Pop culture commonly references mental illness (or uses it as a metaphor for a world gone awry). Many mental health professionals “blame” pop culture for sensationalizing and stigmatizing mental illness, perpetuating stereotypes, capitalizing on anxiety and ultimately discouraging those who need treatment from seeking treatment. Yet a broader examination of pop culture suggests that those claims may represent reactions to a self-selected subset of pop culture. This collection presents a more balanced view, without emphasizing negative representations, but without neglecting them, either. It asks why fictional mad scientists did not discourage the study of science, yet misrepresentations of mental patients are said to stigmatize. It acknowledges romanticized or empathic or neutral views of mental illness in literature, film, poetry, music, TV, videogames and comics, and contrast those approaches to starker representations of psychosis in specific genres (notably slashers)—and strive to understand the influences that led to such shifts in representation. These essays show how pop culture strives to understand the rationale behind irrational acts (without necessarily sensationalizing it) and then packages those theories in entertaining and engaging formats that make us ponder our responses and fears.
The editors of this volume welcome essays that explain why some creators exploit mental illness or why society responds to such exploitation at specific times. Essays examine media that makes excuses for bizarre behavior, by offering Freudian, genetic or even gender, race or religion-based explanations. The collection compares plots that punish mentally ill perpetrators—or that exonerate them by explaining their traumatic backgrounds—to see how such topics offer opportunities for readers, spectators, listeners or players to contemplate their personal views on the consequences of mental illness. It considers very contemporary pop culture and also pop cultural icons that persist through time (such as Poe, Lovecraft, Van Gogh, P.K. Dick). Even though substance use often accompanies mental illness, this collection focuses on mental illness only. Essays in this collection will offer a fresh—even iconoclastic–POV without feeling the need to parrot the prevailing POV. Since this collection targets a broad audience, and especially younger college students, essays must be accessible to non-academicians, even though essays are expected to offer scholarly support for their theories.
The editors call for 3,000-4,000 word essays (30 essays in total—about 15 slots are still available). Please forward a 200-500 word abstract, plus short bio, short writing samples or links to published articles.
The book is in contract with Praeger. The editor is a psychiatrist; author of five books; co-editor of another 2-volume essay collection for ABC-Clio, plus many academic articles and book chapters. See http://www.psychiatryinpopularculture.com/ for details.
Send inquiries to: MENTALILLNESSPOPULARCULTURE@OUTLOOK.COM, under the subject heading: MENTALILLNESSPOPULARCULTURE
Due date for abstracts: July 17, 2015
Due date for first draft: January 31, 2016.
Due date for final draft: 1 month after receipt of review or request for revisions of essay.
Maximum/minimum word count: 3,000-4,000 (including endnotes)
Remuneration: 1 hard-cover book (retails about $100) and access to the e-book.
Examples of open topics:
- Men as Victims (not Victimizers) of Mental Illness in Action-Adventure Movies (Lethal Weapon, Conspiracy Theory, 12 Monkeys, Jacob’s Ladder, etc.)
- Woody Allen, Philip Roth and Stereotypes of Neurotic Jewish-American Males: Did their portrayals of “neurotics” (analysands) desensitize fans from “stigma” of mental illness or did they distract fans from serious mental illness or from its effects on other ethnicities?
- Media about Mental Patients as Victims (of the System?) rather than Victimizers
- Comedic Representations of Mental Illness: Laughing with them or at them? (What About Bob?, Monk, Analyze This/That, Mash, Harold & Maud, King of Hearts)
- The Many Manifestations of Mental Illness in the Military (Harold & Maud, Mash, Jacob’s Ladder, Full Metal Jacket, 9th Configuration, First Blood (Rambo), Deer Hunter)
- PTSD (Batman, First Blood (Rambo), George Jones’ Wild Irish Rose (VA music video)
- David Bowie, Pink Floyd, Rolling Stones: Psychedelia, schizophrenia/suicides of sibs.
- Steven King’s Stories about Psychosis and their Translations into Film/Videogames
- Hitchcock’s many other films about Mental Illness (apart from Psycho)
- Psychosis vs. Sociopathy in Superhero Stories
- When, How and Why Mental Patients Outpaced Mad Scientists as Popular Villains.
The editors already have many proposals on women’s madness memoirs, slashers, horror in general, Lovecraft, Poe, queer theory, and are open to reading more, but cannot publish duplicate topics—so you stand a better chance of acceptance by writing on “unclaimed” topics or proposing an innovative slant that does not appear above.
Guidelines:
- No first person accounts of mental illness or treatments
- No Clinical Case Reports or Clinical Research Studies; research references welcome
- “Mental Illness” refers to serious psychotic disorders (schizophrenia/bipolar), severe PTSD, dissociative identity disorder or chronic suicidality that merits hospitalization—but does not refer to “unresolved conflicts” or “personal issues” or generic psych themes.
- “Mental Illness” refers to clinical mental illness, not metaphorical madness or cultural chaos—unless clinical mental illness is a metaphor for “a world gone awry”.
- I“Mental illness” in this context does NOT include substance use disorders alone, although mental illness and substance use commonly co-exist or mimic one another.
The publisher requires at least one of the following: (1) prior publications on your topic and/or (2) terminal degree in the field you write about or enrollment in degree-granting program and/or (3) artistic achievements in the field that you write about (if your essay covers art, music, drama, film, etc.) and/or (4) collaboration with someone who has the credentials listed above. The publisher has the discretion to determine “expertise” in a field.