Yeah you're right, I probably shouldn't read this. Now, I don't mind fantasy or scifi. I mostly have no problems accepting things that don't exist or can't happen in real life. I'm in the middle of writing a fantasy epic, FFS. But what got me is that the book was praised for science and objectivism when what I thought was the stated premise...that Joanna is dead and buried yet her brain manages to work...is unsupported by research. (And also the fact that drug-induced and naturally-occuring NDEs, while sharing some aspects, have a totally different set of circumstances, but a lot of people try to shoehorn them together.) If that premise is interpretation only, and looking at it from the context of science fiction, then sensical/nonsensical isn't even an issue, and I'm sorry if I insulted you with "nonsensical", since I thought "Joanna's dead but her brain lives" was Willis's premise that she was trying to assert from a scientific angle. In other words, I thought I was knocking the book for sloppy research.
2007, by the way, is when the site was last updated. There's research on there going back to 1975, when Raymond Moody first really pioneered NDE study. Though Dr. van Lommel's study came out in 2004 (I think?), so Willis wouldn't have had access to that, obviously. Shame you're not interested in it; it's fascinating stuff.
Oh, and I deleted that post because I hadn't read the full review yet.
No, Willis isn't asserting that the brain still lives after death (that was one of the things I wondered if she was trying to imply, but that's me), and one of the other commenters who's read this book mentioned that Joanna's experience when she dies, her NDE, is purposefully vague as far as the timeline goes, and that's a great way to look at it.
And Willis did her research. When I got to work and had a little time, I did a little research of my own and found where Willis got the seed for her story.
In the 1990s, Dr. Rick Strassman conducted research on the psychedelic drug Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) at the University of New Mexico. Strassman advanced the theory that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death or near-death was the cause of the near-death experience phenomenon. Only two of his test subjects reported NDE-like aural or visual hallucinations, although many reported feeling as though they had entered a state similar to the classical NDE. His explanation for this was the possible lack of panic involved in the clinical setting and possible dosage differences between those administered and those encountered in actual NDE cases.
I pulled that from Wikipedia (not the most reliable of resources, I know, but good when you want a down and dirty overview). One of the points of Wright's experiment in the book is to manufacture an NDE-like experience with the hopes that they may find a biological cause for it. They all know that it's not a REAL NDE, a point that's brought up often in the book (by Mr. Mandrake).
But my brief overview at work told me that Willis definitely did her research. I'm not sold on Shabom or Pam Reynolds either, because this book taught me an important thing about the recording of real NDE's and how easy it is to--intentionally or not--put words in peoples' mouths. Granted, I'm not as well-researched as you, but I can see why Willis may have ignored this particular study when she wrote her book.
It's actually a really good, interesting read. How interesting it would be to you would probably vary, but now that I think about it, it may not hurt for you to track the book down in your local library and give it a go, just so you can see the angle Willis approaches her topic. Like I said, the book's about more than NDE, but about life and death (duh) and symbolism and all kinds of things. Well done story, so if you find yourself curious, give it a go. From an intellectual standpoint, you might have fun comparing what you know to what Willis uses and what she conjectures. :)
One quick thing: if you're interested in Willis's work but don't feel PASSAGE is the best one to start with given your own research, I'd highly recommend DOOMSDAY BOOK. It's a beautiful story about time travel, spirituality, and of course, humanity. Highly recommended. :)
2007, by the way, is when the site was last updated. There's research on there going back to 1975, when Raymond Moody first really pioneered NDE study. Though Dr. van Lommel's study came out in 2004 (I think?), so Willis wouldn't have had access to that, obviously. Shame you're not interested in it; it's fascinating stuff.
Oh, and I deleted that post because I hadn't read the full review yet.
Reply
And Willis did her research. When I got to work and had a little time, I did a little research of my own and found where Willis got the seed for her story.
In the 1990s, Dr. Rick Strassman conducted research on the psychedelic drug Dimethyltryptamine (DMT) at the University of New Mexico. Strassman advanced the theory that a massive release of DMT from the pineal gland prior to death or near-death was the cause of the near-death experience phenomenon. Only two of his test subjects reported NDE-like aural or visual hallucinations, although many reported feeling as though they had entered a state similar to the classical NDE. His explanation for this was the possible lack of panic involved in the clinical setting and possible dosage differences between those administered and those encountered in actual NDE cases.
I pulled that from Wikipedia (not the most reliable of resources, I know, but good when you want a down and dirty overview). One of the points of Wright's experiment in the book is to manufacture an NDE-like experience with the hopes that they may find a biological cause for it. They all know that it's not a REAL NDE, a point that's brought up often in the book (by Mr. Mandrake).
But my brief overview at work told me that Willis definitely did her research. I'm not sold on Shabom or Pam Reynolds either, because this book taught me an important thing about the recording of real NDE's and how easy it is to--intentionally or not--put words in peoples' mouths. Granted, I'm not as well-researched as you, but I can see why Willis may have ignored this particular study when she wrote her book.
It's actually a really good, interesting read. How interesting it would be to you would probably vary, but now that I think about it, it may not hurt for you to track the book down in your local library and give it a go, just so you can see the angle Willis approaches her topic. Like I said, the book's about more than NDE, but about life and death (duh) and symbolism and all kinds of things. Well done story, so if you find yourself curious, give it a go. From an intellectual standpoint, you might have fun comparing what you know to what Willis uses and what she conjectures. :)
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment