Talk:Prozac Nation

response to WTC controversy

I think it might be good to have more in this article about the response to Wurtzel's comments on the collapse of the World Trade Center.

At the time she made the comments, she was doing an interview on her book More, Now, Again, about her addiction to Ritalin and cocaine. I understand that a person who is addicted to drugs may be desensitised to the things which most of us find traumatic - such as loss of your own limbs, or of all of your close family, or the collapse of tall buildings with thousands of people in it. The only thing that's really traumatic to an advanced drug addict is not being able to get their next fix. And perhaps that's the point that Elizabeth Wurtzel was trying to make.

To me, this seems screamingly obvious - however, I can't find any evidence that anyone else has talked about it in a well reputed publication. Perhaps I'm not looking hard enough, but we can't put it in the article, due to the WP:NOR policy, until someone does find some evidence. That's why I'd like to see more about the response to the controversy, and how the media thinks it may have influenced the decision to shelve the film.

To put it into perspective, there are other reported reasons for shelving the film besides the WTC comments. So far, the article makes no mention of this. Squashy 10:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That is an important point, but it should probably be addressed in an article about Wurtzel herself, not in this one. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 02:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:ProzacNationBook.jpg

Image:ProzacNationBook.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 23:24, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

typical or atypical

From this article we have 'Wurtzel's mental illness is known as atypical depression, which has not often been written about in the first person narrative.', but on the atypical depression page it says that atypical depression is, despite its name, the most common form of depression at 40% of the total. sbandrews (t) 08:07, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks like atypical is a medically correct term. The "a" is meant to distinguish it from "melancholic depression", rather than to imply that it is rare. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 02:53, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

This question is addressed on the talk page of the atypical depression article. 69.119.232.155 (talk) 02:55, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Name substitution in Prozac Nation?

When Elizabeth Wurtzel wrote Prozac Nation, did she change the names of the other people in her story (like her boyfriend, her friends, her doctors/therapists) to protect their identity? I think that's usually what most authors who are telling a true story do (at least in my reading experience).

174.103.235.172 (talk) 21:00, 17 April 2011 (UTC)

Copyright issue

A mere cut&paste job from the IMD website. Not really acceptable! Mootros (talk) 07:01, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Article biased/overly critical

To me it seems as though recent edits provide unbalanced opinions of 'Prozac Nation'; Currently the article described the memoir as 'self absorbed' , 'self pitying' and overly melancholic. I feel the page should be edited due to the majority opinion of 'Prozac Nation' as an uncensored and accurate portrayal of the common symptoms of Depression. If one was to experience an episode of depression it is only logical for their outlook on life to be melancholic, hence the use of the term to describe a subtype of depression. Furthermore the self-analysis and awareness of ones' emotions not only appear natural to humans due to our curious nature, but is also encouraged by practises such as mindfulness and Cognitive behavioural therapy - both of which are promoted in the UK.

Regardless of the recent editor's country of residence and the relevant treatments for depression, this article desperately needs to be edited to provide a balanced view, as it has arguably stood the test of time whilst providing an honest and accurate view of depression verified by those experiencing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.128.102 (talk) 00:02, 4 July 2015 (UTC)

I think this raises a valid issue - why would this Wikipedia article exist in the first place if not for some tacit acknowledgement that this book has lasting appeal and interest to the public? As written, one would come away with the read that this book is important for two reasons: 1) it was made into a movie (whose lasting cultural imprint is somewhere beneath the book's), and 2) it had some notable negative-to-measured, but still critical reviews. Surely there were some rave reviews at the time? Best-seller list appraisals? Couldn't this article honestly deserve at least a basic synopsis of the text? 2600:1700:9B40:11C0:9D7B:4AAA:D38C:8CC2 (talk) 04:47, 19 November 2023 (UTC)