Many thanks for this interesting post on Janet Frame and whether she was autistic and whether we are ‘over analysing’ this.

As you know, I identify as someone on the autistic spectrum. For me, it DOES matter whether she was autistic or not. This is because Janet Frame could be seen as a great role model for people on the Autistic Spectrum. Her writing serves as a powerful expression of how ‘different ways of thinking’ can be of great value to society generally.

I was also surprised that you used the term ‘answer for herself’ in terms of her diagnosis and death in 2004. My question to you is ‘why should she have to answer for being autistic?’ I was very saddened that members of Janet Frame’s family immediately denied that Frame was autistic when the article was released as if this was something to be ashamed of. I certainly don’t see it as such. While I agree that retrospective diagnosis is something which should undertaken with great care, I still feel that the reaction to the ‘diagnosis’ was unfortunate from my point of view.

I do agree that the ‘treatment’ methods outlined in ‘An Angel at My Table’ were grossly awful and that the ‘labelling’ which resulted in those treatments were absolutely not okay. But reading that amazing account from Frame about this ‘treatment’ gives me actually a sense of historical perspective on the ‘treatment’ of people with autism in our society.

So to me, it DOES matter that Frame’s impairment is explained and its impact on her writing explored. I think such an examination would give deeper insights into her wonderful writing.

Many thanks Robyn,

Cheers, Matt.