, environmental, social, and cultural. However, this nuanced understanding was reduced to an oversimplified explanation following the arrival of DSM-III and the aggressive marketing of Prozac and Zoloft. Pharmaceutical companies popularised the so-called 'chemical imbalance theory," which proposed that mental disorders in general—and depression in particular—stem from imbalances in neurotransmitters (chemical messengers in the brain) such as serotonin, dopamine, and norepinephrine. Yet this theory is far too simplistic. If it were entirely true, we would see far fewer cases of mental disorders today—especially depression and generalised anxiety disorder, which should have been virtually eradicated. That has not happened. On the contrary, we appear to have entered an era defined by what some critics call a 'strategy of marketing diseases as an effective way of marketing drugs." The Early Psychotropic Drugs First came lithium, used to treat bipolar disorder, soon followed by antipsychotics for schizophrenia. In the 1960s, Iproniazid and Imipramine were introduced to treat Major Depressive Disorder (MDD), based on the 'monoamine hypothesis of depression." At that time, the prevalence of mental disorders was relatively low, and so were the annual sales of psychotropic drugs. The Arrival Of SSRIs The seeds of SSRIs were sown in the late 1960s, when post-mortem studies showed decreased levels of serotonin in depressed individuals who had died by suicide. This discovery led the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly to search for compounds that would selectively inhibit serotonin reuptake at transporter sites—thereby increasing serotonin concentrations in the synaptic cleft and stimulating postsynaptic receptors. This formed the basis of what became known as the 'serotonin theory of depression." Prozac Unleashed The journey of Prozac began on 8 May 1972, when Eli Lilly researcher Jong-Sin Horng discovered that the compound 'Lilly 110140" altered serotonin concentrations in the brain. Its efficacy as an antidepressant—with significantly fewer side effects compared to existing drugs—was demonstrated in 1975 by Wong and colleagues. This compound, fluoxetine, turned out to be a potent and selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI). This led to the birth of the first SSRI—fluoxetine—which was later given the trade name Prozac and approved as an antidepressant by the US FDA in 1987. Soon after Prozac's introduction, several other SSRIs were approved, including sertraline (Zoloft®), citalopram (Celexa®), paroxetine (Paxil®), and escitalopram (Lexapro®). The Miracle Pill Prozac was marketed with much fanfare as a miracle pill for depression—promising greater efficacy and substantially fewer side effects than the antidepressants available at the time. Books such as Prozac Nation and Listening to Prozac, along with pop culture, 'Prozac" musicals and repeated references in Hollywood films, helped propel Prozac to unparalleled commercial success. It became the most widely known—and most sold—psychotropic drug in history. The Prozac Moment Today, the name 'Prozac" serves as a shorthand for all antidepressants. The Oxford English Dictionary defines Prozac as: 'Prozac or fluoxetine hydrochloride, an antidepressant drug belonging to the group of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) agents, used in the treatment of depression, obsessive–compulsive disorder, bulimia nervosa, and panic disorder." The phrase 'Prozac moment" has come to mean a fleeting feeling of happiness—or forgetfulness. People also speak of a Prozac shot, a Prozac smile, or feeling 'better than well." How, then, was humanity sold the miracle of Prozac? It's an interesting tale. A Lot In The Name David Healy, the well-known Professor of Psychiatry and expert on psychopharmacology, famously said: 'What made Prozac good was not that it was potent—which it really was not—but that it had really good marketing." SSRIs are now often referred to as all-purpose 'happy pills", prescribed not just for depression but also for anxiety, obsessive behaviours, substance abuse, chronic pain, shyness, and even to help people feel 'better than well". How did fluoxetine hydrochloride become the miracle 'happy pill" Prozac? The answer lies in branding and marketing. Eli Lilly brought in Interbrand, a reputed branding agency, to commercially repackage the drug and distance it from everything associated with earlier antidepressants—'strong chemicals, side effects, withdrawal symptoms". Interbrand coined the name 'Prozac": 'Pro" connoted positivity 'Z" suggested strength 'Ac" implied action The result was a name—and a narrative—that transformed a modestly effective drug into a global phenomenon. Pill-Popping Children On 3 June 2003, the US FDA approved Prozac for the treatment of children aged 7 to 17. Notably, even before this official approval, between 1987 and 2002, millions of prescriptions for Prozac and its counterparts had already been written to treat emotionally disturbed children. Cult Following The introduction of Prozac—and the subsequent arrival of other SSRIs—led to an astronomical rise in the sale of psychotropic drugs, making them blockbuster medicines. Millions across the world embraced Prozac on a scale previously unseen in the history of psychopharmacology. It would not be an overstatement to say that only two drugs have achieved such a cult following: Prozac, developed by Eli Lilly in 1975, and Viagra, introduced by Pfizer in 1987. Lilly Blooms – The Age of Depression For the pharmaceutical industry, the 1990s became the 'Age of Depression", with annual sales of Prozac and other SSRIs surging dramatically. I'll return to that shortly. First, the Prozac story. In 1988, its first year on the market, Prozac generated USD 350 million in sales—eclipsing all other antidepressants. By 1990, it had become a blockbuster drug, crossing the one-billion-dollar mark in annual revenue. At its peak in 1998, annual sales of Prozac reached USD 2.8 billion. In 2000, just before its patent expired, Eli Lilly reported worldwide sales of Prozac at USD 2.6 billion—25 per cent of its total revenue—making it the fourth best-selling brand-name drug that year. Others Join The Party Between 1991 and 2001, global antidepressant sales increased tenfold, reaching USD 11 billion and becoming the chief profit driver for the pharmaceutical industry over the decade. In 2001, out of the USD 11 billion antidepressant market, the market share was distributed as follows: Sertraline (Zoloft): 18 per cent Paroxetine (Paxil): 16 per cent Fluoxetine (Prozac): 14 per cent Citalopram (Celexa): 13 per cent Bupropion (Wellbutrin): 9 per cent The combined market share of other antidepressants stood at 14.7 per cent, while tricyclic antidepressants had plummeted to just 2 per cent. In the last two decades, the antidepressant market has continued to soar—reaching USD 20.1 billion in 2024, with projections of USD 27 billion by 2033. Do Psychotropic Medicines Work? It has been seventy-five years since the birth of modern psychopharmacology and fifty years since the arrival of the so-called wonder drug, Prozac. During this time, the number of psychotropic medications—and their sales—have exploded. But despite the claims of 'mind-fixers," the actual efficacy of these drugs in treating mental illnesses has not significantly improved. What holds true for many of these drugs is even more true for Prozac, the so-called miracle pill. Short Haul, Long Haul Modern antidepressants were originally approved for short-term use—typically six to nine months—just enough to help patients through a crisis. But soon after approval, psychiatrists began prescribing them for long-term maintenance therapy. And here lies a fundamental problem with psychotropic drugs. Once a drug is discovered or approved, doctors across the world are free to prescribe it as they see fit. Unsurprisingly, despite the lack of robust long-term efficacy data, psychiatrists in India and globally have placed tens of millions of people on antidepressants indefinitely. For example, in the late 1980s in the US, only 1 in 50 people received a prescription for an antidepressant in any given year—and even then, for just a few months. Today, that figure is closer to 1 in 7, possibly even 1 in 5, with an increasing number of patients remaining on medication for decades—often without any clear or sustained benefit. I Rest My Case My argument is not that psychotropic drugs—antidepressants, antipsychotics, mood stabilisers, and others—do not work. It is accepted that psychiatrists have little understanding of the aetiology of mental disorders, and they do not fully know how psychotropic drugs work, or why they sometimes fail. Yet, these medicines do help in a significant number of cases. They may not cure, but they help manage symptoms and offer relief. That said, the consensus remains that in 30 to 50 per cent of depression cases, antidepressants do not work. In such instances, psychiatrists often label patients as 'drug-resistant." The efficacy of psychotropic drugs in treating more serious conditions like schizophrenia and bipolar disorder is equally disappointing, if not worse. Medicine, Not Miracle Prozac, along with other SSRIs and SNRIs that followed in its wake, was introduced to the world as a 'miracle drug"—a narrative fuelled by an unprecedented marketing blitz from pharmaceutical companies, books such as Prozac Nation and Listening to Prozac, and even musicals and Hollywood films. Decades have passed, and the reality is far more sobering. SSRIs, like their predecessors, are simply medicines. They work for some, and not for others. Some studies have shown that SSRIs may be less effective than earlier antidepressants. Other long-term studies suggest that SSRIs are no more effective than placebos. Moreover, the milder the depression, the weaker the evidence that Prozac and its kin perform any better than a placebo. Suffice it to say, Prozac not only sparked the fire but poured tonnes of fuel onto the cultural bonfire of 'better living through chemistry"—a promise that ultimately could not be fulfilled. Moreover, SSRIs are not free from side effects—as pharmaceutical advertisements, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, misled the public into believing. Like all drugs, SSRIs come with their own risks: mental fog, suicidal ideation, loss of libido, and other sexual dysfunctions. They also cause withdrawal symptoms for many. And the long-term side effects of SSRIs remain poorly understood. To sum up: antidepressants and other psychotropic drugs can work—and do work—for some people, but not for others. They are life-saving for a few, but can be life-threatening for others. Additionally, what holds true for patients in the US does not necessarily hold true in India. top videos View all It is time to accept that these are not panaceas. The search for a true cure for mental illness must continue. India must invest in Bharat-centric research into the aetiology and understanding of mental disorders, as well as their treatment. The era of symptom-based treatment is over. Period. The author is a past member of GoI's National, Mental Health Policy Group and Central Mental Health Authority and is an India-based international impact consultant, and keen watcher of changing national and international scenarios. He works as president advisory services of consulting company BARSYL. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect News18's views. tags : Antidepressants Depression mental disorder Location : New Delhi, India, India First Published: May 28, 2025, 14:51 IST News opinion Akhil Vaani | The Prozac Paradox: 50 Years On, Why Is Mental Illness Skyrocketing?
ITV News
27-05-2025
- Health
- ITV News
'Puppy prozac cured my dog's anxiety'
Almost nine million Brits are currently taking antidepressants - but it's not just humans who need help. Vets have reported a huge surge in prescriptions of 'puppy Prozac', as owners use medication to help treat their dog's behavioural issues. That includes Emma Reed, who says they've cured her cockapoo Chester of his social anxiety. But is medication really the best option? Emma will be joining us alongside vet Sean McCormack.
Yahoo
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Yahoo
The Funniest Part of Alison Bechdel's Work
This is an edition of the Books Briefing, our editors' weekly guide to the best in books. Sign up for it here. Dykes to Watch Out For, the long-running lesbian comic strip that launched Alison Bechdel's career, is full of kitchen-table drama and dry humor, but its title is also more literal than those elements might suggest. Watch out, strip after strip said: Here comes Mo, the main character and author-avatar, spinning her way onto the page like a flustered Tasmanian devil of '90s-lefty anxiety. Look out for Mo, going hoarse over the rise of Pat Buchanan or chiding her circle for not thinking enough about genocide in Bosnia. There's Mo, nose in a newspaper, ignoring her friends' new baby to stress about the latest mainstream co-optation of radical activism. This might sound like a drag, but it's actually one of the funniest running bits in Bechdel's work. For decades, the author has allowed herself—or her stand-in self—to be loudly annoying, and often wrong, on the page. When Mo's a bummer, her friends snap back at her; when she talks or worries her way out of an opportunity to get laid, they poke fun at her. Mo is frequently uptight about other people's choices (to take Prozac, for instance, or to transition), but her diatribes usually end with her being dressed down or hurting someone she cares about. I've always been charmed by how much Bechdel is willing to let Mo be both her double and the butt of her joke. In her new book, Spent, Bechdel blurs the writer-character line even further, Hanna Rosin writes this week, and the result is even more gratifying. First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic's books desk: Return of the shaman Shutting down Salman Rushdie is not going to help America's Johnson & Johnson problem An awkward truth about American work Spent is not a memoir, but neither is it wholly fictional. Instead, it's a graphic novel about a character named Alison Bechdel, who looks just like Alison Bechdel, the book's author—and also an older Mo. Novel-Alison, like real Alison, lives in Vermont with her partner, Holly, and has made a lot of unexpected money off a television adaptation of her memoir. (Bechdel's memoir Fun Home was adapted into a Tony Award–winning musical.) Alison and Holly's closest friends in Vermont are old standbys from DTWOF: Sparrow, Stuart, and their child, J.R.; Ginger; and Lois, who all live in a group house. They're busy with their own various crises and hookups, while Alison finds that more money means more problems. 'There's no avoiding it. She is complicit to the craw with the capitalist crisis,' a box of omniscient narration says in one panel. Alison, sitting at her desk doing her taxes, says aloud: 'Someone should write a book about this.' Spent is that book. Bechdel the author is 'astute enough to know that famous people lamenting the burdens of fame are insufferable,' Rosin writes. So here, 'she's created an Alison whose dilemma parodies contemporary celebrity culture, while also parodying herself, the author.' And, thank goodness, it's still funny. Alison keeps putting her foot in her mouth on social issues, especially in front of the radical recent college dropout J.R. and their companion, Badger. The young adults—furious with the world for going about business as usual during a 21st-century 'polycrisis' (the name of a podcast they host)—resemble in many ways a younger Mo. Meanwhile, Alison wonders where her fighting spirit has gone, growing concerned that luxury and age have dulled her into complacency. When Sparrow suggests that the kids cool it, Bechdel isn't mocking their idealism. And she's not suggesting that Alison's become a coldhearted reactionary—just that she has more to manage, and perhaps more to lose, than she did years before. After all, in DTWOF, Mo's all-consuming neuroticism prevented her from living a fulfilling life, driving away friends and lovers. As in previous books, Bechdel seems to hint that a middle path is the only way forward: Giving in to mega-corporations and nihilistically welcoming climate apocalypse, she suggests, is an abdication of our responsibilities to one another. But her characters have to learn, again and again, that sticking to your principles doesn't have to mean ruining every meal shared with your loved ones. What Is Alison Bechdel's Secret? By Hanna Rosin The cartoonist has spent a lifetime worrying. In a new graphic novel, she finds something like solace. Read the full article. , by Elaine Castillo Girlie Delmundo—not her real name; she adopted it for her high-stress job—is a content moderator at a massive tech firm. Her work involves filtering through a carousel of online horrors so crushing that there are typically three or four suicide attempts among her co-workers each year. Girlie, however, is sardonic and no-nonsense by nature: She's an eldest daughter shaped by the 2008 recession, when her immigrant family lost everything. The job can't break her. But her life transforms when she gets a cushy position as an elite moderator for a virtual-reality firm. Suddenly, Girlie is enjoying perks such as regular VR therapy sessions, in which she experiences rare moments of bliss—swimming through cool water, touching the bark of a tree. The new gig is great, at least for a while. (All may not be as it seems there.) Her new boss, William, also happens to be a total stud, and his presence transforms Castillo's flinty satire of the tech industry into a sultry romance novel. As we watch Girlie's defenses melt, the book shows a woman slowly surrendering to human experiences that can't be controlled. — Valerie Trapp From our list: The 2025 summer reading guide 📚 Autocorrect, by Etgar Keret 📚 When It All Burns, by Jordan Thomas 📚 The South, by Tash Aw The World That 'Wages for Housework' Wanted By Lily Meyer But creating social conditions that are conducive to motherhood doesn't have to be part of a reactionary agenda. Indeed, one of the feminist movement's most radical and idealistic intellectual branches, a 1970s campaign called Wages for Housework, advocated for policies that, if ever implemented, genuinely might set off a baby boom. Its central goal was straightforward: government pay for anybody who does the currently unremunerated labor of caring for their own home and family. On top of that, the movement envisioned communal social structures and facilities including high-quality public laundromats and day cares that would get women out of their homes and give them their own time, such that paying them to do housework wouldn't consign them to a life without anything else. Read the full article. * Lead image: Excerpted from the book Spent, provided courtesy of Mariner Books, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. © 2025 by Alison Bechdel. Reprinted by permission. When you buy a book using a link in this newsletter, we receive a commission. Thank you for supporting The Atlantic. Sign up for The Wonder Reader, a Saturday newsletter in which our editors recommend stories to spark your curiosity and fill you with delight. Explore all of our newsletters. Article originally published at The Atlantic
Atlantic
23-05-2025
- Entertainment
- Atlantic
The Funniest Part of Alison Bechdel's Work
This is an edition of the Books Briefing, our editors' weekly guide to the best in books. Sign up for it here. Dykes to Watch Out For, the long-running lesbian comic strip that launched Alison Bechdel's career, is full of kitchen-table drama and dry humor, but its title is also more literal than those elements might suggest. Watch out, strip after strip said: Here comes Mo, the main character and author-avatar, spinning her way onto the page like a flustered Tasmanian devil of '90s-lefty anxiety. Look out for Mo, going hoarse over the rise of Pat Buchanan or chiding her circle for not thinking enough about genocide in Bosnia. There's Mo, nose in a newspaper, ignoring her friends' new baby to stress about the latest mainstream co-optation of radical activism. This might sound like a drag, but it's actually one of the funniest running bits in Bechdel's work. For decades, the author has allowed herself—or her stand-in self—to be loudly annoying, and often wrong, on the page. When Mo's a bummer, her friends snap back at her; when she talks or worries her way out of an opportunity to get laid, they poke fun at her. Mo is frequently uptight about other people's choices (to take Prozac, for instance, or to transition), but her diatribes usually end with her being dressed down or hurting someone she cares about. I've always been charmed by how much Bechdel is willing to let Mo be both her double and the butt of her joke. In her new book, Spent, Bechdel blurs the writer-character line even further, Hanna Rosin writes this week, and the result is even more gratifying. First, here are four new stories from The Atlantic 's books desk: Spent is not a memoir, but neither is it wholly fictional. Instead, it's a graphic novel about a character named Alison Bechdel, who looks just like Alison Bechdel, the book's author—and also an older Mo. Novel-Alison, like real Alison, lives in Vermont with her partner, Holly, and has made a lot of unexpected money off a television adaptation of her memoir. (Bechdel's memoir Fun Home was adapted into a Tony Award–winning musical.) Alison and Holly's closest friends in Vermont are old standbys from DTWOF: Sparrow, Stuart, and their child, J.R.; Ginger; and Lois, who all live in a group house. They're busy with their own various crises and hookups, while Alison finds that more money means more problems. 'There's no avoiding it. She is complicit to the craw with the capitalist crisis,' a box of omniscient narration says in one panel. Alison, sitting at her desk doing her taxes, says aloud: 'Someone should write a book about this.' Spent is that book. Bechdel the author is 'astute enough to know that famous people lamenting the burdens of fame are insufferable,' Rosin writes. So here, 'she's created an Alison whose dilemma parodies contemporary celebrity culture, while also parodying herself, the author.' And, thank goodness, it's still funny. Alison keeps putting her foot in her mouth on social issues, especially in front of the radical recent college dropout J.R. and their companion, Badger. The young adults—furious with the world for going about business as usual during a 21st-century 'polycrisis' (the name of a podcast they host)—resemble in many ways a younger Mo. Meanwhile, Alison wonders where her fighting spirit has gone, growing concerned that luxury and age have dulled her into complacency. When Sparrow suggests that the kids cool it, Bechdel isn't mocking their idealism. And she's not suggesting that Alison's become a coldhearted reactionary—just that she has more to manage, and perhaps more to lose, than she did years before. After all, in DTWOF, Mo's all-consuming neuroticism prevented her from living a fulfilling life, driving away friends and lovers. As in previous books, Bechdel seems to hint that a middle path is the only way forward: Giving in to mega-corporations and nihilistically welcoming climate apocalypse, she suggests, is an abdication of our responsibilities to one another. But her characters have to learn, again and again, that sticking to your principles doesn't have to mean ruining every meal shared with your loved ones. What Is Alison Bechdel's Secret? By Hanna Rosin The cartoonist has spent a lifetime worrying. In a new graphic novel, she finds something like solace. Read the full article. What to Read Moderation, by Elaine Castillo Girlie Delmundo—not her real name; she adopted it for her high-stress job—is a content moderator at a massive tech firm. Her work involves filtering through a carousel of online horrors so crushing that there are typically three or four suicide attempts among her co-workers each year. Girlie, however, is sardonic and no-nonsense by nature: She's an eldest daughter shaped by the 2008 recession, when her immigrant family lost everything. The job can't break her. But her life transforms when she gets a cushy position as an elite moderator for a virtual-reality firm. Suddenly, Girlie is enjoying perks such as regular VR therapy sessions, in which she experiences rare moments of bliss—swimming through cool water, touching the bark of a tree. The new gig is great, at least for a while. (All may not be as it seems there.) Her new boss, William, also happens to be a total stud, and his presence transforms Castillo's flinty satire of the tech industry into a sultry romance novel. As we watch Girlie's defenses melt, the book shows a woman slowly surrendering to human experiences that can't be controlled. — Valerie Trapp Out Next Week 📚 Autocorrect, by Etgar Keret 📚 When It All Burns, by Jordan Thomas 📚 The South, by Tash Aw Your Weekend Read The World That 'Wages for Housework' Wanted By Lily Meyer But creating social conditions that are conducive to motherhood doesn't have to be part of a reactionary agenda. Indeed, one of the feminist movement's most radical and idealistic intellectual branches, a 1970s campaign called Wages for Housework, advocated for policies that, if ever implemented, genuinely might set off a baby boom. Its central goal was straightforward: government pay for anybody who does the currently unremunerated labor of caring for their own home and family. On top of that, the movement envisioned communal social structures and facilities including high-quality public laundromats and day cares that would get women out of their homes and give them their own time, such that paying them to do housework wouldn't consign them to a life without anything else. * Lead image: Excerpted from the book Spent, provided courtesy of Mariner Books, an imprint of HarperCollins Publishers. © 2025 by Alison Bechdel. Reprinted by permission.
