“Science does not answer “why” questions it answers “how” questions.” [1] Didion wondered why she suffered the emotions she suffered. She delved into the etiology of grief emotions, while neuroscientist like Panksepp study the pathogenesis. Didion suffers the sudden death of her husband accompanied by the illness of her daughter. These are traumatic and shocking moments for any human being. She did what was only natural for herself and sought the truth through investigation. I imagine as a writer she probably kept personal journals with notes regularly, so it was a natural response. The journey led to a masterpiece of narrative and literary techniques to tell a story about a very complex topic. I intend to analyze Didion’s etiological take on her emotions and compare it to the neuroscientific pathogenesis of her primal emotions. …show more content…
She points out that grief is a medical treatment. She goes on to point out that society has started to view grief as normal. She viewed the obituaries for John as a failure on her part because in her mind she had not accepted that he was dead. “I was thinking as small children think, as if my thoughts or wishes had the power to reverse the narrative.” [2] Didion documents the narrative of her emotions. She desperately wants to change the story, but that is not how journalism works. Writers cannot change the narrative. “We are imperfect mortal beings, aware of that mortality even as we push it away, failed by our very complication, so wired that when we mourn our losses we also mourn, for better or for worse, ourselves. as we were. as we are no longer. as we will one day not be at all.” [2] This screams Burkes definition of man. Didion realizes that grief is a self-stimulating emotion. People go through the cycle searching for