so this is a book by a poet about her work with hospice patients and, therefore, death. I am a poet, I have been attracted to work with the dying or dead - though I haven't actually done any - and so I thought, yeah, cool, right up my alley.
actually, I found it annoying. I guess I was expecting just a lot of cool stories and anecdotes, and there are some. there were some informative bits, like it takes 9 months (average) for an unembalmed body straight in the earth to decay to bones. but mostly she seemed to have little to actually say. her much older brother died when she was 11 and she realized decades later that her death work was a way to come to terms with that. that's about her only solid realization, to be honest. the rest of it is a bunch of poetic sounding questions, which, yes, I know, I know, life is often more questions than answers. but why write a book then? just write poems, or a novel. or, write a book, but not this book. a book with more structure. I mean, she did some interesting things - she ended up married for a while to a hereditary chief of the salish, a northwest coast tribe, and at one point does this ritual where you cook for the dead and then burn the food - a ritual her mother had a strong reaction to. I think I would have enjoyed the book more had the bones of it not been submerged - that ceremony doesn't seem to have more weight than any other anecdote she tells about strangers. let's hear more about your salish mother in law who thinks you trail a string of ghosts behind you and who recommends cleansing rituals to you. let's be more forthcoming about the weight of your brother's death in your life. not much of a personal death, because she didn't know him that well, but certainly one with a huge impact on her family. let's parallel that whole story more explicitly with the stories from hospice, instead of stirring it all together under chapters that just blur into each other, each seeming to be the same blend of personal musing, anecdotes, and random facts.
and I do mean random facts. not just about death. random, and distracting, facts. "Unlike lion tamer Claude Beatty, who tamed his cats with a chair and a whip, we use our intellect to try to bargain with death, thinking we can make a deal, forgetting there is a wildness at the heart of it." I find this sentence incredibly annoying. first of all, there is no need to name a lion tamer. if you've seen a cartoon with lion taming in it, you've seen whips and chairs. it's the stereotype. but more than that, why is the lion tamer bit in there AT ALL? to contrast with intellect? "rather than use a chair and a whip, we use our minds to bargain with death". huh? also, is it really the *intellect* that tries to bargain with forces we can't control? wouldn't the intellect be the part of us that knows that is no use? and it's not useless because death has a wildness at the heart of it. it's not that we make a bargain with death, and death agrees, but then reneges because, darn it, it's just so wild. it's useless because death is an impersonal force that you can't communicate with. I think she should have stuck to poetry - you can get away with this kind of thing there, sticking lion tamers in where they don't belong. even then, it would have been better if the poem talks about trying to tame death with a whip and a chair, then trying to strike a bargain after the chair is splintered and the whip cannot sting death (ha) even as the claws descend. so this poetry doesn't make a good sentence and this sentence doesn't make good poetry.
or this nonsense: "Eight year old Spencer Wyatt, of Dacula, Georgia, was diagnosed with epilepsy when he was three. His assistance dog, Lucia, stays with him day and night and summons help if he's having a seizure. We fight death with everything in our arsenal - when machines fail us, we call out the pack." this was from a section where she was apparently thinking dogs and death, what are the connections I can brainstorm? again, completely distracting fact where she introduces this character, name, town, dog's name, age of diagnosis, all that, as if he's going to figure. nope. that one sentence is all you ever hear of him and why the hell are we hearing of him specifically? does she know his mom? is this just a shout out? did she do a kickstarter for this book with a reward of getting your kid's name mentioned? because this doesn't have anything to do with death anyway. this is about a seizure dog. that kid is not unique in having one. then, the vague assertion. "when machines fail us, we call out the pack". what on earth does that mean? literally, it makes no sense. "well, I'm sorry charles, but we're not able to keep you alive with this respirator anymore. we're bringing in a group of dogs." does it mean we turn to our community? ugh.
a bit later on from these two quotes, she writes at the start of a paragraph, out of nowhere, "Why is it that trivia catches my attention? Da Vinci believed that the heart was of such density that fire could not destroy it." ok, that question? that is not a question for your readers. we'll take the answer, if you have one, but we don't know you, we don't know why trivia catches your attention. we've seen you reporting it in complete non sequiturs, certainly.
I read a bit of a review that remarked that the book was a "free-association meditation", and that captures it perfectly. that's not really something I want to read, however. most of the reviewers seem to love it. not me.