THE NATURE OF LIFE AND DEATH :: Patricia Wiltshire

A version of this review previously appeared in Shelf Awareness and is republished here with permission.

Depending on one's perspective, there are few nicknames greater than "the snot lady," the sobriquet earned by Welsh forensic ecologist Patricia Wiltshire for developing a method to obtain pollen particles from the nasal cavities of the dead. In The Nature of Life and Death, Wiltshire describes that method in terrific detail, part and parcel of her 45-year career studying the world of plants and, since the early 1990s, helping the police solve crimes through ecological trace evidence (pollen, fungal spores, soil, etc.) taken and left behind by victims and perpetrators.

Along with her practical history and pioneering of her profession, Wiltshire walks readers through numerous case studies recounting how her work helped locate a murder victim's body or linked a suspect to a crime. Those interested in plant and animal sciences or forensics will be particularly rapt at the microscopic levels of proof Wiltshire obtains.

Even as she writes for a broad audience, Wiltshire comes across as enigmatic as her subject matter. She writes from a self-centered but somewhat aloof point of view and in a straightforward manner befitting a lecturer. Wiltshire is under no obligation to share herself; her credentials and the case studies speak for themselves. Yet, at the three-quarter mark, she unexpectedly shows her animal-loving side and "explains" her "arrogance." Her disclosures can't help but thaw both writer and reader, serving not to change the absorbing material, but to heighten appreciation and understanding of its source.

STREET SENSE:  Full disclosure. I almost gave up on this book by the halfway mark. Wiltshire comes across as an arrogant jerk. I kept trying to figure out if she is one or if her writing just came across that way. It was driving me to distraction and taking away from the substance of her truly fascinating story. I'm not sure why why I stuck with it, but I'm glad I did. I judged Wiltshire without knowing why she is the way she is and writes the way she writes. I wish she would have disclosed it sooner because it would have, IMHO, made the book so much better. Don't let your readers think you're an ass before you explain why you might be an ass and where it comes from and thus why you really may not be an ass. I ended up feeling so much empathy for Wiltshire and appreciated her more after she explained. As much as I love forensics and crime scene stuff, this was almost more fascinating from a psychology/character study perspective. Which might not be a good sign since the book is supposed to be about crime scene science, but I still recommend the book. This is a very long-winded paragraph, but this book evoked so many issues and questions for me. I would love to talk to Wiltshire about this one day. I have a feeling I'd really, really like her.

COVER NERD SAYS: I "like" this cover, but I also find it a bit too ambiguous. The crime scene tape is great, but it's not 100% obviously crime scene tape. Because it's around some bland foliage, it reads a bit like a bouquet (or some other non-crime-sceney thing wrapped in a bow). The ambiguity is amplified by the image of the foliage. What does that plant (that looks quite healthy and alive and not part of a crime scene or full of pollen or other detritus one thinks of as transfer) have to do with crime scenes or the study of spores? If one or the other of the elements would have been more obvious, the entire thing might have been more obvious. That being said, it's clean and colorful. It goes a bit overboard on the subtitle side (two? really?), which is really more evidence that the images were ambiguous enough to require not one semi-explanation, but two.

It's hard to believe I liked this book when I'm having such an apparent field day punching at it, but I really did. I also had some issues with it that I'm apparently finding a need to go on about today. I think because I ended up liking and admiring Wiltshire so much. She is arrogant (admittedly). There is good substantive reasoning behind it. But she's also a tough nut that finally cracks and shows a little light and I love that about her.