kasanei's Book Journey

I am a person who can’t endure something that either is offensive/problematic or just not liking in general, so I am not willing to endure this book because it is all three, in my opinion.

I am going to try to sum this up without coming off angry (I am around the corner of not being able to be reasonable in my emotions so that is hard lol). Her overall tone and way of writing is borderline offensive. I felt that a lot of the time she seemed to be saying “See how funny and clever I am.” When in reality, it came off offensive and disrespectful to the person these cadavers/bodies once were and the people who loved them and may or may not know what their loved one’s bodies were/are being used for. The way she would sound callous or cavalier about it all. It is one thing to be matter of fact about it all-but this wasn’t it. She literally says that calling yet to be flies maggots is offensive and that she will call them haciendas, I am sorry, what? How is that even funny or clever? Does she know what a hacienda is?

This may not be a real issue, but I did not like or appreciate the constant comparison to food and when she was at this location where they use cadavers to look at the rates of decay and such, she was with another person, Ron, who was clearly uncomfortable and she knew that he didn’t appreciate those kind of comparisons yet she kept doing it, knowing she was ruining that food item for them. That is just…yeah, I couldn’t. She does not come off to me as a terribly kind person.

But that being said, my main issue is the fact that she leans into transphobic language/rhetoric towards the beginning. She seems to be very critical of plastic surgery/cosmetic (I hate this word now) surgery and does not think that anything she does not consider necessary should be done and she heavily implies that medical transitioning is included in this. If she ever goes more in discussion of this, she didn’t in that chapter and I highly doubt she ever does. If she had, she may have been able to clear up things and make herself look better. Also, I find it frustrating that she does not ever acknowledge the atrocities that the U.S. committed against Black bodies when she talks about the use of teeth and skin. Like it is so obvious and if she had done the bare minimum research she should have been able to find this out, but she never brings these aspects up. Also, interestingly enough, and someone can correct me if she ever does go into it, but I don’t think she ever brings up the U.S. history when it comes to if/how they would procure bodies for science historically. If she did, it was at surface level and blink an eye, you miss it.

She also, when talking about seatbelts and the use of cadavers to test the damage car/seatbelts/steering wheels and just accidents overall can cause to the body, does not bring up how they only seem to use one body type.

I will say she does acknowledge some of the historical bad stuff done in order to get their hands on cadavers etc. But I raise my eyebrow a little with certain aspects of how she would talk about white/western countries/people vs those who weren’t either of those.

Overall, I find her tone, language, and lack of acknowledgement of history to be leaning heavily towards offensive and cavalier that I could and will not deal with anymore. She is not an author I will ever try again.

READ THESE INSTEAD (@ comments)

this is a book very blatantly about dead human bodies and how they have been used (whether scientifically or not). its on the cover, its on the back, its not a secret. an author can absolutely inject pieces of themselves into a nonfiction book to humanize the subject or make it more relatable, but it feels more like a book about Roach's thoughts and feelings on cadavers as she learns about them and NOT a book about cadavers with the occasional input from Roach. for a book labeled as "science" it is not rooted in fact (instead its basis is incredibly personal) and should be more appropriately labeled "social sciences" to reflect the leeway of heavily incorporated biases. its definitely a white eurocentric standardized view that does not properly look into other failings in cadaver-related sciences (lack of body types tested on, properly discussing the continued disproportion of impoverished people being targeted to donate ...don't even get me started on ch6's "sticky ethics of bullets and bombs" with not even an ATTEMPT at acknowledging war crimes and criminal testing on imprisoned persons (WWII, Vietnam, etcetc), dead or alive!) The only attempts to even brush on the "bad side" is touching on resurrection men and how a "couple were definitely criminals killing people for a quick buck" (oh honey, there's definitely more than just that going on but ok).

I was genuinely INCREDIBLY frustrated with ch10 (medicinal cannibalism). I'll keep it simple by saying I have an anthropology degree with honors, having taken multiple courses on the dead/dying + its a special interest of mine, and how other cultures and history were handled in that chapter WAS. NOT. IT. incredibly sensationalized and the amount of content taken at face value was astounding. im specifically referring to the "mellified dead that 'volunteered themselves'" and the selling of "fake mummies" early in the chapter. secondhand accounts and trickle-down historical rumors are equally mixed in genuine factual information with no distinction or seperation. the misquotation of a resource on page 223 giving the false illusion that "only jews were selling (now fake) mummies" to later follow with the quoted quip of "the Jew eventually had his revenge on his ancient oppressors." CJS Thompson's 'The Mystery and Art of the Apothecary' is open-source on internet archive if you want to cross reference yourself (it was a single, specific instance mentioned, not an ongoing trend + there are no other resources mentioning this claim, I've looked HARD + never come across this claim before this). the same chapter takes a weird and distasteful approach on Chinese historical claims of cannibalism (which tended to be more symbolic than actual in reality or rooted in surviving EXTREME famines), as well as perpetuating that "Chinese people have no love for dogs." I could write a thesis on my frustrations with ch10!!!

my ultimate gripe through this whole book is really the weird inconsistent dance of humor and sudden sensitivity, while completely lacking sensitivity at times where I'd argue it really should be there (im not saying a good balance is impossible! it absolutely misses the mark in this book multiple times though). i would have been far more forgiving if her "new content" slapped at the end actually addressed that times have changed and not just a quick rehashing of scientific advancements.

if you know someone with a passing interest and wants a quick read about cadavers, sure this technically fits the bill. but there is absolutely other resources out there with a fuller understanding (and handled in a more consistent manner and still being modestly tongue-in-cheek at times) that i will absolutely be directing others to FAR before this book.

things I did like: ■ ch 5's exploration of studying bodies to understand plane crashes. ■ Roach's willingness to actually meet and witness the uses of cadavers, as well as professionals in the field. ■ resources listed

READ THESE INSTEAD (@ comments)

this is a book very blatantly about dead human bodies and how they have been used (whether scientifically or not). its on the cover, its on the back, its not a secret. an author can absolutely inject pieces of themselves into a nonfiction book to humanize the subject or make it more relatable, but it feels more like a book about Roach's thoughts and feelings on cadavers as she learns about them and NOT a book about cadavers with the occasional input from Roach. for a book labeled as "science" it is not rooted in fact (instead its basis is incredibly personal) and should be more appropriately labeled "social sciences" to reflect the leeway of heavily incorporated biases. its definitely a white eurocentric standardized view that does not properly look into other failings in cadaver-related sciences (lack of body types tested on, properly discussing the continued disproportion of impoverished people being targeted to donate ...don't even get me started on ch6's "sticky ethics of bullets and bombs" with not even an ATTEMPT at acknowledging war crimes and criminal testing on imprisoned persons (WWII, Vietnam, etcetc), dead or alive!) The only attempts to even brush on the "bad side" is touching on resurrection men and how a "couple were definitely criminals killing people for a quick buck" (oh honey, there's definitely more than just that going on but ok).

I was genuinely INCREDIBLY frustrated with ch10 (medicinal cannibalism). I'll keep it simple by saying I have an anthropology degree with honors, having taken multiple courses on the dead/dying + its a special interest of mine, and how other cultures and history were handled in that chapter WAS. NOT. IT. incredibly sensationalized and the amount of content taken at face value was astounding. im specifically referring to the "mellified dead that 'volunteered themselves'" and the selling of "fake mummies" early in the chapter. secondhand accounts and trickle-down historical rumors are equally mixed in genuine factual information with no distinction or seperation. the misquotation of a resource on page 223 giving the false illusion that "only jews were selling (now fake) mummies" to later follow with the quoted quip of "the Jew eventually had his revenge on his ancient oppressors." CJS Thompson's 'The Mystery and Art of the Apothecary' is open-source on internet archive if you want to cross reference yourself (it was a single, specific instance mentioned, not an ongoing trend + there are no other resources mentioning this claim, I've looked HARD + never come across this claim before this). the same chapter takes a weird and distasteful approach on Chinese historical claims of cannibalism (which tended to be more symbolic than actual in reality or rooted in surviving EXTREME famines), as well as perpetuating that "Chinese people have no love for dogs." I could write a thesis on my frustrations with ch10!!!

my ultimate gripe through this whole book is really the weird inconsistent dance of humor and sudden sensitivity, while completely lacking sensitivity at times where I'd argue it really should be there (im not saying a good balance is impossible! it absolutely misses the mark in this book multiple times though). i would have been far more forgiving if her "new content" slapped at the end actually addressed that times have changed and not just a quick rehashing of scientific advancements.

if you know someone with a passing interest and wants a quick read about cadavers, sure this technically fits the bill. but there is absolutely other resources out there with a fuller understanding (and handled in a more consistent manner and still being modestly tongue-in-cheek at times) that i will absolutely be directing others to FAR before this book.

things I did like: ■ ch 5's exploration of studying bodies to understand plane crashes. ■ Roach's willingness to actually meet and witness the uses of cadavers, as well as professionals in the field. ■ resources listed