Customer Reviews

The Truth About Grief

5 star:		(11)
4 star:		(3)
3 star:		(3)
2 star:		(1)
1 star:		(7)

 

 

If I had to pick one book which should be at the top of anyone's list, I confess that one book would be the stellar " The Year of Magical Thinking", a very raw and heartfelt memoir (one noted - and not positively - in "The Truth About Grief.") But I'd still recommend "The Truth About Grief", a very different book which offers a range of perspectives about grief and how it is handled. Taken together, the two books could provide comfort and some measure of relief for the inevitable pain that accompanies deep loss. Readers will have to decide which book resonates most deeply. Also, "The Truth About Grief" explores the way books like "The Year of Magical Thinking" could be unhelpful and lead to prolonged pain for readers - although I disagree. Each person's grief is unique.

Why do I recommend both books? Mainly because "The Year of Magical Thinking" is a memoir where the pain is almost palpable while "The Truth About Grief" explores the various methods and beliefs about how to tackle the very difficult task of grieving a deep loss, with an emphasis on resilience and not falling prey to therapeutic and other methods which may worsen things.. My only reservation about the "The Truth About Grief" is the emphasis on a specific and relatively short stage of mourning as being normal, although the author does note that some feel losses deeply or can end up in an abnormal melancholic state that persists longer than usual. For those who simply grieve for more than a year, the book could make some readers feel abnormal.

While I agree that humans can be far more resilient than they believe, the way one approaches grief is affected by many variables, including personality, background experiences, and the way parents taught children how to handle loss and setbacks. Not everyone is prepared to accept loss as well as others and mourning can last for years in some cases. Is this wrong? Is it dysfunctional? Perhaps not - for that person.

The author has researched the various techniques and resources for help which are out there. This could be very helpful to readers. She also attacks the "five stage" theory of grieving and leaves room for more individuality about the whole grief process. In the end, the book falls on the side of hope and emphasizes that grief can lessen - if one hangs in there.

Konigsberg's book would have been well-timed if it had only been published 40 years ago in the early years after the publication of what she calls Kubler-Ross' "seminal work." While she is right that the journalism field, of which she is well-known member has kept the "5-stages" alive these four decades, most professionals in the bereavement caregiving field have long-since departed from the theory as anything more than a relic of history.

Even if encountering the theory in training, professional counselors like myself, learn pretty early in our careers working with bereaved people that Kubler-Ross' model is woefully inadequate. The news flash is that it has taken so long for the mainstream media to catch on to what we've all been saying!

Bereavement is a multi-dimmensional and multi-determined phenomenon subject to many, many personal, cultural and spiritual factors, a fact made amply clear by most of the theories published in the first decade after Kubler-Ross' 1969 book. Now that a journalist has said it, perhaps the media will catch up to the current thinking in our field instead of quoting a theory that is more than four decades old!

THE TRUTH ABOUT GRIEF is a welcome next "stage" to our growing understanding of death, dying, and all it entails. Being of a "certain" age, I had the opportunity to work with Dr Kubler-Ross during the early years of my clinical training. She would have welcomed this book with open arms as she never considered her work to be the final word. Rather, as a scientist, she understood the evolution of knowledge and our understanding of such complex human mysteries. In the 1980s & 1990s, a large part of my practice was focused on death, dying, & grief. I welcome THE TRUTH ABOUT GRIEF and recommend it highly.

It's about time that someone--the right someone--took a fresh look at Kubler-Ross's now-famous theory of grieving, and Ruth Davis Koeninsberg has the verve, the brains, and the writing skill to more than pull this off. Like so many others, I'd heard of Kubler-Ross and her work (without actually reading it) so often that I could rattle off the five stages by heart; I too had come to assume that what was in reality an educated guess was more or less the truth. Only when I went through my own first experience of intense grief at the death of my mother a few years ago did I begin to wonder: Grieving, like parenting, was the opposite of a predictable process. Although I searched in vain for something rich and rewarding and eye-opening and comforting but not Kubler-Ross-ish to read about what I was going through, thanks to Koeningsberg you won't have to.

When Ruth Davis Konigsberg called me to discuss an article I published 27 years ago in an academic journal, I found her to be a pleasant professional, asking insightful questions. Imagine my surprise when I read her book, The Truth about Grief, to find she missed the point of the article, who I was, and how my work related to the Widow-to-Widow program. When she noted my reference to "professionals" as an undeserved title for widows acting as group leaders, I realized she had no idea that in the 1980's, there were counselors, psychologist, and social workers, trained in grief counseling, running grief support groups. As I glanced through the rest of her book, I was appalled by her lack of research, lack of integrated ideas, even lack of adequate writing style.

While a competent author could have contributed something important to the study of grief and loss, Davis Konigsberg's book is little more than an exercise in hubris. I join Jennelle and Psychologist, two other reviewers warning this book could be harmful and dangerous. You need not worry about those with expertise in grief, for they will quickly dismiss this work. Be sure, however, that you tell those in grief to stay away.

This book is very harmful and represents yellow journalism at its height. The author has made up her mind and don't confuse her with facts. First, she fails to recognize that Kubler-Ross developed the five stages for dying individuals, not people who were grieving a death that already occurred. So, she isn't even in the proper ballpark. Second, she apparently fails to recognize that up-to-date professionals long ago concluded that the stages were inaccurate and proven to be untrue when subjected to research (although they are useful for explaining some reactions people undergo), and that the "myth" is well-recognized as such by any counselor with any degree of experience with the bereaved. In essence, this is "old news" to professionals and proof of that can be found in the literature. Third, to make it seem that she is blazing trails, she looks at only some of the outcome research she supposedly is trying to objectively investigate. Here is where she is a damaging person: She correctly reports on the part of the research that concludes that many people don't need professional assistance with their grief, while disregarding repeated conclusions that find treatment is quite effective (and often very necessary) for persons suffering from what's considered complicated grief - often due to sudden and traumatic losses of loved ones or for those whose grief has either evolved into what's known as prolonged grief disorder (severe and unremitting grief) or illnesses such as major depression. This "little" detail she omits (among numerous others) is absolutely crucial and one must ask why. The author is too busy promoting herself as a journalist revealing hidden truths that she consistently and egregiously fails to mention any of the substantial data that illustrate she has taken the research out of context and has misrepresented (always in the negative direction, in a derisive fashion and with scorn) the actions and purposes of many. Indeed, one of the professionals she interviewed for the book has been making numerous public efforts to point out how she has misrepresented him and his work, twisting it in ways to further her own agenda. Numerous others mentioned in her book have identified themselves as having been misquoted or that their work has been significantly distorted in order to make the author's case.

The author demonstrates such lack of journalistic responsibility repeatedly throughout the book that it would be laughable to do anything but call it a massive attempt to build a reputation for herself by setting up false scenarios and then knocking them down. The problem is that this is cruel to bereaved people who have it hard enough. They don't need to have their pain worsened by someone like this author who, apparently in order to sell books, has spun the truth by telling grievers lies about what legitimate research has found. I have heard bereaved people assert that she has "put salt in my wound" by writing such an inaccurate book. If others believe her, these grievers will be pathologized and that is wrong. Clearly, she has the right to publish whatever she wants; one would have hoped that she'd have had the morality and decency to insure that what she published was true.

For this reason, I feel this book is dangerous because of what the author's distortion of the facts does to people already hurting. If you want to read an honest critique regarding current thought about bereavement, read George Bonanno's "The Other Side Of Sadness." He is a social scientist and represents the literature accurately. He stresses that we must not overlook that many people are resilient after bereavement and won't follow certain stereotypical expectations, but then also addresses those who do need assistance and identifies this group. (See, this proves a good author can have one point of view and not have to discount others by mischaracterizing them like this author does.) You may or may not agree with Bonanno, but he is tackling the subject honestly and is armed with fact, something that is sadly and cruelly missing from this book.

Please don't hurt yourself, or anyone you care about who is grieving, by believing that this book is anything but shameless self-promotion, couched in some supposedly altruistic desire to get at the "truth," but actually written in utter disregard for those who are wounded and need the help of professionals. This is a very harmful book under the guise of trying to be a helpful one!

I was disappointed in this book. This author makes sweeping, inaccurate and misleading assumptions with her own "cafeteria style" research surrounding the complex physical, emotional, social, behaviorial, and psychological phenomenon we call grief. Grief is a complex "process" and author claims to let public in on the hidden truth that, "grief isn't all that bad," and that "people get over grief on their own." Yet, this author has yet to experience the death of a significant person in her life. Now, I am not suggesting that those who have experienced loss need to go running into therapy, but I am suggesting that those who have lost loved ones need the care, understanding, and support of those around them for the "long haul." If you are looking to understand your reaction to loss or wanting to help someone else who has experienced the death of a loved one, look elsewhere. This book will confuse you and cause inappropriate expectations. Author needs to go back to writing glamour magazines and leave the science of death and art of death education to ADEC, Universities, Research Institutes, Psychologists, Thanatologists, and Professional Counselors.

I was looking forward to this book, but must say it has been disappointing. I appreciate the author's history of grief on a personal and political stage, but feel the focus of the book should not be mainly on spousal loss. There are many forms of loss. I agree that resilience is a main focus for those who grieve "less complicated" than others, but the suggestion that losing a husband takes more of an adjustment than losing a child appalled me. She refers to a psychology professor who states that spousal loss requires "more restructuring" than that of the death of a child and is more "globally stressful." Also, the suggestion that the death of an older, adult child causes more persistent grief than that of a young child? I would challenge that on many levels. What is the best form of child loss???

I would have liked more information on different types of grieving. Also, I agree that the market is flooded with "grief counselors" and many are sub par in the field, but an excellent grief counselor can help through murky waters, at least to understand the process so one does not feel so alone. I am still a believer in Kubler-Ross. Thus, the book left me with disappointment.

I grew up in a funeral service family and have worked as a funeral director for the past 20 years. Along the way I have seen the ever increasing prominence of grief related "stuff" in our industry. At the same time, I have often wondered about the need and efficacy of it all.

Along with the recent writing of George Bonnano, I am grateful to have someone put our expanded grief industry into perspective. I have found myself wondering if the focus had become overwrought and Konigsberg shines a clear light on the social trends and well meaning but often misguided practitioners who have inflated grieving into an experience that everyone must suffer through, when in reality only a minority of people will struggle with a prolonged and difficult grief recovery.

Her writing is clear, and thankfully she has enough current research to work from, so that Kubler-Ross's proclamations can be put into perspective. I think the world needs to hear these things and Konigsberg spells out the realities quite clearly.

Which is not to say that grieving is a small thing or that it does not plague anyone. The research is also clear that for some people, about 15% or so, grieving will require serious counseling and mental health support.

So practitioners need to understand the differences. Just because some people need intensive support, it does not mean that everyone should have to shoulder the burden of grief "work" as some would describe it. For many, time and a little family TLC is all that someone really needs. I'm glad that Ruth Konigsberg is out there helping to clear up the misconceptions.

NOTE: I received a free copy of this book to review for the web site Metapsychology Online Reviews.

I first became interested in this book after reading an excerpt in TIME magazine. Although I am a psychologist, if I hear of a tragedy involving a death, I tend to cringe as I prepare for the requisite statement which has come to follow: "grief counselors are available." Given my profession, this may sound odd, but I have always seen this knee-jerk response as over-pathologizing the mourning process. Immediate offering treatment to everyone encourages the assumption that people need therapy to work through their grief instead of promoting the idea that bereavement is a common human occurrence from which most people recover naturally, without intervention.

Initially, The Truth About Grief: The Myth of Its Five Stages and the New Science of Loss seemed to exactly encapsulate all of my thoughts on the subject of grief and mourning. Author Ruth Davis Konigsberg (a journalist, not a mental health professional) focuses in particular on grief guru Elizabeth Kübler-Ross's five stages of grief, which debuted in the 1969 book On Death and Dying. As Konigsberg explains, Kübler-Ross intended these stages to apply to how individuals face their own death (i.e., in the case of terminal illness), not how they mourn the loss of others--although Kübler-Ross never particularly objected to this expansion of her theory, either.

Konigsberg makes several noteworthy points about how the expression of grief has become more public through the years. More specifically, mourning customs first expanded during the Victorian era, were forced to become more private with the onset of World War I, but eventually went public again in the 1960s due to several major assassinations and finally, the publication of Kübler-Ross's On Death and Dying. As Konigsberg points out, none of the stage theories of grief (there have been several to follow Kübler-Ross) have been supported by research. She also effectively demonstrates that many of the various assumptions associated with grief--for example, that there is no end to the mourning process, that woman and men grieve differently, and that grief is the same around the world--are basically unproven stereotypes.

Although I concurred with all of these assertions, as I continued reading, I sensed an edge to Konigsberg's writing. Her review of Kübler-Ross's life not only seemed unnecessary to this book but also felt like a personal attack; she describes Kübler-Ross as "stubborn and combative" (p. 88) and insinuates that Kübler-Ross stole her stage theory from an unknown psychologist BZ Cobb. Similarly, Konigsberg's attitude towards those in the field of "grief counseling" is so obviously disapproving that she takes a derisive tone at times--even towards one of the most respected, influential researchers in the field of psychology, Martin Seligman.

In her Afterward, Konigsberg shares her belief that our culture has created more anxiety and fear about the experience of grief than is necessary. She notes that it was her goal to show her readers that majority people are resilient and thus able to get through the experience of loss on their own. Again, I am in complete agreement with Konigsberg here. But ultimately, I believe that her book goes too far in the opposite direction in that it may actually dissuade those who need it from seeking help. After emphasizing the nature of human resilience, Konigsberg goes on to say "most of us will just have to find our own way" (p. 198; emphasis mine). This is exactly the type of attitude that those of us in the mental health profession have struggled against for years--i.e., people who truly are in the need of help wind up receiving the societal message that they should just "buck up" (or, in Konigsberg's words, "find [their] own way").

Yes, people are resilient; Konigsberg is correct that we should work harder to disseminate this information while moving away from a more pathological view of grief. But at the same time, it is just as important not to discourage people from seeking psychotherapy--including both those with diagnosable mental health conditions and those seeking therapy simply because they want help. The ultimate evidence of this is found within Konigsberg's own book: one of her chief case examples of resilience is Sarah, a young woman and new mother whose husband was killed in by a drunk driver. Although Sarah eventually remarried, a year after the death of her husband, she went to see a psychologist specializing in trauma, and she credited her weekly therapy sessions (along with a combination of alternative treatment approaches) for leading her back to "relatively normal behavior" (p. 200). In the end, Konigsberg does her readers a disservice by de-emphasizing--and perhaps even dismissing--observations such as this one.