The NY Times on the 50th anniversary of 'Sybil'

Hey! Hey, over here! You're not gonna pretend you can't see me, are ya? Look harder; I'm the one in the cat ears, choker, and striped thigh-highs!

I don't like this article atall.

[italic]You hold your water, young lady!

Read the book when I was maybe 12 or 13 in the 1970's because it was in the family bookcase. My mom was into these psychodrama novels and trendy diagnoses. Wasn't sure about all the multiple personalities, but was shocked about the parental abuse. We had a fairly dysfunctional family, but nothing on that scale. Knowing I'd read the book, she'd say things like, "If you don't clean your room and mow the lawn, you'll soon be hanging upside down in the closet with an ice water enema". Both of us laughing hysterically. Damnit, I miss her. We watched the TV movie together with Sally Field, which was quite powerful at the time. A few years later while sitting around at the breakfast table reading the Sunday paper, she leers at me above her reading glasses and quietly diagnoses me, declaring "You have moderate to severe Tourette's Syndrome". Until that moment, I'd never used a four-letter word in her presence, but now the flood gates were open!

Sorry but who gives a shit about the opinion of a NYT book critic on mental health care and psychiatry? She's a literary critic. Give me an opinion about the book and spare me the editorialising on social issues you aren't qualified to talk about.

Multiple personalities seems like an extreme form of compartmentalization.

That book and movie traumatized me. The descriptions of the torture were just stomach turning. The woman who played the mother was terrifying. She even scared the shit out of me in Splendor in the Grass.

For those who want the opinions of mental health experts and not NYT critics, there is no shortage of literature about multiple personality disorder being a big, dangerous crock of shit.

Richard Ofshe's "Making Monsters" is a good place to start and presents it as part of a cluster of horrible trends that fed off each other, including recovered memory therapy and false accusations of Satanic ritual abuse. Journalist Debbie Nathan's "Sybil Exposed" also unravels many Sybil lies.

There's an upcoming documentary about "Michelle Remembers" that will reignite interest in Satanic panic. I just read the original book and was disgusted to realize it would still be taken seriously today, if only by QAnon cultists and the dissociative identity disorder loons of TikTok.

I'm puzzled by r5's post.

I didn't comprehend the NY Times article as the writer giving an opinion on mental health care and psychiatry.

I read it at her commenting on the social impact of the topics of the books.

As for "Sybil" the movie, it created, what was then, sensational, broadcast, event TV. I was a kid when it aired. Even then, deep down, I really didn't buy it.

I do remember Sally Field's mesmerizing performance as "Sybil" and thinking, "Wow, this ain't Sister Bertille".

So was it schizophrenia? There was something seriously wrong with Sybil. I never bought the multiple personalities nonsense even as a kid. But the movie Sybil was a cracking good time! It was must watch TV each time it was played. I was pretty young when it was released—grade school. My friends and I all were captivated/terrified by it. I think our parents let us watch it because it made them look good in comparison.

Water for everyone.

Now HOLD IT! HOLD YOUR WATER!

Should Sally return her Emmy? Let's do a podcast about it...