A causal relationship between the rise of effective psychotropics and the end of quality literature - discuss

Today I lend my mind to literary theory, a topic I am completely unqualified to tackle.  As my research of other theorists is zilch, I shall dispense with that tiresome bibiliography lurk.  (It also means that my thesis is happily in ignorance of the thoughts of every other literary theorist (and in fact any actual facts), but you are reading a blog so you are dreaming if you expect anything other than mildly considered vomit.)

My thesis is that, with the rise of effective psychotropics in the last 40 years, there has been a diminishment and flattening of literature as a number of your greats were in fact, mad as headless chooks.

Case Study 1 - The probable effect of anti-depressives on Graham Greene.  Had they been available and effective, I contend there would be a notable absence of disappointed colonial administrators, hopeless and dispirited armaments purchasers, angry rejected lovers, and disheartened tropical hoteliers and vacuum cleaner salesmen in Mr Greene's works.

Case Study 2 - The lessening output of Thomas Pynchon and the increasing effectiveness of anti-psychotics.  Between 1960 and 1973 Mr Pynchon produced three novels - V, The Crying of Lot 49 and Gravity's Rainbow,  works chocablock with frantic zigzagging prose, flaky intertwining paranoias and literally hundreds of confused and alienated characters incapable of forming normal relationships.  Since that time there has been a novel a decade, none with the same density of madness.  It certainly smells suspiciously like effective medication.*

Mike Fallopian - a quiet Saturday night at home

Case Study 3 - Emily Bronte - Bipolar - type II, enough said.

I think that is a QED, folks.  Thank you and goodnight.


 *Mr Pynchon, if you are in fact sane as a sheep, I apologise for the suggestion.  I will still love your works but have no idea whatever how they eeeped out of you.