I am compiling a collection of articles about deaths from local newspapers. These will be placed in a book I’m working on for my local historical society. To me, it’s a really interesting way to see how our area has changed. How things like industrial and domestic dangers evolved and how things like suicide seem to be an ever present problem.
For those of you who write about morbid topics, how do you reconcile with rehashing and putting the details of the worst moments of peoples’ lives on paper?
I am starting to get worried about offending people by presenting the deaths of children or especially sad events.
I’m having a hard time with this lately. I’ve been working on it for almost a year, and it was solely my idea and project. Maybe it’s the state of the world at the moment, but I just feel bad for these people. And hope I’m not doing a disservice to them or their families by publishing this. Especially since I’m just compiling the articles and they can get graphic.
There are some things I’m doing to try to be respectful of the people in the book. I will be at 1920. I will not be going any closer to the present than this. I do not want to write about someone people knew. I don’t want to write about someone’s child or sibling or parent.
I am also looking up biographical information on each person. I have decided to include a small amount of biographical information that can reliably find for each person represented. DOB, burial, and any fun facts I can find. Each person is researched.
All money made from the book will be made directly by the historical society so I am not profiting in any way.
Assuming I understand your model, if you have one paragraph or article per person, based on newspaper obits and the like from the 19th c., you could end up with a long series of repetitive obituaries, with phrases like "called home to be with the Lord" "Residing now with Jesus" " rejoicing in heaven with her dear father and mother", etc. over and over and over again, like a grim drumbeat. But that's only a problem if people read it like you've written it, cover to cover. Most will likely try to look up family members, or browse a bit. So, you may be one of the few bothered by this.
However, though compilation is very useful for its own sake, you might step back a bit for a wider view, at least in an introduction. Make a list of questions you'd want to ask about all these people, and then figure out if any of them could be answered. Look for patterns, rhythms There could be a lot of interest there: things like, say: "of the 132 couples listed as losing a wife or husband, in 75% the wife outlived the husband if both were over 40, but in 54% of younger couples it was the wife who'd died" And you should not be afraid to have a sense of humor, like " of obituaries describing heaven as a destination, 28 listed the deceased as being in the arms of their loved ones and 41 listed the deceased as rejoicing. But only 12 listed the deceased as being both in the arms of their loved ones and rejoicing, which might indicate that at least some previous lives on earth with the loved ones were not necessarily happy".
And, yes, huge, out-sized confidence in a project is often a sign of trouble, There are a fair number of people here I'm sure who could sympathize if you're feeling buried ( oops) by your project....what were you ever thinking in taking it on...what a silly idea. Paul Tillich perhaps would have said you need to summon the courage to live with your nagging doubts, and think about them. Having someone to take a look at the text and make good suggestions is always handy, but not as easy right now.. One simple trick for problem solving in isolation is the Rubber Duck debugging invented by software developers. . Get a toy ( doesn't have to be a rubber duck) and put it on your desk/workstation. When something isn't working, read what you've written to the toy, and explain to it what you're trying to do. A solution may appear to you , mid-narration.