History, Medicine, and Science: Nonfiction and Fiction discussion

Discussion area for STIFF

READING SCHEDULE

Week of June 15: Chapters 1-3
Week of June 22: Chapters 4-7
Week of June 29: Chapter 8-10
Week of July 6: Chapter 11-12

WEEK ONE: Questions, INTRODUCTION

1, After reading the introduction, do you think this book is going to make you squeamish? Or is squeamishness just something that either doesn't bother you, or you actually enjoy? Morbid curiosity and all. Explain?

2. "Being dead is absurd. It's the silliest situation you'll find yourself." What do you think?

3. I think it's really interesting that Roach says: "the dead of science are always strangers." Is this necessarily just for the dead, or is this dehumanizing process part and parcel of science more generally?

4. Roach's description of her mother's body is really touching. What purpose does it serve in her introduction? How does it make us feel toward the author?

5. I'm nervous about reading this book. I also know I'm going to be fascinated. What about you guys?

p.s. Can someone tell me how to move this discussion so it's accessible in the area with the book cover on the homepage? :)

can't help you on the tech side of this. i've gotten started on the book.

1. no, not at all. i've dissected cadavers in medical school and a friend of the family owned a funeral home

2. i should be so lucky that death is the most absurd thing to happen to me though i pretty much disagree. i', sure i'll find more absurdities while alive

3. i see it as more a generality of research

4. just had surgery thisweek and i can't even remember this part

5. not nervous but very interested. i gave this book to a friend last year but didn't read it myself. So far i like the subject matter but not the author's 'funny' style

I couldn't read the book 'Stiff' even if I wanted to. We transport stiffs to the hospital, but they have to have been alive when we started, b/c we're not allowed to transport a body that's dead when we arrive or dies before we load the patient into the ambulance.
I see stiffs every month if not week. They've completely lost their appeal, especially since a stiff, to me, means I couldn't save the person after the standard 25 minutes of trying with everything we have to revive the patient.

Holly wrote: "WEEK ONE: Questions, INTRODUCTION

1, After reading the introduction, do you think this book is going to make you squeamish? Or is squeamishness just something that either doesn't bother you, or..."

holly--i am already in chapter 11 of STIFF--i usually am not squeamish but this book i have not really enjoyed. chapter 10 was disgusting-can this really be true? sorry if i have jumped ahead--i thought i was behind--this book is, i presume factual about death and the disposal of bodies--we will have to get used to the idea put out in chapter 11 because of air pollutiona and land use.religious belief will be the most difficult factor to overcome in the promulgation of the idea.

Bunnie wrote: "holly--i am already in chapter 11 of STIFF--i usually am not squeamish but this book i have not really enjoyed. chapter 10 was disgusting-can this really be true? sorry if i have jumped ahead--i th..."

Hi Bunnie! Haven't gotten to 10 yet. Oh dear, really that gross?

Will be posting some questions for a few more chapters later today. Really enjoying the book. Roach does a great job keeping it light, strangely respectful in its joking, and informative. I don't know if I could create the same tone. I'm wondering if those early musings as about depersonalization are more a statement about the process -she- had to undergo to write the book?

Hi Holly!
1. I'm not too squeamish at all really. I actually got to view my first cadaver in an Anatomy and Physiology course this past fall. I honestly have a morbid curiosity and the human body, alive or deceased fascinates me and just yeah. I mean at times when you think of, read, (or see) about these things, such as in the in the introduction you kind of need to shut off a part of your brain I guess? Like sort of desensitize yourself. Just to think of the cadaver as a body or a shell so to speak. Whew! Sorry that was long.

2. Death may be absurd however I think life also provides a vast array of absurd experiences.

3. Really science as a whole I think.Sort of along the whole desensitizing yourself type of thing.

4. It really was touching. I can't really explain what the purpose it served BUT it did show not only the scientific side but also the emotional level of the author. A grieving daughter with a scientific thinking.

5. I was kind of nervous at first just reading the synopsis and when I saw the cover I kind of got a little more anxious! But as I started it I can tell I'll already enjoy it.
2. "Being dead is absurd. It's the silliest situation you'll find yourself." What do you think?

3. I think it's really interesting that Roach says: "the dead of science are always strangers." Is this necessarily just for the dead, or is this dehumanizing process part and parcel of science more generally?

4. Roach's description of her mother's body is really touching. What purpose does it serve in her introduction? How does it make us feel toward the author?

5. I'm nervous about reading this book. I also know I'm going to be fascinated. What about you guys?

Holly wrote: "Bunnie wrote: "holly--i am already in chapter 11 of STIFF--i usually am not squeamish but this book i have not really enjoyed. chapter 10 was disgusting-can this really be true? sorry if i have jum..."

holly, yes chapter 10 was disgusting--if true i'm glad i didn't live during that period.of course the cause of disease wasn't known then so people didn't have a fear or repulsion of the leavings of humans or animals.
in more modern times there was the problem of kuru a disease caused by cannibalism in New Guinea-finally after the cause was found the practice was stopped-Quest for the killers by june Goodfield gives information on this --it was also a PBS television series a few years ago.

1. I have read this book before, but it's been a very long time. It didn't make me squeamish the first time, and I know it won't this time, particularly because I've helped in dozens of autopsies.

2. I'm not sure I'd thought to have used the term "silly" to describe being dead, but she does have a point. I mean, think about how many movies have made fun of death (Weekend at Bernies, Death Becomes Her, etc.)! It is quite a unique state of being!

3. Objectification could be applied to many fields of science - biological, medical, social, etc. Separating yourself from your objects of study can be a necessity, as science requires an objective analysis of your hypothesis. Any sort of subjectivity can influence your conclusion. That being said, dehumanizing is particularly useful when dealing with the dead - but there's a certain level of respect, I think, that should be mentally maintained no matter what you're doing. Bodies may just be the "container" for the human, but do not take for granted what had to take place in order for that cadaver to be in front of you as a teaching tool.

4. Roach's description of her mother is a reminder that, as I mentioned above, she understands and respects the process of death. While she may be fascinated by the process of death and the history behind certain aspects of it, her personal relation is telling the readers that she can also approach it from an emotional stand point. To me, this emotional perspective by the author is a reminder that it’s OK – in fact, it’s acceptable – to be fascinated by death, because we know we’re still humans with feelings.

5. I'm not that far in and I'm already fascinated!

Kimberly said: " Roach's description of her mother is a reminder that, as I mentioned above, she understands and respects the process of death. While she may be fascinated by the process of death and the history behind certain aspects of it, her personal relation is telling the readers that she can also approach it from an emotional stand point."

This is a really important point. Thank you.

I read Stiff a few months ago, but I loved the book and wanted to join in the discussion since I haven't had a chance to read/join in on the others yet! (I'm in the middle of getting ready to move cross country, which amazingly takes WAY more time to prepare for than I ever thought it would!)

Here's what I've got --

1. I was a little bit worried when I first started reading the book that I would be squeamish but I loved the introduction that Mary Roach gives the book because I think it did a great job of preparing the reader for the rest of the book. I felt that it really showed that yes, the book would be funny and have a gross-out factor to it, but that the discussion would still be respectful and that there was a deeper understanding to the type of mindset a reader has to be in to accept her jokes about beheading, body parts, crash test cadavers, etc. I must admit, I had more of a morbid curiosity to read the book and learn about the cadavers that definitely outweighed the squeamishness I might have originally felt.

2. "Being dead is absurd. It's the silliest situation you'll find yourself." Agreed. I think there's this fear for a lot of people surrounding death, but if you think about what happens in death physically (not anything religious or spiritual, but to the actual body itself), it does seem sort of absurd. I think this especially becomes true as we read about the sort of situations that the cadavers are put into, and if we think of what happens to people's bodies after death occurs.

3. I think that there is likely some dehumanizing and desensitizing that goes into science more generally; there is inherently a lot of risk that goes into some of the medical practices and procedures that we have, and dehumanizing allows people to try and look at the greater good and broader impact of these practices and procedures, without becoming distraught at the individual failures or problems. Because of the level of respect and fear that surrounds the issue of death, I could see that there might be more dehumanizing that occurs, especially in instances where cadavers are used for sort of crazy things -- like the crash test cadavers, and those used in the forensics studies.

4. I think that her description of her mother is her own story of really realizing that there is a separation between the person who inhabited a body and the actual flesh and bones that are left when they die. I feel like it was sort of her preparation for tackling the topic, and that by sharing it with the reader, she is trying to prepare the reader to approach the book with a similar mindset. It was one of my favorite portions of the book I think, because it really showed to me that she was going to be blunt and funny with the topic, but still have respect for the fact that it is such a touchy issue. She's showing the reader that she understands the process and can see multiple sides of it, not just make jokes about it.

5. I've already read the book, but I just have to say that I seriously loved it. I'm a huge fan of Mary Roach's (which I'm sure I've said a million times all over this group, ha ha). This is the first book of hers that I read and I just think she does an incredible job of being funny and interesting, and broaching the topics that you were always curious about but never thought (or wanted) to research on your own.

Hope everyone else is enjoying the book! :)

I liked that the two books for this month bump up against each other in Paris, with the attempts to "transfuse" blood to the severed heads to determine if the soul resides in the brain!

itpdx,--i didn't appreciate transfussions until i read this book and realized this procedure saved my son's life recently--my son had thrombocytopenia--that is a severe drop in blood platelets--he needed many transfusions to recover--it took several months of hospitalizations for him to recover. he almost didn't make it.a severed head--i don't think that would work just yet.glad he didn't need that.

1. After reading the introduction I knew I liked the author ... and that she saw the subject in much the same way I do. A quirky balance between abject horror and utter fascination.
2. I liked her discussion of the absurdity of death or more precisely the absurdity of people's reaction to death.
3. I think it is human nature to dehumanize the dead. It would be nearly impossible to perform any medical task - day after day - without objectifying to some extent. No matter how caring one is, it is only self-preservation to remove oneself.
4. I think it speaks to the balance, and to what every person in medicine faces at some times. You can only distance yourself so much ... death like life is high personal. As are one's reaction to it.
5. I think I was nervous before reading the introduction. After reading it I felt like the author knew her limits in maintaining the balance - and it was very close to mine. So far I've found I can indulge in my fascination without straying to far from respecting and in some way mourning those that died.

I really enjoyed Stiff. Sometimes her wisecracks got on my nerves, but they also reminded me of when an audience in a movie laughs at inappropriate, uncomfortable moments. I wonder if Roach's jokes at these moments were consciously invoking that feeling, or just her style. I haven't read anything else by her so don't have a feel for her writing style.

A few moments made me squeamish, but mostly I was just fascinated by the variety of post-death careers my body could take part in. Who knew! I was particularly interested in the decomposition research and the image Roach painted of people enjoying an afternoon picnic - until you get close enough to smell them.

"Being dead is absurd. It's the silliest situation you'll find yourself." I had never thought of it this way, but I think there's some truth to this statement. Whatever our beliefs about what happens after we die, our body is left behind at the mercy of others. Societal beliefs and norms about how that body should be treated and what those left behind need to do with it as part of the grieving process are interesting and yes, a bit absurd sometimes.

Roach's description of her mother's body took the sting for me out of some of her comments at other places in the book (see comment above about some of her wisecracks). I think this description juxtaposed with her jokes highlighted how many of us feel about death and dead people - a morbid, uncomfortable fascination on the one hand and what happens when it becomes personal when someone we love dies. Without that insight into Roach's personal experience with death, I think I might have reacted to some of her later comments more negatively.

I read Stiff about a year and a half ago. It is the only one of the author's books that I have read so far. Here is the review I posted of the book. (I will ruminate on your specific questions and answer them later)

This is a hilarious book! However my 5 star rating of this book comes with a one caveat - this is not a book for "everybody". (but, honestly, if you didn't figure this out just from the title, then you kinda deserve to be "grossed out" - or whatever) Let the squeamish be warned.

It very possible that going through life with a last name like 'Roach' worked to 'inform the author's sense of humor' but that's fine with me. In my opinion, Mary Roach has the most finely tuned "morbid sense of humor" on the planet.

This book is not an irreverent send up of the dearly departed and this book is not a dry, clinical textbook. This book is a well written, well researched, funny collection of observations and interviews (put together in a very readable prose style) that at turns will make you smile and make you think.

I knew from the first paragraph of the introduction that I was going to like reading this author:

"The way I see it, being dead is not terribly far off from being on a cruise ship. Most of your time is spent lying on your back. The brain has shut down. The flesh begins to soften. Nothing new happens, and nothing is expected of you."

Anyone with a modicum of medical curiosity should find this an entertaining book (more than once while reading I laughed out loud and my daughter asked "What's so funny?"). But I repeat my caveat that this is not for everyone - only on one occasion did I read a humorous passage to my daughter - every other time I simply told my daughter "when you get older you might want to read this book".

My entire family are voracious readers (and all slightly cracked) but I won't be recommending this book to my wife, my brother or my dad. On the other hand, my mom (a retired RN) is (probably) going to really enjoy reading it.

Great review Mont'ster -- thanks for sharing!

I found this on Boing Boing today. Thought it went well with the "Stiff" theme of things to do with a dead body:

http://infinityburialproject.com/mush...

I only *just got around to reading "Stiff." I quite enjoyed it, but then again, I'm not squeamish about death, cadavers, or what happens after life has left the body.
I've always said I wanted to donate my body to science after I die, and now even more. The idea of ballistics testing was something I'd never considered (neither was rhinoplasty), but hey, people gotta learn, right?
I like the idea of encouraging decomposition as opposed to embalming efforts which only forestall it. When I was living in New Zealand in the early 2000's, there was a cemetery on the outskirts of town which has started burying bodies in shallow graves without embalming to encourage decomposition. I like this idea. It seems more "natural" to me than cremation or embalming or burying 6 feet under.

travis,--the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, the worms crawl over my nose and snout!!
haha
couldn't resist

travis,--the worms crawl in, the worms crawl out, the worms crawl over my nose and snout!!
haha
couldn't resist

mont'ster---that is why the irreverant saying above--i am a retired RN too and appreciate some levity--i did enjoy the book.