Things I Noticed: "A suppuration of blood"

So, in the last section, I noticed that Mukherjee established his research questions.  "How old is cancer? What are the roots of the battle against this disease?  Or as patients often asked me: Where are we in the 'war' on cancer?  How did we get here? Is there an end?  Can this war even be won?"

He then tells us that he "used the past to explain the present" which is exactly what happens in the "suppuration of blood" section.  This is where he begins to set up his recursive text structure taking us first to the man that he sees as one of the key figures in the history of cancer: Sidney Farber.

At the beginning of this section, we find ourselves in the lab with Sidney. And in a clever rhetorical move we learn about Farber's dissatisfaction with his career as a pathologist.  Mukherjee uses descriptive details to establish the pathology lab as a place of "dead things," embalming fluid, tissues, specimens in jars creating a parallel between the lab and Farber's feelings about his work stating that Farber feels "trapped, embalmed in his own glassy cabinet" (12).

Notice how the structure of the sentence, "Instead of squinting at inert specimens under his lens, he would try to leap into the life of the clinics upstairs--from the microscopic world that he knew so well into the magnified real world of patients and illnesses," juxtaposes details about the way that Farber feels about being a pathologist with his perception of the way that he could be using his skills.

SQUINTING AT INERT SPECIMENS VS. LEAPING INTO THE LIFE OF THE CLINIC

MICROSCOPIC WORLD OF PATHOLOGY VS. MAGNIFIED REAL WORLD

BASEMENT, EMBALMING FLUID, JARS VS. PATIENTS AND ILLNESSES UPSTAIRS

That kind of thing right there, Dear Students, that kind of craftsmanship is the reason we are reading this book.  If you don't pay attention to  Mukherjee's syntax (sentence structure), you really will be missing out.

So, here we are as readers with Farber in 1947, and--WATCH OUT--because Mukherjee is about to throw us back to 1845 with the likes of Bennett and Virchow and the discovery of leukemia.  There is Mukherjee using "the past to explain the present." In this case, (I always want to call Sidney Farber Stanley Farber...I'll probably slip from time to time) Sidney Farber and his aminopterin.

I love the way that Mukherjee tries to get inside Virchow's head by posing questions that Virchow must have been asking during his research:  "What of the massively enlarged spleen?"

Ahhhh...here's some Fault in our Stars: "Omnis cellula e cellula."

I noticed in the section about poor Maria Speyer, that Mukherjee uses words like "galloping" and "relentless" to describe her disease.  This polysyllabic choice in diction establishes a rhythm that brings to mind the beating hooves of the Horsemen of the Apocalypse.  Dramatic?  Maybe.  But, so is cancer. 

Mukherjee next pitches us way forward to Carla and her problem of "immunological poverty" and then circles back (or is it still forward?) to Farber.  Are you dizzy yet?  Mukherjee keeps this carnival ride going for 450 more pages.  So, fasten your seatbelts.

I noticed Mukherjee's sensitivity to his non-scientist reading audience with his definition of science and the "counting bit" on p. 19. And then, just when we had forgotten all about the long-awaited package: there it is.  And, as if that weren't enough of a cliffhanger, Mukherjee ends this section with the magnitude of the impact that this package will have on the study of cancer.

These are all the things that I noticed in this section.  Anyone have something to add? Any sentences or choices in diction that you found interesting or well-written?  Any compelling details about the content?  Any questions?  I'll post about the "Monster" section later today.  I have a day of catch up due to yesterday's neglect.  Sometimes life just demands to be lived :)