Schlesinger feels that ‘psychological autopsies are not valid research tools’, and is scathingly critical of the work of Jamison (Reference Jamison1989) and Ludwig (Reference Ludwig1995). However, she fails to take into account the conclusions of Jamison's later work (Reference Jamison1993), which, as well as reporting on her own study of 47 contemporary British writers and artists, also discusses biographical material relating to 195 famous artistic creative persons, 21.5% of whom died by suicide and 33.3% of whom were hospitalised with psychiatric problems. Jamison also refers to many academic studies of creativity and mental illness stretching back over the past century.

Turning to what Schlesinger describes as Ludwig's ‘overwhelmingly meaningless’ charts and graphs, I have to say that I find his statistics perfectly acceptable and meaningful. The use of psychological autopsies is a legitimate exercise if one follows rigorous guidelines as laid down, for instance, in the scholarly work of Runyan (Reference Runyan1982).

What is Schlesinger's own view of the creative person? She tells us (Reference Schlesinger2002) that he/she is a heroic and mystical figure, branded as mad by the jealous and uncomprehending average person. This is a straightforward reiteration of the ideas of the antipsychiatry movement of the 1960s and 1970s. We are back in the realms of the Laingian figure who is simply too insightful and too existentially aware for our society. Have we not moved on since then?