i liked this book, and it was well worth the read, but what was not clear at all to me about it before starting it was that this is, largely, a study of suicide as reflected in (mostly historical) literature. the author was/is a literary critic and this can often become very clear, and very tiresome to someone who, picking up a book on suicide, is not too inclined to revisit, repeatedly, things like arguing with sylvia plath about whether the phrase "the nude/verdigris of the condor" is too "exaggerated, morbid" and if it should be left in the piece she is writing or not. if the book got rid of the nobody-gives-a-shit literary review aspects in it, it would probably be a much more concise and moving book. clearly i am not the target audience for such things, but i think most people reading this book are not looking for a literary review, but, well.. "a study of suicide." in that specific plath instance, he does admit to the criticism being a way to distance himself emotionally from the situation and emotions of it at the time, but i'm not sure that he realizes that he returns to this very same crutch throughout the book for what i can only assume is for the same personal effect. unfortunately this naturally has the same effect on the audience (or at least, me), and so it makes it very difficult to become in any way immersed in the book or the subject as you are reading, because once you begin to get wrapped up into it, here comes another literary critique that no one is interested in.
though he has taken on the no doubt terrible task of writing about suicide in seriousness, he clearly finds it difficult to write about and uses his literary critique skills to distance himself from the subject quite often, to the disappointment of myself at least, if not most of the people i imagine would read this. his emotional distancing carries through into the epilogue, where he flatly says of *his own suicide attempt* "not that it matters, since none of it now means much to me personally." a literally unbelievable statement if there ever was one. denial is a hell of a drug, i suppose.
speaking of denial, in his prologue about his personal relationship with and the inevitable suicide of sylvia plath, he absurdly rationalizes his belief that sylvia plath *did not really intend to kill herself*. i sympathize with the pain that writing about such a terrifying subject can induce, and even more about accepting that a close friend has committed suicide *and meant it*, but it is particularly grating to me that while he writes a book that seems to ostensibly be about un-tabooing suicide/understanding it better/understanding the people who commit suicide as not terrible, selfish monsters but people who are stuck in the "closed world of suicide", it is denials like this about sylvia plath and the rest of his manifestations of his emotional distance that reenforce the bullshit in the subtext: people who commit suicide are selfish. sylvia plath was a loving mother, so she could not have committed suicide, because she loved her children too much. (she even brought them food for when they woke up, see!) it is amazing to see a man write an entire book, researched very thoroughly and written with no doubt immense thought, energy, skill and time, still fall back into the basic premise which he is otherwise fundamentally rejecting, arguably when it matters most.
though i am disappointed with this book because of the above, i do think if you are interested in the subject, it is worth reading. it is difficult to get through at times, but the overview of suicide it provides throughout history through the arts/literature shows many interesting viewpoints to consider. it helped me to trace back more authoritatively the "suicide is selfish/evil" concept that seems to be rife within our society, right back to where most horrible concepts originate, which is in, of course, "our" judeo-christian beliefs.