Month: November 2017

Jacob Hickey

English 110-H4

Professor Miller

Living/Dead-Journal

Caitlin’s philosophy is honesty

She doesn’t think there is anything wrong with discussion

You can’t take in the full existential despair in order to do the job

Embalming is what the funeral service industry was founded on

She is a mortician who says you don’t necessarily need a mortician

As a funeral director, you are constantly dealing with sorrow because families need to release their anger that results from losing someone.

She says death in a normal state can be beautiful

1. How would you feel being directly involved in the death process of a family member? Would you be able to push the button to send your loved ones “off to their final disposition” as Doughty says.

As a very emotional person, I feel that in a situation where I could “push the button” to send one of my loved ones to their “final disposition” as Doughty writes, would be unthinkable. I have had a hard enough time with college, but losing a loved one would be too tough mentally for me. In pondering this situation for the past couple of days after listening to Caitlin Doughty, I would pay my respects to my family or friend before this situation took place. I would want the lasting image in my head to be one where I was talking to them as if they were still there, not one where I was sending them to be incinerated by flame.

1. Why does Caitlin Doughty feel like it is so important to humanize the industrial crematorium?

The industrial crematorium, as of now, definitely has a spooky, eerie feel to it. It is something not often spoken or thought about because the thought of death makes people feel uncomfortable and sad. Death is one part of life that can leave us feeling alone or abandoned and therefore is often left off discussions about life. However, in Caitlin Doughty’s view, death and the industry of cremation are things to be celebrated. She states in her interview on Fresh Air that people should be cremated with, “Candles, flowers, and Wagner playing in the background” (Doughty). This is the last hoorah, if you will, of their lives and it should be something that is honored, not denounced.

1. Having gone behind the curtains of embalming, cremation, and fast-food production, has your opinion changed regarding these commonly accepted practices? Reflect on the Pollan, Mitford, and Doughty interview and isolate a passage from each text that did not surprise you and one that did. Help us understand why for all 6 references.

Coming from Maine and having my grandfather live in a small lobstering village in Downeast Maine, I have had plenty of experiences with Lobster Festivals over the course of my life, so little of what Wallace wrote in his essay surprised me. Participating in these fun celebrations with my family, I can relate to this quote by Wallace when he writes, “The Maine Lobster Festival’s democratization of lobster comes with all the massed inconvenience and aesthetic compromise of real democracy. For example, the aforementioned Main Eating Tent, for which there is a constant Disneyland-grade queue, and which turns out to be a square quarter mile of awning shaded cafeteria lines and rows of long institutional tables at which friend and stranger alike sit cheek by jowl, cracking and chewing and dribbling. It’s hot, and the sagged roof traps the steam and the smell…” (Wallace 500). It can feel overwhelming at times, especially when there are tired and hungry children crying, lots of tourists crowding about and the steam and smoke from the lobster cookers make the air hot and smelly. Despite the star of the menu, this hardly offers a true taste of Maine! Another quote that I did not find surprising was when Jessica Mitford is describing the amount of action that goes into embalming a body. She lists,  “… In short order sprayed, sliced, pierced, pickled, trussed, trimmed, creamed, waxed, painted, rouged, and neatly dressed-transformed from a common corpse into a Beautiful Memory Picture” (Mitford 43). Previously, before reading this essay, I had a general idea of the amount of work that went into embalming a body, however some of the words used here were new to me. Lastly, a quote I was not surprised with was from Michael Pollan’s, “The Meal”when he describes what can happen, in terms of a negative impact on health, when too much fast food is eaten. He writes, “In the long run, however, the eater pays a high price for these cheap calories: obesity, Type II diabetes, heart disease” (Pollan 117).

However, there were topics in these three essays that did surprise me. In Wallace’s, “Consider the Lobster”, he describes what lobsters go through when being cooked, providing imagery on this topic writing, “Even if you cover the kettle and turn away you can usually hear the cover rattling and clanking as the lobster tries to push it off” (Wallace 506). This is very sad, and having never actually cooked a lobster, I questioned whether I would ever want to eat lobster again. In Mitford’s essay, she informs the reader of the legal considerations that occur after death and with the whole embalming process describing, “Unless the family specifies otherwise, the act of entrusting the body to the care of a funeral establishment carries with it an implied permission to go ahead and embalm” (Mitford 44). I feel that the family should be more informed of their choices and am surprised it has not been called into question more by various groups. In Pollan’s essay, he advises the reader on the harmful substances in fast food. He states, “McNuggets also contain several completely synthetic ingredients, quasi-edible substances that ultimately come not from a corn or soybean field but from a petroleum refinery or chemical plant” (Pollan 113). I found this very surprising as I did not know that fast food, which is eaten everyday by millions of people, contains substances from a petroleum refinery.

Jacob Hickey

English 110-H4

Professor Miller

Reconsider the Lobster

In the essay, “Consider the Lobster”, by David Foster Wallace which I read two months ago and am now revisiting, I found I have the same opinion on a majority of the topics covered. I reread my journal entry from that time as well and found to have many of the same questions as I did then. The major question I still have for Wallace is, “Isn’t a lion preying on a small zebra or other animal the same as us eating lobster or any other meat? Isn’t this the way we survive, as humans are omnivorous creatures?” I still remain confused on this subject, as I feel that the food chain is part of the circle of life and lobsters are part of the food chain that allow us to survive as humans.

However, in contemplating food and its impact on people for over two months now in class, I have discovered that the primary reason we eat any food, including lobster, is not necessarily for the lobster itself, it is for the shared experience with people. In my experience, lobster is typically a dish served in the summer at family gatherings and celebrations. This is ironic since we are celebrating together at the expense of the lobster. In rereading this essay again, I am still horrified, in certain ways, with the amount of suffering lobsters go through during the cooking process. In some areas, it is almost hard to read, as it was two months ago. The gory details of the lobster attempting to free itself by banging on the lid make you never want to eat another lobster again.

This essay is very similar to two essays, Jessica Mitford’s, “The Story of Service” and Michael Pollan’s, “The Meal”, we have read since this one. Just as Wallace sheds light on a topic rarely discussed, so too, does Jessica Mitford in “The Story of Service”. Both stories enlighten the reader about a topic often overlooked. The information I learned in “Consider the Lobster” was very illuminating and next summer I will make sure to think twice about ordering a lobster on the menu.

Jacob Hickey

English 110-H4

Professor Miller

Mapping Thoughts – Jessica Mitford

What are the questions/conceptual interests/inquiries present in Mitford’s essay?

In Mitford’s essay, “The Story of Service”, she questions whether the funeral and embalming industries are ones that should be trusted by the public. She provides examples of a number of areas within the embalming process of which the industry does not want people to know. She expresses her own personal displeasure of the industry, revealing that the people associated with the business have a certain arrogance. She points out that the public is paying too much for services they are not necessarily receiving. She gives examples of this, highlighting that the funeral service, “lasts no more than twenty-five minutes” (Mitford 42). According to Mitford, the public is being taken advantage of by the industry, citing that these business owners who “only care about money” are “chucking” everything “under the heading of ‘service’” (42). Ultimately, Mitford wants the public to understand this and make sure they are paying appropriate pricing for their loved one’s funeral services. It is interesting to note that this industry is one dealing with people at some of their most vulnerable times; after they lose someone dear to them. It is human nature to want to give our loved ones the best we can, even in death, though cost must be a consideration, as well. This is a tricky and often difficult situation because how can a funeral professional be considerate while trying to make money off of people’s heartache and loss? Mitford is so adamantly against the funeral industry that she exclaims, “I decided that I could never face another American funeral-even dead” (50). Ultimately, it is in the hands of the people  to decide whether or not they shall conduct business with the funeral industry. However, if one decides that they shall, Mitford cautions against overpaying for things and trusting the business. While it is interesting to have light shed on something not often given much thought or discussion, it is likely the funeral industry will continue to be a lucrative one due to current societal and cultural norms and customs.

Below, list claims/positions/arguments Mitford makes in her essay. Provide a quote/page number where the claim is stated. Then decide whether you, A=agree, D=disagree, C=it’s complicated, and explain why.

Mitford Claim: The embalming and funeral industry takes advantage of people by overpricing their services and hours of work. Mitford describes this saying, “In general, the funeral salesman is inclined to chuck in everything he does under the heading of ‘service’” (Mitford 42).

A/D/C

I would agree with Mitford on this claim. In reading her points about the industry’s taking advantage of people, it does seem as though these business people, in wanting more money can easily lie about their hours because no one will really know how many hours they actually worked. However, it does seem rather inflated to say they worked “two forty-hour weeks to complete a funeral service” (Mitford 42).

Mitford Claim: The purpose of embalming is to make the corpse presentable. Mitford highlights that the main reason for embalming is the make the corps look “undead” if you will. She writes, “the purpose of embalming is to make the corpse presentable for viewing in a suitably costly container” (43).

A/D/C

I would agree with Mitford, partially. In my opinion, I feel as though the purpose of embalming is to not just make the corpse presentable. It is also something that has been in our culture for hundreds of years. We, as a culture, do this without giving it as much thought as another culture who may not do this. People embalm not only to make the corpse seem “undead”, but also because our ancestors did this to preserve the body, and we are all subject to routine and passing down things we have done for generations.

Mitford Claim: Towards the end of the essay Mitford loudly gives her opinion on funeral services exclaiming, “Then and there I decided that I could never face another American funeral-even dead” (50). She is clearly upset by everything she has learned about the industry and the way, she feels, they take advantage of vulnerable people.

A/D/C

I would disagree with Mitford in this claim. In the years ahead, I will unfortunately have to go to funeral services. It is part of life. However, I will continue to honor people in their death, instead of protesting against the funeral service industry by not going. In my opinion, it would be disrespectful to not go to someone’s service.

Mitford Claim: Mitford claims that if the public actually knew what went on during the embalming process, people would not want to pay for this and then the funeral services business would hurt, in terms of money. Mitford writes, “A close look at what actually does take place may explain in large measure the undertaker’s intractable reticence concerning a procedure that has become his major raison d’etre” (45). She continues to show that this industry hides most of the information to protect their work and money.

A/D/C

I would agree with Mitford in this claim. The funeral industry obviously wants to keep the details of the embalming process out of the minds of the public so they can continue to overcharge for services. If people knew the actual steps to the embalming process and preparing the body for a funeral, they would realize they’re being overcharged.