In a recent post on a book review, I criticized The New York Times for its blind spot for multiple personality, but I should have also praised it and the reviewer for admitting their “bafflement”

“The book brought about a feeling of intense, queasy bafflement. By my own criteria, however, it is a failure, because bafflement is not enough” (1).  Many reviewers would have declared the book profound and not just baffling.

Here is my recent post, which highlights issues that The New York Times and its review should have seen as flags for gratuitous multiple personality, probably indicative of the author’s multiple personality trait:

Monday, January 31, 2022

This Book Review Highlights The New York Times Blind Spot for Multiple Personality issues by never mentioning multiple personality

“An unnamed narrator for unknown reasons finds himself preparing to steal the identity of a man… Alas, before he can, a stranger appears at the door, dragging the narrator off to a psychiatric hospital and the reader into a narrative whose central subject seems to be the instability of the self and the mutable nature of human consciousness. Traumatic (childhood) experiences manifest later in unpredictable ways…” (1).

Also search “namelessness,” “nameless narrator,” and “childhood trauma” for relevant past posts.

1. https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/29/books/review/fuminori-nakamura-my-annihilation.html