[Amandak249]

I just finished reading Verrier's "The Primal Wound" for the THIRD time. The first two times, I just assumed I hadn't read it thoroughly enough. Though, with the third reading, I have finally formed an opinion.

I’m a 23-year-old domestic adoptee. I have heard people rave, simply rave, about this book as the “Bible” for adoptees. I must admit though that I found little to nothing to relate to in this book.

I have felt very little of the extreme feelings described in the book, and I had trouble believing that I subconsciously remember the devastating moment that I was removed from my birthmother’s arms. While I admit that the adoption has deeply affected me, I don’t agree with the majority of what the author wrote, nor do I think she is particularly qualified to categorize and represent the adoptee population, as she is not an adoptee, but an adoptive parent. I respect her credentials, and her opinion, but I just didn’t like the book, and I didn’t see my adoptee self ( the group she is attempting to represent) within any of her descriptions and analyses.


Have any of you read it? What did you think? I’m curious because I seem to be in the minority.

[txrnr]

I haven't read it, but I know it's been discussed a lot here so I'm sure others will chime in.

I figure we all have different adoption experiences so I can see why some feel this book describes them perfectly. I agree with you in that I don't believe I remember the trauma of separation. I'm sure others think I'm in denial, and if true, I'm happy to be here!

I look forward to hearing what others say.

[bromanchik]

The problem with theories like The Primal Wound is that people assume one size fits all. For some it resonates, for others it does not. The reason is that how adoption losses are processed are dependent on a number of factors including the child's temperament, resiliency, nurturing and how adoption and adoption loss is handled in the family. It is not just about a baby being separated from his/her mother.

[JustPeachy]

I have not yet read Primal Wound but it is on my list of books to read because it is spoken of so much and I'd like to form my own opinion of the work.

I know for some adoptees, it really resonates, but not with all, and certainly, as bromanchic says, nothing can be a "one size fits all" approach.

I'm not an adoptee but a birthmom, and I can tell you there is a lot of stuff written about birthmoms that I don't agree with, and it tends to focus on the extreme negative, and portrays us as these broken women who have great big holes in our hearts that will never, ever heal. I find it hard to relate to that. Not to say it wasn't/isn't hard and/or painful, but for me, but it hasn't been my experience to be in constant agony all these years since relinquishment. Perhaps for other birthmoms, though, that has been true for them.

With anything I read, I try to take what is useful to me and disregard the rest, but also know that for some, it will really resonate.

[Dickons]

Amanda,

I identified with one of the paths shown in the book. I also saw both of my siblings on different paths.

Everyone is different and has a different perspective, if I remember correctly you have had a different life than the adoptees who grew up in completely closed adoptions with no info whatsoever, so it may not fit in your world.

Kind regards,
Dickons

[crick]

I'm hoping this discussion takes off a bit more. Really interested to hear what adoptees think of this book. Seems like if one doesn't buy into it, they are in denial according to so many, so I'm really curious.

[Dickons]

Hi Crick,

Good post!

The 'You're in denial' is a statement that just cannot be quantified and I dislike when other state it to people who disagree with them. My take on it is that we all go through different stages in our lives and have different things happen to us that may or may not trigger things. I know for me that I have gone through many distinct phases over the years about being adopted and perhaps my health issues have made me feel stronger and more wiling to speak about things than I used to.

It would be a very good thread to see what other adoptees think of the statement 'You're in Denial'.

Kind regards,
Dickons

[Amandak249]

I remember correctly you have had a different life than the adoptees who grew up in completely closed adoptions with no info whatsoever, so it may not fit in your world.

I began reunion when I was about 12. The book, however, has very little to do with reunion. It doesn’t suggest that reunion will fix things, or change the outcome. it focuses more on the actual moment of relinquishment. It suggests, on the other hand, that children who are adopted are forever damaged, if you will, by their original separation and that their adoptive mothers, who will forever fall short of the glory that was the birthmother, can only dream to “take her place.” It suggests, even, that adoptees must be treated differently- understood on a primal level, so that they can grow up to be “as normal as is possible for their situation.”

Give me a flipping break.

Seems like if one doesn't buy into it, they are in denial according to so many, so I'm really curious

I hope someone has the audacity to tell me that I’m simply in denial. That this author- who is not even an adoptee- has so perfectly analyzed the psyches of a group of people to which she does not even belong.


Some people may have found themselves in this book. I read through it multiple times, and have yet to identify with any of her claims, which many adoptees seem to regard as the gospel truth.

[never_good_enough]

Again I am only expressing my opinion here but......

Having read the book several times I can see myself in many places because the trauma manifests itself in unusual ways.

Please don't all forget, if we were separated as an infant we we not communicative, rational, or even truely thinking. Simply reactionary.

Some of us have phobias. Maybe we all do. But we as a group have one in particular that strikes us with irrational intensity. I can't explain why this phobia is tied to separation but I believe it is. Our perception of separation is to be honest, primitive at best in infancy, we just don't have the concept but we know there is something life threateningly wrong happening to us. That is where the Primal Wound is. It is not a concious thing but a primitive thing, a basic wound to our psyche. Hell how many children become inconsolable when a parent leaves their sight? They know they are coming back? Don't think so! Why should we not have such a wound as the familiar voice never came back. If you dont have this Primal Wound you were an amazingly aware and cognizant beyond your years to know what was happening was for the best. When we speak of infants generalities are facts as they are all in the same place developmentally at birth.

I really think there is a Primal Wound, it's manifestations come in many forms that's all. Could be the dark, spiders, dogs, heights, color combinations or patterns, many many possibilities. Just the intensity is irrationally high. Connect the dots and I bet you find this a truth.

[Amandak249]

I really think there is a Primal Wound, it's manifestations come in many forms that's all. Could be the dark, spiders, dogs, heights, color combinations or patterns, many many possibilities. Just the intensity is irrationally high. Connect the dots and I bet you find this a truth.

With that logic- any sort of "flaw" in our personalities, any phobia, any insecurity or any defect can be attributed to our adoption. It's as if adoptees are not entitled to have problems without society, and evidently our own, labeling them as "related to adoption."

My birthmother kept me for 3 months before finally agreeing to the adoption. My parents had come to her state when I was born, only to go home empty handed when she changed her mind. She finally was convinced after living with me for three months. If anything, I should have been more aware than those of you who were adopted a few days after birth.

I just don't buy it. In my opinion, I've met and read about a lot of adoptees who are so quick to attribute any negative feeling they experience to their adoption. I just won't give my birthmother that kind of control. She relinquished 5 more children, one before my birth and 4 after. Imagine all the wounds SHE has.

Adoption has affected me. No doubt about it. It has affected me on all levels- primal and otherwise. I will admit that. On the other hand, I don't believe that I am damaged goods because of what my birthmother chose. This book portrays us as imperfect, damaged children who come from BIRTH with emotional baggage that can practically never be undone. Who would adopt with the knowledge that their child would never love them as much as the person who surrendered them?

Being adopted is a life altering experience. But I do not believe it has the life shattering effects that this book suggests. Adoption is just a small part of who I am- there are thousands of other facets of my personality that cannot be ignored.

[never_good_enough]

Amanda,

Please read more carefully. ty

[Amandak249]

Excuse me, care to educate? Simply stating that I'm not understanding does not contribute to the conversation at all.

Of course I'm over simplifying, as it's nearly impossible to explain that book to someone who has never read it. There are so many facets to what the author is discussing.

Because I do not agree, I am either in denial, or I must have misread the book, on the third reading no less!

Perhaps my oversimplifications are not doing the book justice, because I'm obviously being critical, but which of my statements hold no truth to them? I respected a lot of things about the book, but statements such as:

" You should introduce your child to the idea of adoption early, preferably before they can understand words. Remember- your child was there!"

seem ludicrous to me. I agree that adoptees should be told early, not because they were there an hold onto the subconscious hurt and pain of adoption, but because secrets are never good, and adoption should not be hidden.

Why not elaborate?

[BrandyHagz]

I didn’t/couldn’t relate to it.

In fact, the book pretty much ticked me off and I didn't finish it. But for very different reasons than I have seen others respond to it.

How it made me feel should in no way impact others. We're all different. We all have different experiences.

It would be silly to assume that one person could write a book that would encompass an entire group of people with varying backgrounds and varying experiences.

What works for me doesn’t work for everyone… in addition, work works for others won’t always work for me.

With everything going on in the world, it’d be nice if we could stand in solidarity as those who are adopted – rather than spending so much time discounting the experiences of others, simply because they differ from our own.

(I am not saying anyone here is doing it, but its typically what is done. Additionally, I am posting this message as Brandy, adopted adult – not Brandy, Adoption.com employee – in case there is any confusion.)

[Amandak249]

It would be silly to assume that one person could write a book that would encompass an entire group of people with varying backgrounds and varying experiences.

Agreed. The reason I created this topic was because in my opinion, the book is written under the pretext of fact,and is often accepted as such in the adoption community. I in no way wanted to discount the opinions of others, I merely wanted to hear other people's opions on whether or not they were touched by the books content. I began reading the book ,a year or so ago, with the assumption that I would find the truth in it that so many others seem to find.


Brandy- would you share why it angered you? You don't have to, but I'm curious, as this book is usually so well received.

[RavenSong]

I don't think Nancy Newton Verrier wrote her book with the intetion of being a personal representative or spokeswoman for adoptees. She's been a therapist for a long time and specializes in adoption-related issues. I believe that her Primal Wound theory, which is actually based on years of documented research in the fields of prenatal and perinatal physiology and psychology, was forumulated on her experience of working with adoptees and their families over the years. I don't think she ever intended to set herself up as any type of representative of adoptees, themselves.