Louise DeSalvo’s “Writing as a Way of Healing: How Telling Our Stories Transforms Our Lives” carries the quiet authority of a teacher who has watched the same human drama replay in different bodies, different biographies: the student who cannot name what happened; the student who names it too quickly, as if speed were safety; the student who circles the wound for years and then, one afternoon, writes a single honest sentence and feels the world tilt a few degrees toward steadiness. DeSalvo’s sensibility is at once literary and clinical in the best sense: attentive to the texture of sentences, but equally attentive to the nervous system that produces them.
The book is organized with the practical calm of a workshop syllabus, yet it reads like something closer to a long letter from a seasoned guide. It opens with a disarmingly plain question – why write? – and answers with a phrase borrowed from John Cheever: writing as “extrication.” In DeSalvo’s hands, extrication is not a metaphor for literary cleverness. It is a bodily action. The writer pulls themselves, sentence by sentence, out of obsession, distortion, and enforced silence and back toward the rhythm of ordinary life. This is a book that believes in craft, but it believes in craft the way a carpenter believes in tools: because the right instrument, used patiently, can keep your hands from splintering.
If that sounds like therapy, DeSalvo is careful to complicate the comparison. One of the book’s most admirable features is its refusal to pretend that writing is a cure-all. She acknowledges scientific and clinical work suggesting that expressive writing can improve well-being and, for some people, even aspects of physical health, but she resists the grandiose promise. Writing does not erase what happened. It does not abolish grief. Instead it can help a writer accomplish something subtler and more difficult: a change in relationship to what happened. Healing, as DeSalvo frames it, is not the disappearance of pain but a shift in perspective, a reorientation away from distortion and toward a truer, more habitable story.
DeSalvo’s classroom appears early, not as decorative anecdote but as evidence and method. She invites students to choose subjects they return to in thought, subjects they fear thinking about, subjects they feel compelled to examine at length. She does not require that those subjects be traumatic, yet pain tends to surface, as it does when people are granted permission to be authentic without being sensational. The roll call of topics is bracing: suicidal depression, addiction, illness, abortion, murder, grief, exile, violence, the long echo of family secrets. DeSalvo’s crucial move is not to sensationalize this material, but to locate the first act of healing in choice. The writer selects the subject, sets the pace, decides how close to stand to the flame. The book’s ethic is consistent: writing heals best when it restores agency.
From readiness, DeSalvo turns to entry: what it means to go into pain without being swallowed by it. Healing writing, she argues, honors pain, loss, and grief rather than skirting them, but “honor” here is not a sentimental bow. It is a discipline of attention. The writer goes into the experience, observes it, examines it, and tries to find words that describe sensations precisely, accurately, without distortion. Precision, in DeSalvo’s account, is protective. Vague language invites melodrama or dissociation, two ways of leaving the room. Accurate language keeps the writer present. In an era saturated with quick confession and instant commentary, her insistence on exact description feels almost old-fashioned, and therefore clarifying.
This is where DeSalvo’s craft instruction reveals its deeper purpose. When she speaks about “Writing Pain, Writing Loss” and the qualities of a healing narrative, she is not making a case for polish as an end in itself. She is making a case for form as a vessel sturdy enough to carry volatile material. The virtues she recommends are those any serious writer recognizes: specificity, complexity, honesty, perspective. But in her hands these are ethical virtues as well. A healing narrative does not flatten contradiction into a moral slogan. It does not make the self saintly, or the other person monstrous, simply to achieve narrative certainty. It resists the cheap relief of simplification. It stays with the mess long enough to become accurate.
That emphasis on craft as ethics makes the book’s next move feel inevitable. DeSalvo includes a chapter she calls “A Caveat,” and it is, in its way, the book’s spine. She warns plainly that writing can destabilize. This is not the glib disclaimer of a self-help book; it is an integral part of her philosophy. If writing is powerful enough to change our relationship to pain, it is powerful enough to stir that pain up. The page can open doors we are not ready to walk through. DeSalvo counsels boundaries: time limits, pacing, attention to bodily signals, external support when needed, and the humility to stop when the work is becoming dangerous rather than clarifying. Her caution is not fear-mongering. It is respect. She treats the writer’s psyche as something real – not a metaphor, not a narrative device, but a living organism with limits.
The book’s second movement turns from entry to endurance. “Finding the Right Voice” treats voice not as ornament but as psychological position. Many of us have learned voices for survival: the ironic voice that prevents feeling, the prosecutorial voice that prevents vulnerability, the sentimental voice that makes injury palatable, the clinical voice that makes everything sound manageable. DeSalvo does not shame these strategies; she recognizes them as adaptations. But she argues that healing requires discovering a voice that does not defend itself by distortion. The “right voice” is not necessarily soft, and it is not necessarily forgiving. It is, above all, accurate – a voice the body recognizes as true.
“Working Through” is the book’s bracing corrective to the fantasy of the breakthrough. Healing is not a lightning bolt of insight. It is return and revision. Resistance, in DeSalvo’s view, is not an enemy but information: fatigue, boredom, avoidance, doubt are clues to where the material remains charged or where the writer is pushing too hard. She offers a practical shift that can change a writer’s life: treat the writing process itself as text. Notice what happens to the sentences when you get close to what hurts. Notice what happens to your body. Notice where you become abstract, where you become grandiose, where you become blank. Revision, in this context, becomes more than refinement. It becomes a method of emotional calibration. The first draft may be a flood. The next draft learns containment. Later drafts can accommodate complexity.
The chapter on sharing is among the book’s most humane. DeSalvo dismantles the assumption that writing must be shared to be “real.” Sharing is framed as a choice, not a moral obligation. The writer is urged to consider audience, timing, and intent. Who can bear this story? What does the writer want from sharing: witness, connection, contribution, validation? DeSalvo distinguishes witness from applause, and she is skeptical of the hunger for validation that can tether a writer’s healing to other people’s reactions. In her framework, sharing is not the culmination of writing. It is a separate decision with its own ethics and risks.
As the book nears its end, DeSalvo widens her frame. Writing becomes less an intervention and more a way of life. Transformation, for her, is cumulative and often quiet. The writer’s identity loosens from rigid categories imposed by trauma or loss. Perspective becomes a habit. Agency learned on the page begins to shape life off the page: choices, relationships, the capacity to live with complexity without rushing to tidy conclusions. Pain does not vanish, but it loses its monopoly on attention. The past stops being a trap and becomes, finally, one thread among many.
To read DeSalvo well is to appreciate what she is not doing. She is not prescribing a genre. She is not telling every reader to write memoir. She is not fetishizing disclosure. Her attention is on the underlying act: turning experience into language with accuracy and care. She moves easily among forms – diary, memoir, poetry, fiction – because her true subject is not form but relationship: the relationship between a person and the story they have been forced to carry in silence. In this sense, DeSalvo is not only a teacher of writing. She is a teacher of attention.
She is also a generous curator of companions. Writers and thinkers appear throughout as quiet guides rather than name-dropped authorities: Audre Lorde’s blunt wisdom about using pain, May Sarton’s insistence that nothing that happens is unusable, correspondences with other writers that illuminate the variety of ways art can function. These presences widen the room. They suggest that healing is not a solitary hero’s journey but a tradition of people learning, across time, how to tell the truth without being destroyed by it.
Yet the very elegance of DeSalvo’s model can make it sound universal when it is, in practice, contingent. The book is deeply committed to autonomy – to the writer’s right to choose, to pace, to withhold – but it is worth noticing how unevenly that autonomy is distributed. Not every writer can claim privacy without consequence. Not every story can be told without legal risk, economic fallout, family reprisal, or social punishment. DeSalvo’s insistence on boundaries and discernment is helpful, but the book’s center of gravity remains the interior life: what the writer can do on the page, in the body, in the mind. Readers navigating hostile workplaces, precarious housing, immigration stress, or family systems that punish truth may need to translate her counsel into a more explicitly protective practice, one that includes strategic silence, coded forms, or professional support beyond the writing desk.
There is also a quiet pressure hidden inside the phrase “healing narrative.” DeSalvo argues persuasively that writing can shift perspective, but the architecture of her book can tempt a reader to treat healing as a standard to be met: write in this way and you will arrive at acceptance; revise long enough and serenity will come. DeSalvo does not promise such outcomes, and she repeatedly emphasizes that pain may remain. Still, “healing” can become an evaluative lens that hardens into self-judgment, especially for writers who already measure themselves harshly. The most faithful way to read her, paradoxically, is to resist turning her framework into a checklist. Treat it as an orientation toward honesty, not a scorecard of emotional progress.
There is also the question of style. DeSalvo writes with instructive clarity and a teacher’s cadence; she is not aiming for literary dazzle. Her prose is purposeful rather than ornamented, more mentorly than flamboyant. For some readers, that sobriety will be a relief – a sign that she takes suffering seriously and will not turn it into artful entertainment. For others, especially those drawn to books about writing for the pleasures and dangers of language itself, the tone may feel more like a seminar than a lyric essay. But even this restraint has an argument behind it: when the subject is pain, the writer’s job is not to decorate but to see.
The achievement of “Writing as a Way of Healing” is that it treats writing as both art and practice, craft and conscience. It asks the writer to choose: not only what to write, but how to write it in a way that does not betray the self. It insists that healing is not a finish line but a lived shift toward depth, steadiness, and a more truthful relationship to one’s own history. And it offers, in place of slogans, a set of durable principles: autonomy, precision, patience, revision, discernment about sharing. These are not glamorous tools. They are the tools that last.
In an era that alternates between oversharing and silence, between the monetization of trauma and the policing of speech, DeSalvo’s book feels quietly radical in its insistence on the writer’s sovereignty. You decide your subject. You decide your form. You decide when you are finished. You decide whether to share. The page is not a courtroom, not a confessional booth, not a marketplace. It is a place where the self can practice freedom, and where freedom can slowly become a way of seeing.
For readers who come to writing with dread – who suspect the page will expose them, overwhelm them, or betray them – DeSalvo offers a different picture: the page as a practice room. The work is not always pleasant, and she does not pretend it will be. But she makes a persuasive case that the act of putting experience into language, with patience and fidelity, can return a person to themselves. The book’s greatest gift may be its tone: firm about craft, tender about fear, and unwilling to turn suffering into a performance. You can read it as a manual, but it reads best as companionship: a steady voice saying, go slowly, tell the truth, and remember that you are allowed to choose.
It is a book to keep nearby and return to in different seasons, because its advice is less a prescription than a way of listening. My rating: 82 out of 100.