Sign in with Facebook
Tung's Reviews > Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers
Stiff: The Curious Lives of Human Cadavers
by
by
In my nonfiction phase during the year, I grabbed this one and after finishing it, regretted its purchase. The book is about medical use of corpses and the human body, present-day and in the past. The subject matter is extremely interesting, and some of the methods, tests, and history behind human body experiments is worth the read. The book makes you want to be an organ donor, or want to donate your body to medical science. The problem is that the author is one of the WORST writers I have ever read to the extent that every time I picked up the book I got angry. I only finished the book because my OCD made me finish it because I鈥檇 already started it. The two irritating aspects of the book are: 1) Roach would spend a few pages describing something fascinating and then ruin it all by throwing in the snarkiest comment imaginable. For example, she鈥檇 discuss how feet are used by scientists, and then throw in a comment about her stinky socks. 2) A few years ago, a friend saw a movie about the roads to concentration camps at the Tribeca Film Festival that was atrocious because the director stuck himself into the film and made himself part of the story. That鈥檚 what this author does for the whole friggin鈥� book. Just awful.
Sign into 欧宝娱乐 to see if any of your friends have read
Stiff.
Sign In 禄
Reading Progress
Started Reading
January 1, 2004
–
Finished Reading
January 9, 2008
– Shelved
January 9, 2008
– Shelved as:
non-fiction
Comments Showing 1-50 of 54 (54 new)
message 1:
by
Tung
(new)
-
rated it 1 star
Jan 25, 2008 10:37AM
The two of us need to send out a warning to all potential readers of this book. There are far more interesting non-fiction books to read.
reply
|
flag
I finally decided I'm not going to finish the book. It's not a valuable use of my time. It *could* be a good read, but the author needed a good (and strong) editor to cut out her so-called humorous asides and commentary.
You are preaching to the choir.
I have had this book for quite awhile. My husband loved it. Every time I think I might read it, I pick up something else that looks more interesting. I'm glad I've read your reviews. I was only going to read it because so many people have recommended it. But I'm not really that interested. One book I really liked was called Teasing Secrets from the Dead. It's a true account of a forensic scientist and some of the high-profile cases she has worked on, including as a team leader after the 9/11 terrorist attacksShe includes just enough goryness (such as the rate at which cadavers rot) to give you chills, while at the same time she's truly sensitive to her subjects.
Well, Kim, you've convinced me. I'll look for it. I think it could be an interesting topic, if it was written sensitively enough and well enough.
Part of what made this book such a great read was that Roach kept things in perspective. She took a subject that could and would have been very depressing and she was able to handle it with levels of respect and humor that it needed. As a writer, I appreciated the balance she kept and I loved the insights into her own thoughts and feelings. It brought a very human element to a book about what happens to us when the human bit has taken off. So I have to politely disagree with you all and I highly recommend this book to all those who want a refreshing and honest look at the journey our bodies take without us.
I just started this book and was shocked at my annoyance at the writer's constant stupid jokes. The reviews claim it is hilarious. But you are right, her humor is at the level of making jokes about dirty socks. This book is written for third-graders or the developmentally disabled. If you find that super-simple kind of stuff funny, then this should be a blast to read. But it is annoying the hell out of me already. The irony of her stupid cut off head jokes in the first chapter while talking about the respect the medical students and physicians have for the cadavers actually was kind of humorous to me. I will continue to read this book and give it a chance. I just started it and stumbled on your review. Your comment about how your OCD made you finish it made me smile.
Actually, I quite enjoyed Roach's writing style in this book. It gave an element of respectful humor to a serious, and often depressing, topic. Furthermore, I don't quite understand how you can be so upset at the author "intruding" by putting herself and her own experiences into the book. Obviously, she has invested a considerable amount of time and energy in investigating the topics. I found her insights both hilarious and appropriate and felt that they made a positive contribution to the work. READERS: This is an excellent read! Perhaps not all of us are able to appreciate and understand good humor though.
Obviously anyone who has a different opinion to you is clinically unable to appreciate and understand good humour. I haven't read this but I'm reading the author's "Packing for Mars", and I'm already finding her somewhat annoying.
She seems to chirp up every few pages with "Oh, look how SILLY I am!! How blonde, giggle giggle! I pulled the emergency alarm cord instead of flushing the toilet!" and suchlike, when it's not really relevant to what she's talking about.
I agree completely! Her 'quips' make me cringe.
Agreed!! Thanks for putting my thoughts in words.
I think that she is a great writer and anyone who says that her jokes annoy them just have a different sense of humor. There are all forms of comedy out there and she just has a different kind of style. The jokes make the book enjoyable and witty without the heavy burden of death always looming around. To persecute the author for her difference in humor to me is unfair. If there was a problem with lack or facts, grammar mistakes, or just poor material research I would understand the bash toward the author, but it seems to me that everyone is blaming the author for their own disagreeable taste in humor. This is a great book. The humor may not be for all, but same can be said about a lot of things. To those who read this please don't over look this book because some people prefer a different sort of humor/style.
Thank you for your review - I would have done the same thing with the OCD and your example about the feet and stinky socks - would make me want to do the same exact thing. How annoying! Off to see your book recs...
It is taking me forever to read this book! It is horrible! I can't wait to start something new but have this huge thing about unfinished books. Ugh!
Maybe you should just get treatment for your OCD and you wouldn't give ba reviews to good books.
The issue isn't whether or not humor should be mixed with the scientific, Sarah; the issue is that her humor isn't good. As an analogy, hating Carrottop isn't a statement about all of comedy; it's a statement about bad comedy. In the same way, the undercurrent of dislike is that Roach is a bad comic, not that she is a comic at all.Sarah wrote: "You don't have to have the same sense of humor to recognize that hers will be heavily present simply from the flap. If your bent was toward something more scientific, I'm not entirely sure why the..."
Here's what I'm trying to say: by stating "I didn't find her humor to be good, here are things that I find funny...[fill in the blank]" you are offering a review that is helpful for comparison to other people's interests. For example, I know, generally, whether or not to follow a review based on a person's stance on Fifty Shades and/or Twilight. By saying "her humor isn't good" you imply that there is empirical fact to back you up which you really do not (and can not) provide. It all falls to your personal system of measurement for what is good/bad, which is not everyone else's, but at the end of your critique I am no wiser about whether or not to follow your advice. I get to base this all upon your desire to inflict dire physical injury upon the author [Hilarious], and some unnamed documentary that you also didn't enjoy. I was just offering constructive critique of your critique.Tung wrote: The issue isn't whether or not humor should be mixed with the scientific, Sarah; the issue is that her humor isn't good. As an analogy, hating Carrottop isn't a statement about all of comedy; it's a statement about bad comedy. In the same way, the undercurrent of dislike is that Roach is a bad comic, not that she is a comic at all.
I'm on page 100, and I couldn't agree more with your statement, her comments are not funny to me at all, it becomes rather irritating, and everytime I pick it up to read I find myself being distracted by her annoying commentary. This book deserves two thumbs down.
Reminds me of Jon krakauer, always shoving his own anecdotal stories into the middle of his writing as if to say, "hey, look at me! I'm really special and unique just like this person I'm writing about!"
Although I did enjoy this book, I totally feel you on the fact that she kept inserting herself into the story in ways that took away from the information. It felt like less of me learning about cadavers, and more of learning about HER learning about the cadavers. Which gets irritating very quickly.
I think readers should also remember though that this book is very much written in a journalistic perspective. Snark and euphemisms are what help move the story along and take it from pure journalism to an entertaining read. I don't know if you've ever read Jessica Mitford's "The American Way of Death," but she was another journalist who wrote in a very similar fashion. It's not just this woman's writing, I assure you, but the genre and audience for whom the writing is intended.
I find the give and take here fascinating!! I love how many different opinions the world has. I own and adore all of Mary's books, I also hated the bejesus out of books people positively glow about on here, so to each their own!!
I quite agree with you, though I rated the book higher for its interesting subject: but the fact that the author put herself constantly in the limelight significantly reduced my enjoyment in reading
Personally, I thought the book was not just about the information she gathered in her research. I thought that the book was also about her quest to obtain the information. She had quite a number of adventures along the way. She met some fascinating and quirky people in the process. Her asides left me with the sense that I had been along with her on the journey. Some people found that annoying. I thoroughly enjoyed 铆t.
I'm glad I found this review because I find many of my own sentiments echoed here. I studied medicine, I'm all in favor of donating bodies to science but, like many have already voiced, it is the tone of the author herself that is extremely off-putting. She writes about the lack of respect, historically, for corpses but then treats the whole thing with disrespect herself. Priscilla Cornwell in her books does a better job with this topic-and as an author of non-fiction. A bad week for me- second book that I won't be finishing. ugh.
make that Patricia Cornwell, not Priscilla!
I so agree. Writing was WAY too cutesie and self-indulgent.
Your "For example" statement never happened. I checked.
People, lighten up!Roach is a comedian, for crying out loud! She's nor a PhD lecturer.
She used to write funny articles for Reader"s Digest ( some really good, true stories) . So you have to put that perspective into view before you even consider reading any of her books.
There"s no misleading as the Title itself hints enough of what to expect.
I know this review is old, but I'm adding my tuppence anyway! Unlike others I was nonplussed about the writing style, but what really irked me was the seemingly complete lack of copy editing or proof reading. 'Piece of mind' and 'It destroys pathogens, and more important, it destroys...' are two examples off the top of my head. I am in no way a grammar nazi, nor do I read books intently searching for errors and as such it is rare that I notice any that aren't glaring at me with lights full beam and siren sounding. This, added to the copious number of clumsy sentences and turns of phrase, meant I found it impossible to enjoys this book as much as I wanted to.
Couldn't agree more with the one star review. I too am very interested in forensic science. This was not that. This was trash written by someone who can't write. And that is where I threw it - directly into the trash - poorly written, disrespectful to the dead and to animals, I think the author has a mental problem along with a writing problem
I definitely see where you are coming from with this review. I think because of the subject matter vein one of some sensitivity, it's important that the author breaks it up a bit. As much as I'd love to read a dry 300 page book about dead bodies, I'd much rather read one with a little entertainment.
always good to know that someone understands you - thank you so much for this review
Maybe try the audiobook
My exact thoughts exactly. I hated that she would rename the more unpleasant details (such as "hacienda" instead of "maggots"). Death is not supposed to be pleasant, use the correct terms, please.
I haven't read the book but your comment made me laugh haha
One of my favorites. Mary Roach is an excellent writer. The book is in no way irritating. TWO THUMBS UP.
I agree completely--her writing style was just most definitely NOT my cup of tea, and I actually found it infuriating despite a well-documented love of the subject matter.
I am thoroughly enjoying listening to this audiobook. Why anyone would resent her humorous asides after some truly gruesome descriptions puzzles me. Even in the best fiction writing or movies, the serious needs some comic relief. This is not a text book. It is solid research presented in a way that the common man will be receptive to. And yes, you can end a sentence with a preposition!
I am listening to the audiobook, and her asides and comic observations are actually wonderfully done. They are very deadpan, and exactly what I felt I needed after some really heavy going subjects. I feel that the author is trying to find the dark humour in things in order to not go crazy, I found it worked brilliantly.
"one of the WORST"...Just skimming over the reviews of this one precisely because I haven't read it yet, but the one book of hers I've read, "Packing for Mars", seemed to this reader one of the best examples of science non-fiction writing in awhile so... ... six years of improvement? Who knows...
Interesring. I liked this particular aspect as it gives it a non-fiction feel for something factual. Makes it lighter and easier to digest.
What is Size Bryant going on about way back there in 2016, piece of mind was a pun not an error. You just need to read the whole sentence to figure that out.
I really enjoyed how she wrote this book!
I loved how she adds subtle humor or commentary or color to a heavy, scientific topic. Sounds like you鈥檇 prefer a textbook.
So far I've read all of her books and find her to be delightfully entertaining and informative. This was the first of Roach's books for me, recommended by my daughter who has a thing for unusual subjects. It spurred me on to the rest of her work. I'm anxiously and hopefully waiting to read about dentistry which, clearly, should be called Chomp. Packing for Mars about the early advances in space exploration is hilarious. These books are not meant to be extensive scientific examinations of the subject matter but simply a light-hearted look at things most of us simply haven't previously given much thought to.
Jim wrote: "So far I've read all of her books and find her to be delightfully entertaining and informative. This was the first of Roach's books for me, recommended by my daughter who has a thing for unusual su..."... Mind, I've read textbooks with this general tone where the main difference is probably -- length and textbookish? and rather liked them- though writing textbooks tends to have a - style? given that it has to be run through committees...!- and for example the one that comes to mind - Forsyth's terrific Orchestration textbook (I know it's a world away, not a science textbook, etc. - but I'm thinking of his ability to cover a subject seriously and with humor, re-readably, etc.- but- also- over a century old. Our loss, that that probably wouldn't be allowed in actual textbooks so much now. Anyhow - sorry - I digress.)
I think you just don't have a sense of humor. Reading this is absolutely hilarious and those comments are what make it worthwhile!
I completely agree. Her sense of humor was more of an eye roll than a chuckle for me. That plus the long winded tangents that got away from the subject and numerous rumors she published in detail and either said 鈥渏k it鈥檚 not real made you read this whole thing to come to this conclusion鈥� or not provide any research at all if it was true or not. It was a really irritating book for me to read.
