Scan barcode
noahtiegs's review against another edition
5.0
Had to read most of this for class, finished it tonight. Wow is it good, especially chapters 1, 6, and 7. Not exactly fun to read but like, really really interesting and useful. Sad. And hopeful, kind of?
3rdtimelucky's review against another edition
challenging
dark
emotional
funny
hopeful
informative
inspiring
4.0
This is an incredible must-read, everything I wanted from a book about trauma. At first I was hesitant about the idea of lumping together the traumas of incest/SA survivors and war survivors (and even more lumping victims of war crimes and torture with war criminals, though the book goes on to demonstrate how blurry that line can be), but the feminist approach here is impeccable & the juxtaposition only goes to chillingly demonstrate that the experience of the civilian world for women resembles the experience of actual warzones for men.
Most of all it perfectly balances a refreshingly empirical approach with political consciousness and deep understanding of the experiences of victims and survivors: if not due to outright misogyny, the reason I have DNFed other books about trauma is because I get to a point where I just think... says who? How do I know that? The author also makes a great point in the Afterword that newer approaches from people who don't have a personal and political connection to survivors, viewing them with scientific curiosity and focusing on depersonalising biological research, as opposed to a dynamic where researcher and survivor are allied in a shared cause, risk replicating the power dynamics under which they were abused. The obsession with using the terms doublethink/doublespeak towards the start DID feel like a random authorial obsession, but it was only notable because the rest of the book is so absent of that, filled with the voices of survivors for whom the author clearly has utmost respect and recognition. Trauma is reframed from some kind of demon possession to a rational response to an irrational experience, which now needs to be (and can be) readjusted, with the help of a supportive community rather than psychiatrist-as-exorcist/alchemist. The framing also makes it, overall, incredibly hopeful.
My major issues were that:
- The book quite frequently quotes graphic and disturbing details, especially of sexual violence, and while I understand why this is necessary in the spirit of the book's commitment to truthtelling, If I found it very difficult to read I can only imagine this would make it unreadable for many survivors who might otherwise benefit from it. I kind of wish there was one edition for therapists/loved ones who need to be confronted with these details, and another to spare survivors who have already had more than enough of a confrontation. I walked away really disappointed because I want friends who have experienced these things to be able to take what I did from this book, but I don't feel like this is a 'safe' text to recommend to many people who need it.
- There is a disturbing apoliticality when it comes to war that's quite jarring against the political commitment against gendered violence. The author obviously holds that war crimes are wrong, and speaks positively of anti-war movements in the abstract, but that's really it. Especially when this was reissued with a new afterword (which dwells on war crimes and the idea of collectively traumatised nations for quite some time) it became a distressing omission, especially when the only mentions of the Israeli army made are neutral-to-positive, and there are far more quotes from Vietnam vets than Vietnamese survivors. This doesn't actually dampen the book's theoretical power the way analyses that lack a competent view of gender do - in fact, many people have quoted Herman while discussing the trauma of Palestinians, because her framework remains true even in the occasions where she personally doesn't seem to want to acknowledge it, which to me is a sign of its validity - but it does make it frustrating to read these sections & similar to the first issue massively limits the usefulness of this text for anyone whose trauma stems from these conflicts... especially since one of her most salient points is that no attempt at recovery can even begin before the establishment of safety.
ALSO one thing I do NOT have a problem is the author's choice to, often though not exclusively, use the pronoun "she" to refer to both the hypothetical victim and the hypothetical therapist. This book was first released at a time when most medical texts still used "he" as a neutral pronoun (indeed, some still do) and using she is a deliberate feminist choice and in no way means the author doesn't think men can be abused or something. The fact anyone could read this book full of specific points about the systemic abuse & denial of abuse of women and come away with this point is so frustrating.
Most of all it perfectly balances a refreshingly empirical approach with political consciousness and deep understanding of the experiences of victims and survivors: if not due to outright misogyny, the reason I have DNFed other books about trauma is because I get to a point where I just think... says who? How do I know that? The author also makes a great point in the Afterword that newer approaches from people who don't have a personal and political connection to survivors, viewing them with scientific curiosity and focusing on depersonalising biological research, as opposed to a dynamic where researcher and survivor are allied in a shared cause, risk replicating the power dynamics under which they were abused. The obsession with using the terms doublethink/doublespeak towards the start DID feel like a random authorial obsession, but it was only notable because the rest of the book is so absent of that, filled with the voices of survivors for whom the author clearly has utmost respect and recognition. Trauma is reframed from some kind of demon possession to a rational response to an irrational experience, which now needs to be (and can be) readjusted, with the help of a supportive community rather than psychiatrist-as-exorcist/alchemist. The framing also makes it, overall, incredibly hopeful.
My major issues were that:
- The book quite frequently quotes graphic and disturbing details, especially of sexual violence, and while I understand why this is necessary in the spirit of the book's commitment to truthtelling, If I found it very difficult to read I can only imagine this would make it unreadable for many survivors who might otherwise benefit from it. I kind of wish there was one edition for therapists/loved ones who need to be confronted with these details, and another to spare survivors who have already had more than enough of a confrontation. I walked away really disappointed because I want friends who have experienced these things to be able to take what I did from this book, but I don't feel like this is a 'safe' text to recommend to many people who need it.
- There is a disturbing apoliticality when it comes to war that's quite jarring against the political commitment against gendered violence. The author obviously holds that war crimes are wrong, and speaks positively of anti-war movements in the abstract, but that's really it. Especially when this was reissued with a new afterword (which dwells on war crimes and the idea of collectively traumatised nations for quite some time) it became a distressing omission, especially when the only mentions of the Israeli army made are neutral-to-positive, and there are far more quotes from Vietnam vets than Vietnamese survivors. This doesn't actually dampen the book's theoretical power the way analyses that lack a competent view of gender do - in fact, many people have quoted Herman while discussing the trauma of Palestinians, because her framework remains true even in the occasions where she personally doesn't seem to want to acknowledge it, which to me is a sign of its validity - but it does make it frustrating to read these sections & similar to the first issue massively limits the usefulness of this text for anyone whose trauma stems from these conflicts... especially since one of her most salient points is that no attempt at recovery can even begin before the establishment of safety.
ALSO one thing I do NOT have a problem is the author's choice to, often though not exclusively, use the pronoun "she" to refer to both the hypothetical victim and the hypothetical therapist. This book was first released at a time when most medical texts still used "he" as a neutral pronoun (indeed, some still do) and using she is a deliberate feminist choice and in no way means the author doesn't think men can be abused or something. The fact anyone could read this book full of specific points about the systemic abuse & denial of abuse of women and come away with this point is so frustrating.
sineadmfinch's review against another edition
challenging
dark
informative
medium-paced
3.75
Really great, a bit binary because the original text is from the 90s, but I learned a lot overall.
explodinghead's review against another edition
4.0
For anyone interested in trauma or post-traumatic stress, this book is a must-read. If you are a student of clinical psychology, interested in abused populations, this book is a must-read. If you are a practicing clinician, this book is a must read.
TRAUMA AND RECOVERY may as well be the definitive text on the subject. Or, at least for now. Originally released in the '90s, the book has held up terrifically to new research in the field. Herman's writing is very clear and striking, and she often states the situation as it is rather than dress it up for the reader. For that reason, the book can be tough to read at times. However, Herman does an incredible job synthesizing the current data and transmuting into something that is simple to understand. The amount of research she's done is startling.
But here's my complaint: the majority of the research is in the "TRAUMA" half of the book. Defining the abuse, outlining is symptomology, Herman backs up nearly every sentence with an endnote to her sources. However, as the book progresses, these endnotes become more scarce, and Herman relies much more on case studies and survivor's narratives. This comes at a time when Herman also moves beyond her data and discusses slightly more philosophical matters. This shouldn't deter you from what is erstwhile an incredible book, however. If you don't come away changed after reading this in some way, you've done it wrong.
TRAUMA AND RECOVERY may as well be the definitive text on the subject. Or, at least for now. Originally released in the '90s, the book has held up terrifically to new research in the field. Herman's writing is very clear and striking, and she often states the situation as it is rather than dress it up for the reader. For that reason, the book can be tough to read at times. However, Herman does an incredible job synthesizing the current data and transmuting into something that is simple to understand. The amount of research she's done is startling.
But here's my complaint: the majority of the research is in the "TRAUMA" half of the book. Defining the abuse, outlining is symptomology, Herman backs up nearly every sentence with an endnote to her sources. However, as the book progresses, these endnotes become more scarce, and Herman relies much more on case studies and survivor's narratives. This comes at a time when Herman also moves beyond her data and discusses slightly more philosophical matters. This shouldn't deter you from what is erstwhile an incredible book, however. If you don't come away changed after reading this in some way, you've done it wrong.