Susan’s review of The Best Minds: A Story of Friendship, Madness, and the Tragedy of Good Intentions > Likes and Comments

This book was, indeed, exhausting. Its epic level of censorship and lies WILL exhaust Mad people from all walks of life and, especially, those of us who have big dreams. You will survive your “exhaustion”. The same cannot be said for Mad people.

An extraordinary amount of information was withheld from readers. Much of that information was abandoned immediately because Jonathan Rosen NEVER considered interviewing Michael Laudor for this book. Of course, Rosen didn’t end his censorship there. Throughout the process of “writing” this book, Rosen excluded any Mad person who would discredit and reject his assault on Mad excellence and Mad citizenship: He did not interview any of Laudor’s partners at the mental health agency, where he volunteered for years; He did not interview anyone who lived a long, healthy, and law-abiding life after leaving psychiatry; He interviewed no Mad caregivers, clinicians, artists, scholars, or attorneys (Elyn Saks made a cameo, but her ability to present a Mad perspective was circumscribed. The probing and courageous arguments she made in her book, "Refusing Care", were purged.). Instead, Rosen solicited “commentary” from people who would echo his sanist talking points. He elevated the views of police, Yale faculty, psychiatrists, and pundits above the memories of people who had known Carrie Costello during her life. In the 8-10 years Rosen spent on this book, he never asked them for permission to tell a story of Michael Laudor, which would include his crime. And, in the 7 months since this book has been in print, none of Carrie’s friends or family have vouched for it. Rosen’s self-centered approach to LAUDOR’S story obliterated the suspense from what could have been a suspenseful story. A reader’s “best mind” cannot be stimulated by a writer whose mind is closed.

Rosen’s narrative of Laudor’s 20’s and 30’s - he almost became a “success” because he was, to quote you, “coddled” by aging hippies in high places - was constructed from a pile of lies. Laudor’s gatekeepers gave him physical proximity to elite and mainstream spaces because they had to. After the Americans With Disabilities Act was passed in 1990, every disabled American had to receive a chance - usually a sabotaged one - to access the community. Had Laudor applied to graduate school even five years earlier, Rosen would have gotten his wish and Laudor would have been legally barred from continuing his education. But, physical inclusion can be undone by social exclusion, and Rosen needed to account for that. Readers needed to know how Laudor was exploited and tortured by the “choice” Yale gave him: Expect zero adjustments to our program, complete it on time, and consume multiple psychiatric drugs, all prescribed to debilitate you. Or get lost. That wasn’t a “coddle”. It was a con. Yale set Laudor set up to fail and he proved his genius when he graduated, despite the iatrogenic wounds he sustained. Most people couldn’t hack an office job or a community college while under the influence of heavy sedatives. Michael Laudor earned a degree from the world's most prestigious law school. It was a genuine achievement on a level unmatched by Jonathan Rosen, his literary minions, or any of Laudor's quacks. But, no one can be as overworked as Laudor was, and for as long as he was, and then cruise on to a high-powered job in America's meanest profession. The man should have given himself a short break from work and a long break from psychiatry. Instead, he sidelined his own needs, like he'd always done. He immediately began looking for work, dragging the ball-and-chain of psychiatry behind him.

Exhausted (for real, unlike you), oppressed, and debilitated, Laudor had no way to manage a job interview, a job search, or his health. That he attempted so much under his circumstances is actually mind-boggling to me. I couldn't do the basics for professional life (and, I mean the *very* basics - hygiene, transportation, schedules) until I had been unmedicated for many, many months. Laudor's overachieving temperament was firmly intact, though his life, by then, was in steep decline. His integrity made him easy prey for the predatory hacks at the New York Times. When they approached Laudor for an interview, he was desperate, yet optimistic: unemployed, so tired, and still hoping he could build a quality life and remain a "perfect" patient. Like every aspiring worker, Laudor took himself seriously. He probably assumed a well-respected newspaper would publish real journalism about disabled workers - a lot of them young and Mad - who were left behind by the Americans With Disabilities Act. I hate to imagine how betrayed, panic-stricken, and humiliated he was when he saw the byline of his "interview". To be depicted in a newspaper of record as an occupant of "Bedlam" who was "encumbered" by an "invisible wheelchair" meant Laudor would be forever barred from gainful employment. He had no more freedom to do what I did: disappear from psychiatry, recover some of my health, salvage a little of my morale, and return to the world - starting from the bottom, minus the ball-and-chain. The Times "interview" was also how Laudor came to the attention of Opie (Ron Howard), who told him to "cinematize" his "story" according to the "script" which had been published by the Times: "Psychiatry achieves a medical breakthrough, perfecting a method of abuse that punishes AND "cures" the most recalcitrant of brain-diseased Mad men!". Opie offered to pay Laudor 1+ million dollars, if he did to himself what JD Vance did to his mom in "Hillbilly Elegy", another Opie smear job. I often wonder if Laudor is the only Mad person in America who valued himself - and valued Mad people - enough to recoil from that "deal". If he had accepted it, he would have had enough money to support himself for several years. Maybe he could have lived abroad, gotten a fresh start. That's likely the one outcome capable of mitigating the Times' heinous abdication of its responsibility to Michael Laudor, a vulnerable subject who had no media experience. Its abuse of Laudor is, perhaps, the lowest moment in modern journalism. The Times, I'm sure, has waited 25 years for a hack like Jonathan Rosen to "write" a "story" that blames Laudor for its decision to scam his life away. From the second it was published, the Times was ready to put it on its "Top 10" list. They had no right to review this book and, someday, the publishing industry may hold them accountable.

Thanks for this review. The social milieu the men grew up in is sort of adjacent to mine (northern NJ suburbs, lots of upper-middle-class Jewish kids, many presumably with Holocaust-survivor parents), and of course the tragic story is inherently fascinating.

Uh, also WOW. *eyes wall of angry text*

ancientreader wrote: "Thanks for this review. The social milieu the men grew up in is sort of adjacent to mine (northern NJ suburbs, lots of upper-middle-class Jewish kids, many presumably with Holocaust-survivor parent..."

If all you saw was my anger, you didn’t read my text.