Was it really once normal for people to "fall insensible" and need weeks of medical care to recover from sudden shocks (e.g. deaths in the family or business failures)? If so, what has changed since? And if not, why does this seem commonly-accepted in books like Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes? | AskHistorians Archive Observer

Was it really once normal for people to "fall insensible" and need weeks of medical care to recover from sudden shocks (e.g. deaths in the family or business failures)? If so, what has changed since? And if not, why does this seem commonly-accepted in books like Frankenstein and Sherlock Holmes?

by Hats_Hats_Hats

I'm not surprised that things like grief, trauma, and depression were worse-understood before. I'm talking about the specific trope of someone having to convalesce in bed (sometimes even remaining comatose or catatonic) for weeks or even months following a seriously upsetting event.

That sort of thing doesn't seem to happen anymore. Did it ever? And if it didn't, why do books of the time seem to take for granted that readers will accept it as normal?

ttrombonist

While there's always more to be said about the topic, u/mimicofmodes and u/ngatiara discussed the trope of fainting in Victorian literature in A lot of classical works depict women fainting/getting tired very easily. Even if is an overused trope and might not have been as prevalent, I was wondering if their living conditions had anything to do with it's origins?

u/voyeur324 linked to additional comments in Between fainting couches, the rise of health spas & the treatment of “hysteria” - why is it that the popular conception of women during the Victorian Era was that they had delicate, even feeble constitutions? Why is the stereotypical image of a Victorian woman in media is a sickly, consumptive waif? that also discuss the fainting/frailty trope.