markm reviewed The Poisoner's Handbook by Deborah Blum
Review of "The Poisoner's Handbook" on 'Goodreads'
2 stars
This book is a few different things. It is more or less organized by certain early 20th-century true crime events, but it also sort of tells the story of the first Manhattan forensic pathologist at Bellevue, Charles Norris and a chemist name Alexander Gettler who worked with him, it is sort of a lay survey of forensic toxicology, and it is has asides about various aspects of contemporary New York and US history e.g., What was the Black Hand society?
I am a retired pathologist and this description should have indicated a book that was written for me, but the problems are these: The book’s various aspects are jumbled and disorganized. There is repetition. The crime descriptions sort of fade away, the topic changes, and I wondered what happened. The book is written in an informal manner, and this informality seems to be an attempt to highlight some gruesome aspect …
This book is a few different things. It is more or less organized by certain early 20th-century true crime events, but it also sort of tells the story of the first Manhattan forensic pathologist at Bellevue, Charles Norris and a chemist name Alexander Gettler who worked with him, it is sort of a lay survey of forensic toxicology, and it is has asides about various aspects of contemporary New York and US history e.g., What was the Black Hand society?
I am a retired pathologist and this description should have indicated a book that was written for me, but the problems are these: The book’s various aspects are jumbled and disorganized. There is repetition. The crime descriptions sort of fade away, the topic changes, and I wondered what happened. The book is written in an informal manner, and this informality seems to be an attempt to highlight some gruesome aspect of the descriptions. The author’s sources are largely newspaper articles and Norris and Gettler’s research papers. The papers are summarized using various lay terms that are sometimes inaccurate. So, I was frequently irritated, but there is a great deal of interesting information here and I think many readers might be able to get more out of it than I could.
The author uses colorful names for chemical mixtures, dark, gelatinous ooze,he then steamed his ooze, slurry of tissue, a bubbling mess.
Pathological descriptions have been changed and are misleading, organs are described as appearing chewed, kidneys are dribbled with blood. Jargon terms are used for a reason and it is usually best to define them rather than swapping them out.
The old weight measure of a grain is used without explanation.
Findings at a graveyard are referred to as carnage.
The author uses the old term ptomaine which was a popular theory at the time but is now known to be fallacious and shouldn’t be used without explanation.