Medicine in Literature, and: The Physician in Literature (review)

Book Reviews Joseph Ceccio, editor. Medicine in Literature. New York: Longman, 1978. xii + 324 pp. $7.00. Norman Cousins, editor. The Physician in Literature. Philadelphia: The Saunders Press, 1982. xxiii + 477 pp. $16.95. The study of literature, as an area worthy of serious intellectual pursuit, faculty appointments and curricular time, is a newcomer to American medicine. To be sure there have always been champions of the classics among practitioners and clinical faculty, and a handful of physician-writers, but these were, for the most part, idiosyncrasies and avocations of unusual people. The effort to remedy this through educational programs in medical schools is still too new to be evaluated. Yet if the appearance of texts is any indication, the study of literature in medicine may be gaining an increasingly secure footing. This essay reviews two such texts: Joseph Ceccio's Medicine in Literature, and Norman Cousins's The Physician in Literature. Both volumes have much to commend them in terms of their selection of literary works, and Cousins's book commends itself through its editorial remarks as well. Ceccio's volume is somewhat marred by his interpretive efforts. Let me consider Ceccio first. Ceccio's book Problems appear with Ceccio's book from the very beginning. The Introduction is self-congratulatory and self-commending to a fault. Stu- Book Reviews 149 dents, we are told, "... will be especially challenged by this intriguing collection of relevant readings." Parts of the introduction read like an affirmative action statement: "... many writers who are also physicians and nurses are represented. Significant contributions come from women and members of minority groups." We are repeatedly told how "eminently readable" and accessible the selections are, that they are reasonably short, and self-contained. Each part of the book is preceded by an "original introduction" and concludes with a "set of classroom-tested topics for discussion and writing." Ceccio continues with the assessment that the volume is unique, much needed, and a boon to a wide range of teachers and scholars—evaluations normally left for critics and reviewers. Moreover, we are told that the six parts give a "comprehensive picture of the medicine-in-literature topic," which is either a trivial or a false claim. Selections in this, or in any such collection, are culled from a great wealth of literature, from hundreds of works, depicting an enormous range of human experiences in medicine. Ceccio's assertion of comprehensiveness , even in topical designation, is incredible and pretentious. Finally, we are told that "the journey through Medicine in Literature will be a pleasurable and profitable one!" It is hard to understand why Ceccio thought it necessary to foist his volume upon us with such assurances . Ceccio's book does have an appendage to each selection entitled "Topics for Discussion and Writing." The questions posed are useful and could provide initial guidance for anyone who is uncertain how to think about what they have read. There is a hazard, however, of trivializing some of the more powerful pieces, as when Ceccio poses in relation to Dickey's "Diabetes": "Does this diabetic . . . have the right to ignore his physician's instructions and court possible death?" Rights issues are a long way from the experiential center of this poem and tend to reduce the authenticity of illness and its ambiguities to a moral or legal idiom. Overall, the topics listed are of mixed quality. My general impression is that Ceccio has tried to do too much to introduce and interpret the book to his readers. The six parts of the volume, for example, "Medicine and Interpersonal Relationships," "Medicine and Humor," "Medicine and Mental Health," "Medicine and the Scientific Impulse," "Medicine and the Nurse," and "Medicine and its Limitations" are presented by Ceccio as if they had some systematic design, and as though the selections in each formed an "essential unity." Though these headings are certainly central ones, the essence which unifies them escapes me. Such plastic interpretive efforts only distract from the 250 BOOK REVIEWS pieces themselves, most of which (as Ceccio at another place says) need neither introduction nor interpretation from an expert. One wishes Ceccio simply had said, as Cousins, in effect, says in introducing his volume, "these are...