Stephen Potts' review of To Fathom Hell or Soar Angelic

I am saddened to see the wholly negative review of my novel, To Fathom Hell or Soar Angelic, in the June 2016 edition of the British Journal of Psychiatry. ¹ Obviously, I open myself up to opinions and critique when publishing anything – and especially on such a controversial subject as this – so my grievance is not about the reviewer's overall appreciation of the book, which he is obliged to state. Rather, I felt the review published in the journal was markedly unbalanced and unprofessional.

Completely disregarding the fact that the book itself is a work of fiction, and missing entirely the point about my intentional use of character stereotypes to get across the complexities of the subject, the review reads as an unnecessarily personal attack on my approach to psychiatry and medicine itself. I clearly do not hold views of contempt for psychiatry or indeed medicine, as the reviewer suggests. I have been working quite happily and successfully as a mainstream doctor for 20 years using mainstream methods. In stating otherwise, the reviewer betrays himself as irrationally fearful of exploring – or even considering – alternatives to the current medical models. It is extraordinary how a work of fiction could have stimulated such a defensive reply.

The review was riddled with misinterpretations. I object strongly to the reviewer erroneously accusing me of acting irresponsibly, by his cherry-picked and biased reporting of the facts as they appear in the book. The reviewer is forgiven for not understanding the complex pharmacology of psychedelic drugs; those of us in this field have become used to weathering such mistakes made by others regarding the risk–benefit ratio of these substances, albeit such errors are more often heard from the tabloid press than from medical professionals.

As a result of the reviewer's biased approach, he made no attempt to represent the other side of the debate regarding psychedelic drug research; rather, he simply stated his own personal opinions and used the review as platform to make his views heard. He stated his objection to the caricatured description of the novel's protagonist as a stereotypical establishment psychiatrist, yet appeared to miss entirely the balancing descriptions the book offers poking fun at the equally ridiculous drug-addled hippies. I can only assume the reviewer did not even read the book in its entirety.

I have written a number of book reviews myself over the years and I do not always agree with or necessarily like the book I am reviewing. However, I am always vigilant of the necessary guidelines around how to write a balanced review: to avoid being swayed by personal bias, to present the facts clearly and – crucially – to avoid unnecessarily inflammatory remarks. In this respect, I am surprised the review was considered to meet the usual expected standards of the journal.