#grieving — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #grieving, aggregated by home.social.
-
Mom Gets to Touch Daughter’s Hand Again in Emotional Meeting With the Grateful Transplant Recipient
-
Mom Gets to Touch Daughter’s Hand Again in Emotional Meeting With the Grateful Transplant Recipient
-
Mom Gets to Touch Daughter’s Hand Again in Emotional Meeting With the Grateful Transplant Recipient
-
Mom Gets to Touch Daughter’s Hand Again in Emotional Meeting With the Grateful Transplant Recipient
-
A quotation from Alexander Smith
Your death and my death are mainly of importance to ourselves. The black plumes will be stripped off our hearses within the hour; tears will dry, hurt hearts close again, our graves grow level with the church-yard, and although we are away, the world wags on. It does not miss us; and those who are near us, when the first strangeness of vacancy wears off, will not miss us much either.
Alexander Smith (1830-1867) Scottish poet
Essay (1863), “Of Death and the Fear of Dying”, DreamthorpMore about this quote: wist.info/smith-alexander/8321…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #alexandersmith #abiding #continuation #death #dying #grief #grieving #mourning #mementomori
-
It feels like this week I am #grieving for many things lost. I've never felt like this before unless I was actually grieving a death. But now it seems I am processing things that should have been processed a long, long time ago. So I'm letting it happen. I'm crying my eyes out and letting it all go, perhaps I need to deal with this stuff built up in my body and mind for so long, before I can physically start to #heal as well.
Read more here: https://wp.me/pgO9c4-P
#blog #dreams #grief #loss #memories #melancholy #90smovies -
#OrderOfTheSacredEarth members embody #spirituality in #practices: #work, #meditation, #study, #PrayingTheNews, #arts as meditation incl. chanting, #dancing, #painting, #clay, #yoga, #taichi, hiking, #marching, #running, #walking; #grieving, #ritesofpassage.
#NoKings #PropheticAction
bit.ly/3WRTQFD -
Cry Later: The Culture That Taught You Not to Grieve
The commands arrive early. They arrive in childhood, in the voices of parents and teachers and coaches and older relatives, and they are delivered with the same authority as instructions about traffic and hot stoves. Cry later. Hold it in. Do not show your emotions. Do not embarrass us. Be strong. Be brave. Be a man. There will be time for that later. Not here. Not now. Not in front of people.
These are grief suppressors. They are issued so routinely and across so many contexts that they have acquired the appearance of common sense. They are not common sense. They are commands to override a biological response that the body is producing for a reason. When a child is told not to cry at a funeral, the child is being told to suppress a neurochemical cascade that is already in progress. The cortisol is elevated, the amygdala has fired, and the body is doing what millions of years of evolution designed it to do when it registers the absence of an attachment figure. The command does not eliminate the response. It drives it underground, where it persists in forms the child cannot name and the adults will not recognize as grief when it resurfaces months or years later as insomnia, stomach pain, an inability to concentrate, a persistent anxiety with no identifiable source.
I have written a book about this. It is called “Go to Every Funeral: How Grief Defines the Living,” and it is published by David Boles Books Writing and Publishing, and the title comes from something I overheard in a cafe in Newark, New Jersey, about twenty-five years ago. A mother told her college-age daughter to go to every funeral, even if she did not want to, even if she did not know the dead person, because funerals are for the living and absence is remembered. I carried those six words for a quarter of a century, through the deaths of my grandmother, my grandfather, my mother, my mentor, two friends, and a cat who sat on my desk for fifteen years, and the book is the result of trying to understand why those words were true and why nobody else had ever said them to me.
The book covers a lot of ground: the neuroscience of grief, the mourning practices of elephants and crows, the history of funerals from the domestic parlor to the corporate funeral home, the economics of death as a market, the global range of mourning from the Torajan highlands to the jazz funerals of New Orleans. But the section I want to talk about here is Part Five, which is about permission. Specifically, about who gets to grieve and who gets told to stop.
The suppression commands are not distributed equally. They fall with particular weight on men, on children, on employees, and on anyone whose grief is judged to be inconvenient by the people around them. Boys are told not to cry with a frequency and an intensity that girls are not, and the instruction begins early enough that by adolescence many boys have internalized it so completely that they experience the suppression as personality rather than training. They do not cry because they are “not the kind of person who cries.” The self-description obscures the years of conditioning that produced it.
The consequences are visible in the data. Men die by suicide at rates roughly four times higher than women in the United States. They are less likely to seek mental health treatment, more likely to self-medicate with alcohol, more likely to convert emotional distress into physical aggression. These are not biological inevitabilities. They are the downstream effects of a culture that tells half its population to suppress the emotional responses the other half is permitted to express. The man who cannot cry at his father’s funeral because he was told, at age six, that men do not cry is not displaying strength. He is displaying the result of a training program that disconnected him from his own grief response, and the disconnection does not eliminate the grief. It makes the grief dangerous, because grief that cannot be expressed as grief will be expressed as something else.
The workplace runs on the same logic. The standard bereavement leave in the United States is three days for the death of an immediate family member. Three days. The body has not even begun to metabolize the cortisol surge in three days. The cognitive map has not begun to update. The neurological process of revising the brain’s internal model of the world, recognizing at the cellular level that the dead person is absent from every context in which they were expected, has barely started. And the employer expects you back at your desk, functioning, participating in meetings about quarterly targets while the fact that your mother is dead has not yet reached the parts of your brain that govern concentration.
Some companies offer five days. Some offer none. Some distinguish between the death of a spouse and the death of a parent and the death of a sibling, granting fewer days as the relationship moves outward from the nuclear center, as though the grief for a brother can be mathematically demonstrated to require less processing time than the grief for a child. The taxonomy of bereavement leave is a document written by human resources departments, and it tells the employee, in the plainest possible terms, how long their grief is permitted to inconvenience the organization.
Then there is the clinical manual. In 2022, prolonged grief disorder was added to the DSM-5-TR, giving clinicians a formal diagnostic category for grief that persists at debilitating intensity beyond twelve months. The addition was controversial among grief researchers, and the controversy is worth understanding, because it reveals how the medical establishment processes the same impulse that drives the workplace policy and the childhood command: the impulse to draw a line, to say that grief is acceptable on this side and pathological on the other, and to give the line the authority of science.
The proponents of the diagnosis argued that a subset of bereaved people, estimated at roughly ten percent, experience grief that does not follow the typical trajectory. The pain does not diminish over time. Functioning does not return. The preoccupation with the dead person remains so intense that it dominates waking life months and years after the death. These people need clinical help, and the diagnosis gives clinicians a framework for providing it, including the possibility of insurance reimbursement for treatment.
The opponents argued that pathologizing grief at twelve months imposes an arbitrary timeline on a process that has no natural expiration date. The twelve-month threshold was chosen because the clinical data showed it as a statistically significant inflection point, the point at which the probability of spontaneous recovery drops sharply. But statistical inflection points are not the same as biological boundaries. The griever at month thirteen is not clinically different from the griever at month eleven. The line exists because the diagnostic system requires lines, and the existence of the line communicates something to the broader culture: that grief beyond a year is officially a mental illness. The employer who was already impatient at three days now has clinical validation for the suspicion that the employee who is still struggling at fourteen months has something wrong with them.
The book argues that this entire apparatus, the childhood commands, the workplace policies, the diagnostic thresholds, is part of a single cultural project: the management of grief for the convenience of everyone except the griever. The child is told to stop because the adults are uncomfortable. The employee is expected back at the desk because the organization needs the labor. The patient receives a diagnosis because the clinical system requires categories. None of these interventions exists primarily to serve the person who is grieving. They exist to contain the grief, to keep it within boundaries that allow the surrounding systems to continue operating without interruption.
Meanwhile, the culture has produced a substitute for communal grief that is worse than the absence of communal grief. Social media has made performative mourning the default public response to death. When a public figure dies, the speed with which users post their condolences has become a measure of social attentiveness. The posts follow a formula: a photograph of the deceased, a statement of shock, a brief personal connection however thin, and a closing declaration of love and loss. The formula is so consistent it has been parodied, and the parodies have not slowed it down, because the function of the post is to perform belonging, to demonstrate that you are the kind of person who feels things, who notices when important people die, who participates in the rituals of the digital public square.
Some of the grief is sincere. The rest is performance, and the performance crowds out the reality. When the feeds are flooded with grief posts after a celebrity death, the person who is actually devastated, the person who had a real connection to the deceased and is not performing but drowning, finds their grief indistinguishable from the display. Their signal disappears into the noise. The communal mourning that is supposed to support the bereaved instead competes with them, reducing a specific and irreplaceable loss to one post among thousands, all using the same photographs, the same phrases, the same hashtags.
This is the inversion of what the mother in the Newark cafe was describing. She said you go to the funeral. You show up. You put your name in the book. You sit in the pew. You bring food to the house afterward. The obligation is physical: you move your body to the place where the grief is, and your presence there is the message. Social media offers the simulation of this presence without the physical fact of it. You post. You perform the gesture. You do not move your body anywhere. You do not sit in an uncomfortable chair in a room that smells like flowers and floor polish. You do not look at the face of the bereaved and allow them to see that you came. You post, and the post is seen or not seen, liked or not liked, and it scrolls away, and the next post is about something else, and the grief has been acknowledged in the same medium and at the same depth as a restaurant recommendation.
Kenneth Doka coined the term “disenfranchised grief” to describe losses the culture refuses to recognize. The death of an ex-spouse. The death of a pet. The death of a patient if you are a nurse. The death of a public figure you never met but whose work was woven into the structure of your daily life. These are real losses producing real grief, and the culture’s refusal to recognize them does not dissolve the grief. It isolates the griever, who cannot bring their loss into the social spaces where grief is processed because the spaces will not admit it. The colleague who lost a dog cannot mention it at work. The fan grieving a musician cannot break down at dinner. A nurse whose patient died that morning cannot ask for a day off. The grief has no approved venue, no sanctioned expression, no communal witness. It persists alone.
What the book asks, across all six of its parts and all seventeen of its chapters, is what happens when you add all of this up. The suppression that begins in childhood and hardens along gendered lines. The workplace that contains it in three days. The diagnostic manual that pathologizes it at twelve months. The industry that monetizes it. The digital platform that simulates it. The disenfranchisement of entire categories of loss. What you get is a culture in which millions of people grieve alone, in private, without the communal infrastructure that every human society in history built to distribute the weight of death across many shoulders. The weight did not get lighter because the infrastructure was removed. The shoulders carrying it just got fewer.
The mother in the cafe knew this. She did not use these words. She did not cite the neuroscience or the sociology or the economics. She tapped the table and told her daughter to go to every funeral, and the instruction contained everything: that grief is communal, that the community is constituted by the people who show up, that presence is the oldest technology of mourning and still the most effective, and that the dead have no needs left, and the living have every need there is.
Go to every funeral. The book is available at BolesBooks.com as a free download, and on Amazon in Kindle ($9.99) and paperback ($15.99) editions.
#bolesBooks #celebration #cremation #culture #davidBoles #funeral #grief #grieving #history #limits #midwest #timeOff #treatment -
Cry Later: The Culture That Taught You Not to Grieve
The commands arrive early. They arrive in childhood, in the voices of parents and teachers and coaches and older relatives, and they are delivered with the same authority as instructions about traffic and hot stoves. Cry later. Hold it in. Do not show your emotions. Do not embarrass us. Be strong. Be brave. Be a man. There will be time for that later. Not here. Not now. Not in front of people.
Content Note: This book contains accounts of suicide, suicidal crisis, and the deaths of family members, friends, and companion animals. Part Five includes detailed accounts of suicidal ideation and completed suicide. If you or someone you know is experiencing a mental health crisis, the 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline is available 24/7 by phone or text at 988. The Crisis Text Line is available by texting HOME to 741741.
These are grief suppressors. They are issued so routinely and across so many contexts that they have acquired the appearance of common sense. They are not common sense. They are commands to override a biological response that the body is producing for a reason. When a child is told not to cry at a funeral, the child is being told to suppress a neurochemical cascade that is already in progress. The cortisol is elevated, the amygdala has fired, and the body is doing what millions of years of evolution designed it to do when it registers the absence of an attachment figure. The command does not eliminate the response. It drives it underground, where it persists in forms the child cannot name and the adults will not recognize as grief when it resurfaces months or years later as insomnia, stomach pain, an inability to concentrate, a persistent anxiety with no identifiable source.
I have written a book about this. It is called “Go to Every Funeral: How Grief Defines the Living,” and it is published by David Boles Books Writing and Publishing, and the title comes from something I overheard in a cafe in Newark, New Jersey, about twenty-five years ago. A mother told her college-age daughter to go to every funeral, even if she did not want to, even if she did not know the dead person, because funerals are for the living and absence is remembered. I carried those six words for a quarter of a century, through the deaths of my grandmother, my grandfather, my mother, my mentor, two friends, and a cat who sat on my desk for fifteen years, and the book is the result of trying to understand why those words were true and why nobody else had ever said them to me.
The book covers a lot of ground: the neuroscience of grief, the mourning practices of elephants and crows, the history of funerals from the domestic parlor to the corporate funeral home, the economics of death as a market, the global range of mourning from the Torajan highlands to the jazz funerals of New Orleans. But the section I want to talk about here is Part Five, which is about permission. Specifically, about who gets to grieve and who gets told to stop.
The suppression commands are not distributed equally. They fall with particular weight on men, on children, on employees, and on anyone whose grief is judged to be inconvenient by the people around them. Boys are told not to cry with a frequency and an intensity that girls are not, and the instruction begins early enough that by adolescence many boys have internalized it so completely that they experience the suppression as personality rather than training. They do not cry because they are “not the kind of person who cries.” The self-description obscures the years of conditioning that produced it.
The consequences are visible in the data. Men die by suicide at rates roughly four times higher than women in the United States. They are less likely to seek mental health treatment, more likely to self-medicate with alcohol, more likely to convert emotional distress into physical aggression. These are not biological inevitabilities. They are the downstream effects of a culture that tells half its population to suppress the emotional responses the other half is permitted to express. The man who cannot cry at his father’s funeral because he was told, at age six, that men do not cry is not displaying strength. He is displaying the result of a training program that disconnected him from his own grief response, and the disconnection does not eliminate the grief. It makes the grief dangerous, because grief that cannot be expressed as grief will be expressed as something else.
The workplace runs on the same logic. The standard bereavement leave in the United States is three days for the death of an immediate family member. Three days. The body has not even begun to metabolize the cortisol surge in three days. The cognitive map has not begun to update. The neurological process of revising the brain’s internal model of the world, recognizing at the cellular level that the dead person is absent from every context in which they were expected, has barely started. And the employer expects you back at your desk, functioning, participating in meetings about quarterly targets while the fact that your mother is dead has not yet reached the parts of your brain that govern concentration.
Some companies offer five days. Some offer none. Some distinguish between the death of a spouse and the death of a parent and the death of a sibling, granting fewer days as the relationship moves outward from the nuclear center, as though the grief for a brother can be mathematically demonstrated to require less processing time than the grief for a child. The taxonomy of bereavement leave is a document written by human resources departments, and it tells the employee, in the plainest possible terms, how long their grief is permitted to inconvenience the organization.
Then there is the clinical manual. In 2022, prolonged grief disorder was added to the DSM-5-TR, giving clinicians a formal diagnostic category for grief that persists at debilitating intensity beyond twelve months. The addition was controversial among grief researchers, and the controversy is worth understanding, because it reveals how the medical establishment processes the same impulse that drives the workplace policy and the childhood command: the impulse to draw a line, to say that grief is acceptable on this side and pathological on the other, and to give the line the authority of science.
The proponents of the diagnosis argued that a subset of bereaved people, estimated at roughly ten percent, experience grief that does not follow the typical trajectory. The pain does not diminish over time. Functioning does not return. The preoccupation with the dead person remains so intense that it dominates waking life months and years after the death. These people need clinical help, and the diagnosis gives clinicians a framework for providing it, including the possibility of insurance reimbursement for treatment.
The opponents argued that pathologizing grief at twelve months imposes an arbitrary timeline on a process that has no natural expiration date. The twelve-month threshold was chosen because the clinical data showed it as a statistically significant inflection point, the point at which the probability of spontaneous recovery drops sharply. But statistical inflection points are not the same as biological boundaries. The griever at month thirteen is not clinically different from the griever at month eleven. The line exists because the diagnostic system requires lines, and the existence of the line communicates something to the broader culture: that grief beyond a year is officially a mental illness. The employer who was already impatient at three days now has clinical validation for the suspicion that the employee who is still struggling at fourteen months has something wrong with them.
The book argues that this entire apparatus, the childhood commands, the workplace policies, the diagnostic thresholds, is part of a single cultural project: the management of grief for the convenience of everyone except the griever. The child is told to stop because the adults are uncomfortable. The employee is expected back at the desk because the organization needs the labor. The patient receives a diagnosis because the clinical system requires categories. None of these interventions exists primarily to serve the person who is grieving. They exist to contain the grief, to keep it within boundaries that allow the surrounding systems to continue operating without interruption.
Meanwhile, the culture has produced a substitute for communal grief that is worse than the absence of communal grief. Social media has made performative mourning the default public response to death. When a public figure dies, the speed with which users post their condolences has become a measure of social attentiveness. The posts follow a formula: a photograph of the deceased, a statement of shock, a brief personal connection however thin, and a closing declaration of love and loss. The formula is so consistent it has been parodied, and the parodies have not slowed it down, because the function of the post is to perform belonging, to demonstrate that you are the kind of person who feels things, who notices when important people die, who participates in the rituals of the digital public square.
Some of the grief is sincere. The rest is performance, and the performance crowds out the reality. When the feeds are flooded with grief posts after a celebrity death, the person who is actually devastated, the person who had a real connection to the deceased and is not performing but drowning, finds their grief indistinguishable from the display. Their signal disappears into the noise. The communal mourning that is supposed to support the bereaved instead competes with them, reducing a specific and irreplaceable loss to one post among thousands, all using the same photographs, the same phrases, the same hashtags.
This is the inversion of what the mother in the Newark cafe was describing. She said you go to the funeral. You show up. You put your name in the book. You sit in the pew. You bring food to the house afterward. The obligation is physical: you move your body to the place where the grief is, and your presence there is the message. Social media offers the simulation of this presence without the physical fact of it. You post. You perform the gesture. You do not move your body anywhere. You do not sit in an uncomfortable chair in a room that smells like flowers and floor polish. You do not look at the face of the bereaved and allow them to see that you came. You post, and the post is seen or not seen, liked or not liked, and it scrolls away, and the next post is about something else, and the grief has been acknowledged in the same medium and at the same depth as a restaurant recommendation.
Kenneth Doka coined the term “disenfranchised grief” to describe losses the culture refuses to recognize. The death of an ex-spouse. The death of a pet. The death of a patient if you are a nurse. The death of a public figure you never met but whose work was woven into the structure of your daily life. These are real losses producing real grief, and the culture’s refusal to recognize them does not dissolve the grief. It isolates the griever, who cannot bring their loss into the social spaces where grief is processed because the spaces will not admit it. The colleague who lost a dog cannot mention it at work. The fan grieving a musician cannot break down at dinner. A nurse whose patient died that morning cannot ask for a day off. The grief has no approved venue, no sanctioned expression, no communal witness. It persists alone.
What the book asks, across all six of its parts and all seventeen of its chapters, is what happens when you add all of this up. The suppression that begins in childhood and hardens along gendered lines. The workplace that contains it in three days. The diagnostic manual that pathologizes it at twelve months. The industry that monetizes it. The digital platform that simulates it. The disenfranchisement of entire categories of loss. What you get is a culture in which millions of people grieve alone, in private, without the communal infrastructure that every human society in history built to distribute the weight of death across many shoulders. The weight did not get lighter because the infrastructure was removed. The shoulders carrying it just got fewer.
The mother in the cafe knew this. She did not use these words. She did not cite the neuroscience or the sociology or the economics. She tapped the table and told her daughter to go to every funeral, and the instruction contained everything: that grief is communal, that the community is constituted by the people who show up, that presence is the oldest technology of mourning and still the most effective, and that the dead have no needs left, and the living have every need there is.
Go to every funeral. The book is available at BolesBooks.com as a free download, and on Amazon in Kindle ($9.99) and paperback ($15.99) editions.
#bolesBooks #celebration #cremation #culture #davidBoles #funeral #grief #grieving #history #limits #midwest #timeOff #treatment -
Cry Later: The Culture That Taught You Not to Grieve
The commands arrive early. They arrive in childhood, in the voices of parents and teachers and coaches and older relatives, and they are delivered with the same authority as instructions about traffic and hot stoves. Cry later. Hold it in. Do not show your emotions. Do not embarrass us. Be strong. Be brave. Be a man. There will be time for that later. Not here. Not now. Not in front of people.
These are grief suppressors. They are issued so routinely and across so many contexts that they have acquired the appearance of common sense. They are not common sense. They are commands to override a biological response that the body is producing for a reason. When a child is told not to cry at a funeral, the child is being told to suppress a neurochemical cascade that is already in progress. The cortisol is elevated, the amygdala has fired, and the body is doing what millions of years of evolution designed it to do when it registers the absence of an attachment figure. The command does not eliminate the response. It drives it underground, where it persists in forms the child cannot name and the adults will not recognize as grief when it resurfaces months or years later as insomnia, stomach pain, an inability to concentrate, a persistent anxiety with no identifiable source.
I have written a book about this. It is called “Go to Every Funeral: How Grief Defines the Living,” and it is published by David Boles Books Writing and Publishing, and the title comes from something I overheard in a cafe in Newark, New Jersey, about twenty-five years ago. A mother told her college-age daughter to go to every funeral, even if she did not want to, even if she did not know the dead person, because funerals are for the living and absence is remembered. I carried those six words for a quarter of a century, through the deaths of my grandmother, my grandfather, my mother, my mentor, two friends, and a cat who sat on my desk for fifteen years, and the book is the result of trying to understand why those words were true and why nobody else had ever said them to me.
The book covers a lot of ground: the neuroscience of grief, the mourning practices of elephants and crows, the history of funerals from the domestic parlor to the corporate funeral home, the economics of death as a market, the global range of mourning from the Torajan highlands to the jazz funerals of New Orleans. But the section I want to talk about here is Part Five, which is about permission. Specifically, about who gets to grieve and who gets told to stop.
The suppression commands are not distributed equally. They fall with particular weight on men, on children, on employees, and on anyone whose grief is judged to be inconvenient by the people around them. Boys are told not to cry with a frequency and an intensity that girls are not, and the instruction begins early enough that by adolescence many boys have internalized it so completely that they experience the suppression as personality rather than training. They do not cry because they are “not the kind of person who cries.” The self-description obscures the years of conditioning that produced it.
The consequences are visible in the data. Men die by suicide at rates roughly four times higher than women in the United States. They are less likely to seek mental health treatment, more likely to self-medicate with alcohol, more likely to convert emotional distress into physical aggression. These are not biological inevitabilities. They are the downstream effects of a culture that tells half its population to suppress the emotional responses the other half is permitted to express. The man who cannot cry at his father’s funeral because he was told, at age six, that men do not cry is not displaying strength. He is displaying the result of a training program that disconnected him from his own grief response, and the disconnection does not eliminate the grief. It makes the grief dangerous, because grief that cannot be expressed as grief will be expressed as something else.
The workplace runs on the same logic. The standard bereavement leave in the United States is three days for the death of an immediate family member. Three days. The body has not even begun to metabolize the cortisol surge in three days. The cognitive map has not begun to update. The neurological process of revising the brain’s internal model of the world, recognizing at the cellular level that the dead person is absent from every context in which they were expected, has barely started. And the employer expects you back at your desk, functioning, participating in meetings about quarterly targets while the fact that your mother is dead has not yet reached the parts of your brain that govern concentration.
Some companies offer five days. Some offer none. Some distinguish between the death of a spouse and the death of a parent and the death of a sibling, granting fewer days as the relationship moves outward from the nuclear center, as though the grief for a brother can be mathematically demonstrated to require less processing time than the grief for a child. The taxonomy of bereavement leave is a document written by human resources departments, and it tells the employee, in the plainest possible terms, how long their grief is permitted to inconvenience the organization.
Then there is the clinical manual. In 2022, prolonged grief disorder was added to the DSM-5-TR, giving clinicians a formal diagnostic category for grief that persists at debilitating intensity beyond twelve months. The addition was controversial among grief researchers, and the controversy is worth understanding, because it reveals how the medical establishment processes the same impulse that drives the workplace policy and the childhood command: the impulse to draw a line, to say that grief is acceptable on this side and pathological on the other, and to give the line the authority of science.
The proponents of the diagnosis argued that a subset of bereaved people, estimated at roughly ten percent, experience grief that does not follow the typical trajectory. The pain does not diminish over time. Functioning does not return. The preoccupation with the dead person remains so intense that it dominates waking life months and years after the death. These people need clinical help, and the diagnosis gives clinicians a framework for providing it, including the possibility of insurance reimbursement for treatment.
The opponents argued that pathologizing grief at twelve months imposes an arbitrary timeline on a process that has no natural expiration date. The twelve-month threshold was chosen because the clinical data showed it as a statistically significant inflection point, the point at which the probability of spontaneous recovery drops sharply. But statistical inflection points are not the same as biological boundaries. The griever at month thirteen is not clinically different from the griever at month eleven. The line exists because the diagnostic system requires lines, and the existence of the line communicates something to the broader culture: that grief beyond a year is officially a mental illness. The employer who was already impatient at three days now has clinical validation for the suspicion that the employee who is still struggling at fourteen months has something wrong with them.
The book argues that this entire apparatus, the childhood commands, the workplace policies, the diagnostic thresholds, is part of a single cultural project: the management of grief for the convenience of everyone except the griever. The child is told to stop because the adults are uncomfortable. The employee is expected back at the desk because the organization needs the labor. The patient receives a diagnosis because the clinical system requires categories. None of these interventions exists primarily to serve the person who is grieving. They exist to contain the grief, to keep it within boundaries that allow the surrounding systems to continue operating without interruption.
Meanwhile, the culture has produced a substitute for communal grief that is worse than the absence of communal grief. Social media has made performative mourning the default public response to death. When a public figure dies, the speed with which users post their condolences has become a measure of social attentiveness. The posts follow a formula: a photograph of the deceased, a statement of shock, a brief personal connection however thin, and a closing declaration of love and loss. The formula is so consistent it has been parodied, and the parodies have not slowed it down, because the function of the post is to perform belonging, to demonstrate that you are the kind of person who feels things, who notices when important people die, who participates in the rituals of the digital public square.
Some of the grief is sincere. The rest is performance, and the performance crowds out the reality. When the feeds are flooded with grief posts after a celebrity death, the person who is actually devastated, the person who had a real connection to the deceased and is not performing but drowning, finds their grief indistinguishable from the display. Their signal disappears into the noise. The communal mourning that is supposed to support the bereaved instead competes with them, reducing a specific and irreplaceable loss to one post among thousands, all using the same photographs, the same phrases, the same hashtags.
This is the inversion of what the mother in the Newark cafe was describing. She said you go to the funeral. You show up. You put your name in the book. You sit in the pew. You bring food to the house afterward. The obligation is physical: you move your body to the place where the grief is, and your presence there is the message. Social media offers the simulation of this presence without the physical fact of it. You post. You perform the gesture. You do not move your body anywhere. You do not sit in an uncomfortable chair in a room that smells like flowers and floor polish. You do not look at the face of the bereaved and allow them to see that you came. You post, and the post is seen or not seen, liked or not liked, and it scrolls away, and the next post is about something else, and the grief has been acknowledged in the same medium and at the same depth as a restaurant recommendation.
Kenneth Doka coined the term “disenfranchised grief” to describe losses the culture refuses to recognize. The death of an ex-spouse. The death of a pet. The death of a patient if you are a nurse. The death of a public figure you never met but whose work was woven into the structure of your daily life. These are real losses producing real grief, and the culture’s refusal to recognize them does not dissolve the grief. It isolates the griever, who cannot bring their loss into the social spaces where grief is processed because the spaces will not admit it. The colleague who lost a dog cannot mention it at work. The fan grieving a musician cannot break down at dinner. A nurse whose patient died that morning cannot ask for a day off. The grief has no approved venue, no sanctioned expression, no communal witness. It persists alone.
What the book asks, across all six of its parts and all seventeen of its chapters, is what happens when you add all of this up. The suppression that begins in childhood and hardens along gendered lines. The workplace that contains it in three days. The diagnostic manual that pathologizes it at twelve months. The industry that monetizes it. The digital platform that simulates it. The disenfranchisement of entire categories of loss. What you get is a culture in which millions of people grieve alone, in private, without the communal infrastructure that every human society in history built to distribute the weight of death across many shoulders. The weight did not get lighter because the infrastructure was removed. The shoulders carrying it just got fewer.
The mother in the cafe knew this. She did not use these words. She did not cite the neuroscience or the sociology or the economics. She tapped the table and told her daughter to go to every funeral, and the instruction contained everything: that grief is communal, that the community is constituted by the people who show up, that presence is the oldest technology of mourning and still the most effective, and that the dead have no needs left, and the living have every need there is.
Go to every funeral. The book is available at BolesBooks.com as a free download, and on Amazon in Kindle ($9.99) and paperback ($15.99) editions.
#bolesBooks #celebration #cremation #culture #davidBoles #funeral #grief #grieving #history #limits #midwest #timeOff #treatment -
Cry Later: The Culture That Taught You Not to Grieve
The commands arrive early. They arrive in childhood, in the voices of parents and teachers and coaches and older relatives, and they are delivered with the same authority as instructions about traffic and hot stoves. Cry later. Hold it in. Do not show your emotions. Do not embarrass us. Be strong. Be brave. Be a man. There will be time for that later. Not here. Not now. Not in front of people.
These are grief suppressors. They are issued so routinely and across so many contexts that they have acquired the appearance of common sense. They are not common sense. They are commands to override a biological response that the body is producing for a reason. When a child is told not to cry at a funeral, the child is being told to suppress a neurochemical cascade that is already in progress. The cortisol is elevated, the amygdala has fired, and the body is doing what millions of years of evolution designed it to do when it registers the absence of an attachment figure. The command does not eliminate the response. It drives it underground, where it persists in forms the child cannot name and the adults will not recognize as grief when it resurfaces months or years later as insomnia, stomach pain, an inability to concentrate, a persistent anxiety with no identifiable source.
I have written a book about this. It is called “Go to Every Funeral: How Grief Defines the Living,” and it is published by David Boles Books Writing and Publishing, and the title comes from something I overheard in a cafe in Newark, New Jersey, about twenty-five years ago. A mother told her college-age daughter to go to every funeral, even if she did not want to, even if she did not know the dead person, because funerals are for the living and absence is remembered. I carried those six words for a quarter of a century, through the deaths of my grandmother, my grandfather, my mother, my mentor, two friends, and a cat who sat on my desk for fifteen years, and the book is the result of trying to understand why those words were true and why nobody else had ever said them to me.
The book covers a lot of ground: the neuroscience of grief, the mourning practices of elephants and crows, the history of funerals from the domestic parlor to the corporate funeral home, the economics of death as a market, the global range of mourning from the Torajan highlands to the jazz funerals of New Orleans. But the section I want to talk about here is Part Five, which is about permission. Specifically, about who gets to grieve and who gets told to stop.
The suppression commands are not distributed equally. They fall with particular weight on men, on children, on employees, and on anyone whose grief is judged to be inconvenient by the people around them. Boys are told not to cry with a frequency and an intensity that girls are not, and the instruction begins early enough that by adolescence many boys have internalized it so completely that they experience the suppression as personality rather than training. They do not cry because they are “not the kind of person who cries.” The self-description obscures the years of conditioning that produced it.
The consequences are visible in the data. Men die by suicide at rates roughly four times higher than women in the United States. They are less likely to seek mental health treatment, more likely to self-medicate with alcohol, more likely to convert emotional distress into physical aggression. These are not biological inevitabilities. They are the downstream effects of a culture that tells half its population to suppress the emotional responses the other half is permitted to express. The man who cannot cry at his father’s funeral because he was told, at age six, that men do not cry is not displaying strength. He is displaying the result of a training program that disconnected him from his own grief response, and the disconnection does not eliminate the grief. It makes the grief dangerous, because grief that cannot be expressed as grief will be expressed as something else.
The workplace runs on the same logic. The standard bereavement leave in the United States is three days for the death of an immediate family member. Three days. The body has not even begun to metabolize the cortisol surge in three days. The cognitive map has not begun to update. The neurological process of revising the brain’s internal model of the world, recognizing at the cellular level that the dead person is absent from every context in which they were expected, has barely started. And the employer expects you back at your desk, functioning, participating in meetings about quarterly targets while the fact that your mother is dead has not yet reached the parts of your brain that govern concentration.
Some companies offer five days. Some offer none. Some distinguish between the death of a spouse and the death of a parent and the death of a sibling, granting fewer days as the relationship moves outward from the nuclear center, as though the grief for a brother can be mathematically demonstrated to require less processing time than the grief for a child. The taxonomy of bereavement leave is a document written by human resources departments, and it tells the employee, in the plainest possible terms, how long their grief is permitted to inconvenience the organization.
Then there is the clinical manual. In 2022, prolonged grief disorder was added to the DSM-5-TR, giving clinicians a formal diagnostic category for grief that persists at debilitating intensity beyond twelve months. The addition was controversial among grief researchers, and the controversy is worth understanding, because it reveals how the medical establishment processes the same impulse that drives the workplace policy and the childhood command: the impulse to draw a line, to say that grief is acceptable on this side and pathological on the other, and to give the line the authority of science.
The proponents of the diagnosis argued that a subset of bereaved people, estimated at roughly ten percent, experience grief that does not follow the typical trajectory. The pain does not diminish over time. Functioning does not return. The preoccupation with the dead person remains so intense that it dominates waking life months and years after the death. These people need clinical help, and the diagnosis gives clinicians a framework for providing it, including the possibility of insurance reimbursement for treatment.
The opponents argued that pathologizing grief at twelve months imposes an arbitrary timeline on a process that has no natural expiration date. The twelve-month threshold was chosen because the clinical data showed it as a statistically significant inflection point, the point at which the probability of spontaneous recovery drops sharply. But statistical inflection points are not the same as biological boundaries. The griever at month thirteen is not clinically different from the griever at month eleven. The line exists because the diagnostic system requires lines, and the existence of the line communicates something to the broader culture: that grief beyond a year is officially a mental illness. The employer who was already impatient at three days now has clinical validation for the suspicion that the employee who is still struggling at fourteen months has something wrong with them.
The book argues that this entire apparatus, the childhood commands, the workplace policies, the diagnostic thresholds, is part of a single cultural project: the management of grief for the convenience of everyone except the griever. The child is told to stop because the adults are uncomfortable. The employee is expected back at the desk because the organization needs the labor. The patient receives a diagnosis because the clinical system requires categories. None of these interventions exists primarily to serve the person who is grieving. They exist to contain the grief, to keep it within boundaries that allow the surrounding systems to continue operating without interruption.
Meanwhile, the culture has produced a substitute for communal grief that is worse than the absence of communal grief. Social media has made performative mourning the default public response to death. When a public figure dies, the speed with which users post their condolences has become a measure of social attentiveness. The posts follow a formula: a photograph of the deceased, a statement of shock, a brief personal connection however thin, and a closing declaration of love and loss. The formula is so consistent it has been parodied, and the parodies have not slowed it down, because the function of the post is to perform belonging, to demonstrate that you are the kind of person who feels things, who notices when important people die, who participates in the rituals of the digital public square.
Some of the grief is sincere. The rest is performance, and the performance crowds out the reality. When the feeds are flooded with grief posts after a celebrity death, the person who is actually devastated, the person who had a real connection to the deceased and is not performing but drowning, finds their grief indistinguishable from the display. Their signal disappears into the noise. The communal mourning that is supposed to support the bereaved instead competes with them, reducing a specific and irreplaceable loss to one post among thousands, all using the same photographs, the same phrases, the same hashtags.
This is the inversion of what the mother in the Newark cafe was describing. She said you go to the funeral. You show up. You put your name in the book. You sit in the pew. You bring food to the house afterward. The obligation is physical: you move your body to the place where the grief is, and your presence there is the message. Social media offers the simulation of this presence without the physical fact of it. You post. You perform the gesture. You do not move your body anywhere. You do not sit in an uncomfortable chair in a room that smells like flowers and floor polish. You do not look at the face of the bereaved and allow them to see that you came. You post, and the post is seen or not seen, liked or not liked, and it scrolls away, and the next post is about something else, and the grief has been acknowledged in the same medium and at the same depth as a restaurant recommendation.
Kenneth Doka coined the term “disenfranchised grief” to describe losses the culture refuses to recognize. The death of an ex-spouse. The death of a pet. The death of a patient if you are a nurse. The death of a public figure you never met but whose work was woven into the structure of your daily life. These are real losses producing real grief, and the culture’s refusal to recognize them does not dissolve the grief. It isolates the griever, who cannot bring their loss into the social spaces where grief is processed because the spaces will not admit it. The colleague who lost a dog cannot mention it at work. The fan grieving a musician cannot break down at dinner. A nurse whose patient died that morning cannot ask for a day off. The grief has no approved venue, no sanctioned expression, no communal witness. It persists alone.
What the book asks, across all six of its parts and all seventeen of its chapters, is what happens when you add all of this up. The suppression that begins in childhood and hardens along gendered lines. The workplace that contains it in three days. The diagnostic manual that pathologizes it at twelve months. The industry that monetizes it. The digital platform that simulates it. The disenfranchisement of entire categories of loss. What you get is a culture in which millions of people grieve alone, in private, without the communal infrastructure that every human society in history built to distribute the weight of death across many shoulders. The weight did not get lighter because the infrastructure was removed. The shoulders carrying it just got fewer.
The mother in the cafe knew this. She did not use these words. She did not cite the neuroscience or the sociology or the economics. She tapped the table and told her daughter to go to every funeral, and the instruction contained everything: that grief is communal, that the community is constituted by the people who show up, that presence is the oldest technology of mourning and still the most effective, and that the dead have no needs left, and the living have every need there is.
Go to every funeral. The book is available at BolesBooks.com as a free download, and on Amazon in Kindle ($9.99) and paperback ($15.99) editions.
#bolesBooks #celebration #cremation #culture #davidBoles #funeral #grief #grieving #history #limits #midwest #timeOff #treatment -
Cry Later: The Culture That Taught You Not to Grieve
The commands arrive early. They arrive in childhood, in the voices of parents and teachers and coaches and older relatives, and they are delivered with the same authority as instructions about traffic and hot stoves. Cry later. Hold it in. Do not show your emotions. Do not embarrass us. Be strong. Be brave. Be a man. There will be time for that later. Not here. Not now. Not in front of people.
These are grief suppressors. They are issued so routinely and across so many contexts that they have acquired the appearance of common sense. They are not common sense. They are commands to override a biological response that the body is producing for a reason. When a child is told not to cry at a funeral, the child is being told to suppress a neurochemical cascade that is already in progress. The cortisol is elevated, the amygdala has fired, and the body is doing what millions of years of evolution designed it to do when it registers the absence of an attachment figure. The command does not eliminate the response. It drives it underground, where it persists in forms the child cannot name and the adults will not recognize as grief when it resurfaces months or years later as insomnia, stomach pain, an inability to concentrate, a persistent anxiety with no identifiable source.
I have written a book about this. It is called “Go to Every Funeral: How Grief Defines the Living,” and it is published by David Boles Books Writing and Publishing, and the title comes from something I overheard in a cafe in Newark, New Jersey, about twenty-five years ago. A mother told her college-age daughter to go to every funeral, even if she did not want to, even if she did not know the dead person, because funerals are for the living and absence is remembered. I carried those six words for a quarter of a century, through the deaths of my grandmother, my grandfather, my mother, my mentor, two friends, and a cat who sat on my desk for fifteen years, and the book is the result of trying to understand why those words were true and why nobody else had ever said them to me.
The book covers a lot of ground: the neuroscience of grief, the mourning practices of elephants and crows, the history of funerals from the domestic parlor to the corporate funeral home, the economics of death as a market, the global range of mourning from the Torajan highlands to the jazz funerals of New Orleans. But the section I want to talk about here is Part Five, which is about permission. Specifically, about who gets to grieve and who gets told to stop.
The suppression commands are not distributed equally. They fall with particular weight on men, on children, on employees, and on anyone whose grief is judged to be inconvenient by the people around them. Boys are told not to cry with a frequency and an intensity that girls are not, and the instruction begins early enough that by adolescence many boys have internalized it so completely that they experience the suppression as personality rather than training. They do not cry because they are “not the kind of person who cries.” The self-description obscures the years of conditioning that produced it.
The consequences are visible in the data. Men die by suicide at rates roughly four times higher than women in the United States. They are less likely to seek mental health treatment, more likely to self-medicate with alcohol, more likely to convert emotional distress into physical aggression. These are not biological inevitabilities. They are the downstream effects of a culture that tells half its population to suppress the emotional responses the other half is permitted to express. The man who cannot cry at his father’s funeral because he was told, at age six, that men do not cry is not displaying strength. He is displaying the result of a training program that disconnected him from his own grief response, and the disconnection does not eliminate the grief. It makes the grief dangerous, because grief that cannot be expressed as grief will be expressed as something else.
The workplace runs on the same logic. The standard bereavement leave in the United States is three days for the death of an immediate family member. Three days. The body has not even begun to metabolize the cortisol surge in three days. The cognitive map has not begun to update. The neurological process of revising the brain’s internal model of the world, recognizing at the cellular level that the dead person is absent from every context in which they were expected, has barely started. And the employer expects you back at your desk, functioning, participating in meetings about quarterly targets while the fact that your mother is dead has not yet reached the parts of your brain that govern concentration.
Some companies offer five days. Some offer none. Some distinguish between the death of a spouse and the death of a parent and the death of a sibling, granting fewer days as the relationship moves outward from the nuclear center, as though the grief for a brother can be mathematically demonstrated to require less processing time than the grief for a child. The taxonomy of bereavement leave is a document written by human resources departments, and it tells the employee, in the plainest possible terms, how long their grief is permitted to inconvenience the organization.
Then there is the clinical manual. In 2022, prolonged grief disorder was added to the DSM-5-TR, giving clinicians a formal diagnostic category for grief that persists at debilitating intensity beyond twelve months. The addition was controversial among grief researchers, and the controversy is worth understanding, because it reveals how the medical establishment processes the same impulse that drives the workplace policy and the childhood command: the impulse to draw a line, to say that grief is acceptable on this side and pathological on the other, and to give the line the authority of science.
The proponents of the diagnosis argued that a subset of bereaved people, estimated at roughly ten percent, experience grief that does not follow the typical trajectory. The pain does not diminish over time. Functioning does not return. The preoccupation with the dead person remains so intense that it dominates waking life months and years after the death. These people need clinical help, and the diagnosis gives clinicians a framework for providing it, including the possibility of insurance reimbursement for treatment.
The opponents argued that pathologizing grief at twelve months imposes an arbitrary timeline on a process that has no natural expiration date. The twelve-month threshold was chosen because the clinical data showed it as a statistically significant inflection point, the point at which the probability of spontaneous recovery drops sharply. But statistical inflection points are not the same as biological boundaries. The griever at month thirteen is not clinically different from the griever at month eleven. The line exists because the diagnostic system requires lines, and the existence of the line communicates something to the broader culture: that grief beyond a year is officially a mental illness. The employer who was already impatient at three days now has clinical validation for the suspicion that the employee who is still struggling at fourteen months has something wrong with them.
The book argues that this entire apparatus, the childhood commands, the workplace policies, the diagnostic thresholds, is part of a single cultural project: the management of grief for the convenience of everyone except the griever. The child is told to stop because the adults are uncomfortable. The employee is expected back at the desk because the organization needs the labor. The patient receives a diagnosis because the clinical system requires categories. None of these interventions exists primarily to serve the person who is grieving. They exist to contain the grief, to keep it within boundaries that allow the surrounding systems to continue operating without interruption.
Meanwhile, the culture has produced a substitute for communal grief that is worse than the absence of communal grief. Social media has made performative mourning the default public response to death. When a public figure dies, the speed with which users post their condolences has become a measure of social attentiveness. The posts follow a formula: a photograph of the deceased, a statement of shock, a brief personal connection however thin, and a closing declaration of love and loss. The formula is so consistent it has been parodied, and the parodies have not slowed it down, because the function of the post is to perform belonging, to demonstrate that you are the kind of person who feels things, who notices when important people die, who participates in the rituals of the digital public square.
Some of the grief is sincere. The rest is performance, and the performance crowds out the reality. When the feeds are flooded with grief posts after a celebrity death, the person who is actually devastated, the person who had a real connection to the deceased and is not performing but drowning, finds their grief indistinguishable from the display. Their signal disappears into the noise. The communal mourning that is supposed to support the bereaved instead competes with them, reducing a specific and irreplaceable loss to one post among thousands, all using the same photographs, the same phrases, the same hashtags.
This is the inversion of what the mother in the Newark cafe was describing. She said you go to the funeral. You show up. You put your name in the book. You sit in the pew. You bring food to the house afterward. The obligation is physical: you move your body to the place where the grief is, and your presence there is the message. Social media offers the simulation of this presence without the physical fact of it. You post. You perform the gesture. You do not move your body anywhere. You do not sit in an uncomfortable chair in a room that smells like flowers and floor polish. You do not look at the face of the bereaved and allow them to see that you came. You post, and the post is seen or not seen, liked or not liked, and it scrolls away, and the next post is about something else, and the grief has been acknowledged in the same medium and at the same depth as a restaurant recommendation.
Kenneth Doka coined the term “disenfranchised grief” to describe losses the culture refuses to recognize. The death of an ex-spouse. The death of a pet. The death of a patient if you are a nurse. The death of a public figure you never met but whose work was woven into the structure of your daily life. These are real losses producing real grief, and the culture’s refusal to recognize them does not dissolve the grief. It isolates the griever, who cannot bring their loss into the social spaces where grief is processed because the spaces will not admit it. The colleague who lost a dog cannot mention it at work. The fan grieving a musician cannot break down at dinner. A nurse whose patient died that morning cannot ask for a day off. The grief has no approved venue, no sanctioned expression, no communal witness. It persists alone.
What the book asks, across all six of its parts and all seventeen of its chapters, is what happens when you add all of this up. The suppression that begins in childhood and hardens along gendered lines. The workplace that contains it in three days. The diagnostic manual that pathologizes it at twelve months. The industry that monetizes it. The digital platform that simulates it. The disenfranchisement of entire categories of loss. What you get is a culture in which millions of people grieve alone, in private, without the communal infrastructure that every human society in history built to distribute the weight of death across many shoulders. The weight did not get lighter because the infrastructure was removed. The shoulders carrying it just got fewer.
The mother in the cafe knew this. She did not use these words. She did not cite the neuroscience or the sociology or the economics. She tapped the table and told her daughter to go to every funeral, and the instruction contained everything: that grief is communal, that the community is constituted by the people who show up, that presence is the oldest technology of mourning and still the most effective, and that the dead have no needs left, and the living have every need there is.
Go to every funeral. The book is available at BolesBooks.com as a free download, and on Amazon in Kindle ($9.99) and paperback ($15.99) editions.
#bolesBooks #celebration #cremation #culture #davidBoles #funeral #grief #grieving #history #limits #midwest #timeOff #treatment -
Dear Lovely Peeps,
Not what I usually post, but I am thinking of a few of you right now.
For anyone who may need this, know I am wishing you a better morning and more light. 🕯️
The Longest Night
by Rabbi Rachel Barenblat
(aka The Velveteen Rabbi)We all tell ourselves stories
about grief to come.
Anticipating the dark
we think, how can I live
without the sun I turn toward?We wrest what gifts we can
from the dying days.One morning we wake
and the doorway we most dreaded
is behind us.The ice may not recede
for months to come
but day by day
may there be more light.#Light #Poetry #Hope #Solstice #Grief #Grieving #WinterSolstice #RabbiRachelBarenblat
-
Sorrow remembers us when day is done.
It sits in its old chair gently rocking
and singing tenderly in the evening…—Iain Crichton Smith, “When Day is Done”
published in DEER ON THE HIGH HILLS (Carcanet, 2021)https://www.carcanet.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9781800170940
#Scottish #literature #poem #poetry #20thcentury #IainCrichtonSmith #sorrow #grief #grieving
-
Sorrow remembers us when day is done.
It sits in its old chair gently rocking
and singing tenderly in the evening…—Iain Crichton Smith, “When Day is Done”
published in DEER ON THE HIGH HILLS (Carcanet, 2021)https://www.carcanet.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9781800170940
#Scottish #literature #poem #poetry #20thcentury #IainCrichtonSmith #sorrow #grief #grieving
-
Sorrow remembers us when day is done.
It sits in its old chair gently rocking
and singing tenderly in the evening…—Iain Crichton Smith, “When Day is Done”
published in DEER ON THE HIGH HILLS (Carcanet, 2021)https://www.carcanet.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9781800170940
#Scottish #literature #poem #poetry #20thcentury #IainCrichtonSmith #sorrow #grief #grieving
-
Sorrow remembers us when day is done.
It sits in its old chair gently rocking
and singing tenderly in the evening…—Iain Crichton Smith, “When Day is Done”
published in DEER ON THE HIGH HILLS (Carcanet, 2021)https://www.carcanet.co.uk/cgi-bin/indexer?product=9781800170940
#Scottish #literature #poem #poetry #20thcentury #IainCrichtonSmith #sorrow #grief #grieving
-
What You Left Behind...Comforting words for those dealing with loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/what-you-left-behind-sharon-cummings.html#grief #grieving #bereavement #sympathy #insympathy #condolence #condolences #death #dying #celebrationoflife #giftidea #giftideas #fedigiftshop #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #healingjourney #healing #loss #lossofalovedone
-
What You Left Behind...Comforting words for those dealing with loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/what-you-left-behind-sharon-cummings.html#grief #grieving #bereavement #sympathy #insympathy #condolence #condolences #death #dying #celebrationoflife #giftidea #giftideas #fedigiftshop #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #healingjourney #healing #loss #lossofalovedone
-
What You Left Behind...Comforting words for those dealing with loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/what-you-left-behind-sharon-cummings.html#grief #grieving #bereavement #sympathy #insympathy #condolence #condolences #death #dying #celebrationoflife #giftidea #giftideas #fedigiftshop #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #healingjourney #healing #loss #lossofalovedone
-
What You Left Behind...Comforting words for those dealing with loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/what-you-left-behind-sharon-cummings.html#grief #grieving #bereavement #sympathy #insympathy #condolence #condolences #death #dying #celebrationoflife #giftidea #giftideas #fedigiftshop #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #healingjourney #healing #loss #lossofalovedone
-
What You Left Behind...Comforting words for those dealing with loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/what-you-left-behind-sharon-cummings.html#grief #grieving #bereavement #sympathy #insympathy #condolence #condolences #death #dying #celebrationoflife #giftidea #giftideas #fedigiftshop #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #healingjourney #healing #loss #lossofalovedone
-
Traveling the World Getting One Million Hugs Helped Me Heal After Losing My Brother on 9/11
-
Lisa Riley's personal struggles from Emmerdale panic attacks to devastating health issue
-
More devastating news from Sri Lanka this time.
The elephants trying to rescue other animals make my heart melt.
I am so much in pain with the suffering I am reading about.
At least today I have a meeting with the other #climatecafes facilitators so I can share my pain with like-minded people.
-
A quotation from Edna St. Vincent Millay
And what are you that, missing you,
I should be kept awake
As many nights as there are days
With weeping for your sake?Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1950) American poet
Poem (1921-10-31), “The Philosopher,” st. 1, Ainslee’s Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 3More about this quote: wist.info/millay-edna-st-vince…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #millay #ednastvincentmillay #poetry #bereavement #craving #crying #grieving #longing #missing #mourning #pining #relationship #separation #sleeplessness #weeping #yearning
-
A quotation from Edna St. Vincent Millay
And what are you that, missing you,
I should be kept awake
As many nights as there are days
With weeping for your sake?Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1950) American poet
Poem (1921-10-31), “The Philosopher,” st. 1, Ainslee’s Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 3More about this quote: wist.info/millay-edna-st-vince…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #millay #ednastvincentmillay #poetry #bereavement #craving #crying #grieving #longing #missing #mourning #pining #relationship #separation #sleeplessness #weeping #yearning
-
A quotation from Edna St. Vincent Millay
And what are you that, missing you,
I should be kept awake
As many nights as there are days
With weeping for your sake?Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1950) American poet
Poem (1921-10-31), “The Philosopher,” st. 1, Ainslee’s Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 3More about this quote: wist.info/millay-edna-st-vince…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #millay #ednastvincentmillay #poetry #bereavement #craving #crying #grieving #longing #missing #mourning #pining #relationship #separation #sleeplessness #weeping #yearning
-
A quotation from Edna St. Vincent Millay
And what are you that, missing you,
I should be kept awake
As many nights as there are days
With weeping for your sake?Edna St. Vincent Millay (1892-1950) American poet
Poem (1921-10-31), “The Philosopher,” st. 1, Ainslee’s Magazine, Vol. 48, No. 3More about this quote: wist.info/millay-edna-st-vince…
#quote #quotes #quotation #qotd #millay #ednastvincentmillay #poetry #bereavement #craving #crying #grieving #longing #missing #mourning #pining #relationship #separation #sleeplessness #weeping #yearning
-
By Saunders
Forged from the ashes of the mighty Gridlink, Barren Path emerge from the blistered earth, hellbent on blazing a pathway of grinding destruction amid charred bursts of white-hot extremity. Legendary grind axeman Takafumi Matsubara overcame a career-threatening injury to shred once more, leading the way with fellow Gridlinker Bryan Fajardo (drums), along with bassist Mauro Cordoba and guitarist Rory Kobzina, who both featured on Gridlink’s swansong, Coronet Juniper (2023). Adding to Barren Path’s gold-plated grind pedigree is the addition of vocalist Mitchell Luna (Maruta, Shock Withdrawal). In classic grind fashion, Barren Path’s anticipated debut Grieving doesn’t simply blur the lines between what constitutes an EP or LP, but fucking obliterates them across a scant but deadly thirteen minutes of calculated brutality. Like any quality grind, you can bank on the brief runtime carrying over triple the intensity of your average metal album, making repeat listens an adrenaline-charged breeze.
Gridlink always carried an air of grace about them. Yes, grace and grind may seem disparate entities; however, through their gnarly, yet pristinely performed, razor-sharp precision, melodicism and technical edge, Gridlink stood out from the pack. The heavy Gridlink representation thankfully doesn’t come off as a simple continuation of their legacy in a different guise. Sure, the melodic sensibilities, technicality, whiplashing speed, and machine-gun blasts may share similarities with the Gridlink name, including the distinctive guitar work of Matsubara. Yet make no mistake, Grieving is its own unhinged beast and vital new dimension for its architects to expand from.
Barren Path tenderizes the predominant grind attack with a deathly thump, complemented by an altogether beefier production and sonic profile. The guttural vocal eruptions add a brutal, bulldozing death metal edge, offsetting the predominant piercing screams and higher-pitched variations. From the pummeling abuse, deadly drumwork, and full throttle urgency of opener “Whimpering Echo,” through to the climaxing barrage of assaulting, belligerent deathgrind on “In the End… The Gift is Death,” Barren Path leaves nothing in the tank, upholding an incredible level of precision savagery across the album’s brief yet gripping runtime. Operating with ruthless efficiency into its sub-minute framework, “Primordial Black” brims with uncontrollable energy, as rabid dual vox, breakneck thrashy tidbits, and frayed blackened edges shade the song’s brutal deathgrind delivery. Comparably longer cuts (“The Insufferable Weight,” “Relinquish,” “Horizonless”) allow extra time for Barren Path to unleash their action-packed battery of creative songwriting and infectious songcraft.
Occasional melodic motif or techy passage aside (such as the playful mid-section and spoken word incantations of “Isolation Wound”), little room is reserved for palette cleansing moments, or an Nasum-esque circuit breaker groove. This is not suggestive that Grieving is one-dimensional or lacking in structural variety. Barren Path’s clever knack for drop on a dime tempo and riff changes, and deceptively catchy writing keeps the listener firmly dialed in. Matsubara and Kobzina’s deadly axework and visceral array of sharp, dissonant, and often infectious deathgrind riffage powers Barren Path’s blistering attack. Meanwhile, Fajardo delivers a beastly, expert display of primo deathgrind drumming, a controlled collision of lightspeed rhythms, crafty finesse, and full-throttle aggression. Grieving is also blessed with a killer production job and dynamic master, avoiding the pitfalls that can hamper modern grind affairs when saddled with compressed, overly loud profiles. Abrasive and relentless in execution, the sound is a burly, organic delight, keeping ear fatigue at bay and maintaining an air of clarity and sharpness without diluting Barren Path’s brutish traits.
Drawbacks are few and far between. As touched on, the short runtime leaves you hankering for more, and I’m curious to see how Barren Path develop their sound and perhaps expand upon the prominent death influence and hyperspeed thrash elements on future endeavors. Barren Path emerges from Gridlink’s formidable shadow to unleash a teeth-gnashing, refreshing debut, using their death-plated grind as a catalyst for carving through exciting fresh pastures. Though guilty of leaving the listener wanting more, the addictive replay value and quality songcraft largely fill the void of feeling marginally shortchanged. Barren Path’s violent attack, colorful chemistry, and precision, technical musicianship leave displaced jaws on the floor with the sheer intensity and locked-in tightness. Grieving is top-tier grind to batter the senses and soothe the mind.
Rating: 4.0/5.0
DR: 8 | Format Reviewed: 320 kbps MP3
Label: Willowtip Records
Websites: Bandcamp | Facebook
Releases Worldwide: October 21st, 2025#40 #BarrenPath #Deathgrind #Gridlink #Grieving #Grindcore #JapaneseMetal #Maruta #Nasum #Review #Reviews #ShockWithdrawal #WillowtipRecords
-
The Rainbow Bridge For All Dogs. A contemporary version that is gender neutral.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-rainbow-bridge-dogs-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #doggies #puppy #puppies #puppylove #rainbowbridge #therainbowbridge #dogmemorial #dogsarefamily #doglovers #doglover #grief #grieving #sympathy #sympathygift #sympathycard #bereavement #condolence #condolences #pets #pet #canine #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #fedigiftshop
-
The Rainbow Bridge For All Dogs. A contemporary version that is gender neutral.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-rainbow-bridge-dogs-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #doggies #puppy #puppies #puppylove #rainbowbridge #therainbowbridge #dogmemorial #dogsarefamily #doglovers #doglover #grief #grieving #sympathy #sympathygift #sympathycard #bereavement #condolence #condolences #pets #pet #canine #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #fedigiftshop
-
The Rainbow Bridge For All Dogs. A contemporary version that is gender neutral.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-rainbow-bridge-dogs-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #doggies #puppy #puppies #puppylove #rainbowbridge #therainbowbridge #dogmemorial #dogsarefamily #doglovers #doglover #grief #grieving #sympathy #sympathygift #sympathycard #bereavement #condolence #condolences #pets #pet #canine #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #fedigiftshop
-
The Rainbow Bridge For All Dogs. A contemporary version that is gender neutral.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-rainbow-bridge-dogs-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #doggies #puppy #puppies #puppylove #rainbowbridge #therainbowbridge #dogmemorial #dogsarefamily #doglovers #doglover #grief #grieving #sympathy #sympathygift #sympathycard #bereavement #condolence #condolences #pets #pet #canine #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #fedigiftshop
-
The Rainbow Bridge For All Dogs. A contemporary version that is gender neutral.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/the-rainbow-bridge-dogs-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #doggies #puppy #puppies #puppylove #rainbowbridge #therainbowbridge #dogmemorial #dogsarefamily #doglovers #doglover #grief #grieving #sympathy #sympathygift #sympathycard #bereavement #condolence #condolences #pets #pet #canine #SharonCummingsArt #buyintoart #fedigiftshop
-
I am humbled and honored to be a part of so many people's grief healing journey. This was one of my first...
#comfort #loss #lossofalovedone #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #rip #death #healingjourney #healing #support #greetingcard #greetingcards #card #cards #gifts #giftideas #SharonCummingsArt #wordsofcomfort #comfortforloss #lossandgrief #SympathyGift #sympathycard #bereavementgifts #bereavementcards
-
I am humbled and honored to be a part of so many people's grief healing journey. This was one of my first...
#comfort #loss #lossofalovedone #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #rip #death #healingjourney #healing #support #greetingcard #greetingcards #card #cards #gifts #giftideas #SharonCummingsArt #wordsofcomfort #comfortforloss #lossandgrief #SympathyGift #sympathycard #bereavementgifts #bereavementcards
-
I am humbled and honored to be a part of so many people's grief healing journey. This was one of my first...
#comfort #loss #lossofalovedone #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #rip #death #healingjourney #healing #support #greetingcard #greetingcards #card #cards #gifts #giftideas #SharonCummingsArt #wordsofcomfort #comfortforloss #lossandgrief #SympathyGift #sympathycard #bereavementgifts #bereavementcards
-
I am humbled and honored to be a part of so many people's grief healing journey. This was one of my first...
#comfort #loss #lossofalovedone #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #rip #death #healingjourney #healing #support #greetingcard #greetingcards #card #cards #gifts #giftideas #SharonCummingsArt #wordsofcomfort #comfortforloss #lossandgrief #SympathyGift #sympathycard #bereavementgifts #bereavementcards
-
I am humbled and honored to be a part of so many people's grief healing journey. This was one of my first...
#comfort #loss #lossofalovedone #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #rip #death #healingjourney #healing #support #greetingcard #greetingcards #card #cards #gifts #giftideas #SharonCummingsArt #wordsofcomfort #comfortforloss #lossandgrief #SympathyGift #sympathycard #bereavementgifts #bereavementcards
-
I have always been called to grief work. Having lost my Dad, Uncle and Grandma all before age 13 and many more since, I know a bit about needing comfort.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/their-love-still-shines-on-girl-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #fediart #mastoart #grief #grieving #comfort #comforting #fedigiftshop #handmadeart #handmade #sympathy #bereavement #condolence #condolences #greetingcard #greetingcards #loss #lossofalovedone #death #sadness #healing #hope #SharonCummingsArt #gift #gifts #children #child #celebrationoflife #funeral
-
Sweet Memories Of Us...Because we all experience loss.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/sweet-memories-of-us-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #handmade #handmadeart #colorful #feathers #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #greetingcard #greetingcards #fedigiftshop #mastoart #fediart #berevement #loss #death #celebrationoflife #poetry #poem #sadness #sorrow #memorial #remembrance #SharonCummingsArt #healing #healingjourney #comfort #peace
-
There has been a lot of grieving in our home lately...beloved dog...Uncle...A friend. I try to bring comfort to myself and others through my art.
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/loving-branches-remembrance-art-sharon-cummings.html#art #artwork #handmade #handmadeart #colorful #tree #trees #grief #grieving #sympathy #insympathy #greetingcard #greetingcards #fedigiftshop #mastoart #fediart #berevement #loss #death #celebrationoflife #poetry #poem #sadness #sorrow #memorial #remembrance #SharonCummingsArt #healing #healingjourney #comfort #peace
-
Never Forgotten
ART
https://fineartamerica.com/featured/never-forgotten-lll-dog-memorial-art-sharon-cummings.html#dog #dogs #dogmom #dogdad #dogart #doggies #woof #doglover #doglovers #dogmemorial #dogloff #doggrief #grieving #grief #memorial #pets #pet #canine #puppy #puppylove #puppies #giftideas #fedigfitshop #fediart #mastoart #art #artwork #handmade #handmadeart #animals #SharonCummings #buyintoart
