Scan barcode
A review by graveyardpansy
Smoke Gets in Your Eyes: And Other Lessons from the Crematory by Caitlin Doughty
3.0
Fun and quick read, and one I really wanted to enjoy. For the most part, I did, and I learned quite a bit. This is a perspective I haven't read a lot about and would love to read more about soon! Here are the nitpicky things that bothered me, not necessarily spoilers, but things I personally found not-great.
In the third chapter, Caitlin states "North America is built on death," then describes many ways that settlers/colonialists died. Why would you acknowledge that North America is built on death, then focus on the deaths of the SETTLERS?? It just really threw me off - aren't the deaths of the people the settlers murdered, stole from, pushed off of the land they'd always lived on, more significant? Yes, settlers died, but ultimately colonialism flourished and exploited land and people to create the North America we know today. Just... the way she frames this built-on-death thing in this particular case seems kinda wrong.
Still in the third chapter, Caitlin talks about "a treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder" and describes ERP (exposure & response prevention therapy), but says it's CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.) They are often used in conjunction, as they were for me, but conflating the two isn't helpful for anyone who isn't aware of the distinctions between them. Defining CBT with the definition of ERP comes off as quite misinformed, but not maliciously so.
Much later in the book now, we get the quote "spending over $100 billion a year on anti-ageing products as 3.1 million children under five starve to death." I agree that the anti-ageing/youth industry is toxic, filled with misogynistic adverts, and generally is bad. I also agree that millions of people should not be starving to death. However, drawing a connection between them with no explanation comes off, to me, as dismissive towards what actually ties the two together: capitalism. Needless, overgrown industries integrated with misogyny are rooted in capitalism's greediness and exploitation. Similarly, many people starve due to the way capital treats necessities. But the way Caitlin frames this sentence makes it seem like she's saying these two things are in themselves tied to each other??
Also near the end, she references a Louis CK bit. This book was written before the allegations so it's fine, it just made me cringe.
Spoiler
"Today, the thuds might be called a symptom of post-traumatic stress disorder, but back then the noises were just the drumbeat of my childhood." I don't love the framing of PTSD as an invention of modern psychiatry, even if that's not how this was intended. The sentiment just rubs me the wrong way. Just because Caitlin sees this traumatic event as 'just a part of her childhood' doesn't mean it didn't genuinely traumatize her, and it doesn't mean it didn't psychologically affect her childhood.In the third chapter, Caitlin states "North America is built on death," then describes many ways that settlers/colonialists died. Why would you acknowledge that North America is built on death, then focus on the deaths of the SETTLERS?? It just really threw me off - aren't the deaths of the people the settlers murdered, stole from, pushed off of the land they'd always lived on, more significant? Yes, settlers died, but ultimately colonialism flourished and exploited land and people to create the North America we know today. Just... the way she frames this built-on-death thing in this particular case seems kinda wrong.
Still in the third chapter, Caitlin talks about "a treatment for obsessive-compulsive disorder" and describes ERP (exposure & response prevention therapy), but says it's CBT (cognitive behavioural therapy.) They are often used in conjunction, as they were for me, but conflating the two isn't helpful for anyone who isn't aware of the distinctions between them. Defining CBT with the definition of ERP comes off as quite misinformed, but not maliciously so.
Much later in the book now, we get the quote "spending over $100 billion a year on anti-ageing products as 3.1 million children under five starve to death." I agree that the anti-ageing/youth industry is toxic, filled with misogynistic adverts, and generally is bad. I also agree that millions of people should not be starving to death. However, drawing a connection between them with no explanation comes off, to me, as dismissive towards what actually ties the two together: capitalism. Needless, overgrown industries integrated with misogyny are rooted in capitalism's greediness and exploitation. Similarly, many people starve due to the way capital treats necessities. But the way Caitlin frames this sentence makes it seem like she's saying these two things are in themselves tied to each other??
Also near the end, she references a Louis CK bit. This book was written before the allegations so it's fine, it just made me cringe.