Answering anonymous

 A question was asked elsewhere and since it was asked anonymously and in a place where the blog owner had stated "Time to stop" I thought I'd answer here in my own space.

The question, "Can I ask if those who critique the work of Nancy Verrier have actually read her literature before forming their opinions as well?"

My answer...

Anonymous, I critique and haven't read her books.

Wrong or right I need to read no further than her position page on her website that says, "..the connection between biological mother and child is primal, mystical, mysterious, and everlasting. Far more than merely biological and historical, this primal connection is also cellular, psychological, emotional, and spiritual. So deep runs the connection between a child and its mother that the severing of that bond results in a profound wound for both, a wound from which neither fully recovers. In the case of adoption, the wound cannot be avoided, but it can and must be acknowledged and understood."

Since I am adopted and this is not the case for me or, from what I can tell so far, my mother, I cannot be anything other than critical. I believe it can happen to those that say it has (why would they say it if it wasn't true?) but why would I put great stock (or any stock) in what a non adopted person says is the unavoidable experience of all adopted people, when it isn't mine?

I have a question of my own. Would you put stock in a primal wound theory if you were me?