"I only finished the book because my OCD made me finish it because I’d already started it."

That's exactly why I finished the book. By the end, I was so annoyed by the tone of the author that even the interesting bits failed to outshine my irritation.

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.

Make that three. Katrina pointed me at your review during a mutual complaint-fest about the book. I read it a while ago and felt similarly but until she picked it up, I was starting to think I was the only person who didn't think it was brilliant. Obviously, I should read more reviews here.

Agreed. I rarely write reviews, but I did so for this book.

I've not read it yet, but my friend Mairi (who also disliked Stiff) recommends Christine Quigley's The Corpse: A History.

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.

I LOVE your comment, "It made me literally want to stab her in her heart." I haven't read this book, but I just finished Roach's "Bonk", and I was having trouble with my review trying to describe my irritation that the author intrudes so much into the book. Then I read your sentence. THAT'S IT!, I thought!

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.

I'm listening to the audio version, which adds a smarmy narrator to the mix :-(

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.

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 synopsis and the first page didn't deter you entirely - in that scenario, it makes more sense to skip to the references section. I don't have an issue with negative reviews, but, as a bookseller, I disagree that it is OCD that keeps people reading books they hate. In my experience, that choice has more to do with ego, as is evident in the desire to "stab [the author] in the heart" only because you *continued* to dislike the style that was obvious from the first chapter. That proclaims an entirely different set of issues that have little to do with the caliber of the book and more to do with needing to set boundaries for reading, or much the wide world of authors is likely to inspire the same response.
Addressing the interjections - as a matter of personal taste, I prefer it when an author acknowledges his/her subjective stance and background as opposed to pretending to be empirically objective (a stance which does not exist in nature and definitely not in humans), so while I understand preferring "less asides" it's simple to discern that there will be plenty of those from a book in which the author readily admits that her background is more based in exploration/curiosity and journalism than it is in scientific research. That she spends her time stretching the parameters of her comfort zone, and she has a sense of humor that she shares when she addresses something new or odd is, again, personal taste. I'm not trying to make anyone wrong for disliking her humor, just baffled that that seems to be the single takeaway. As someone who wasn't repulsed by it, I actually learned quite a bit. I like to laugh, though, it provides relief when the going gets grotesque...as it did with the reanimation portion and those poor animals.

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.

Thanks for saving me money once again.

Sarah wrote: "Maybe you should just get treatment for your OCD and you wouldn't give ba reviews to good books."

Maybe someone should help you with your passive-aggressive tendencies and you wouldn't be such a poor debater.
Amazing how low some people are willing to stoop in the name of their "favorite book". And it seems that this user likes to make a number of herself on every negative review of this book.

"It made me literally want to stab her in the heart." Really? You had literal wants to stab Mary Roach in the heart?

Elizabeth B wrote: ""It made me literally want to stab her in the heart." Really? You had literal wants to stab Mary Roach in the heart? Perhaps you're not qualified to say whether or not this book is badly written."

Good news is that we have you, Elizabeth, to tell others what they're qualified to do or not do.
My question is this: Who (besides yourself) appointed you as the review police?
Also, you should write your own review if you want to do this book and its author a favor. Crossing a fellow reader with that childish, uppity attitude won't do anything to convince anyone that this is a great book and it deserves to be read.

Right you are! Thank goodness we have you, Genesis, to police the review police! ; )

Elizabeth B wrote: "Right you are! Thank goodness we have you, Genesis, to police the review police! ; )"

Okay...that kind of lameness was expected. Not that I expected much from you in the first place.