Comments on: Accidents and Violent Death- Craig Spence

By: Vincent Cervone

Vincent Cervone — Thu, 28 Apr 2022 13:53:11 +0000

Emily, when I saw this book on the syllabus at the beginning of the year, I was excited about it (I know I shouldn’t have been but I was) and after reading Spence’s book; I can say that I wasn’t let down. At points, the book got pretty dark but I can say that I enjoyed reading it, I was able to finish it in less sittings then previous books (such as the ship book) and I can recall details and passages easier. I also agree with your assessment that this fits into the historiography but a different way then some of the books that we’ve read so far this semester. Although I am personally not a fan of data, I can see why Spence structured the book this way and it adds to an argument that I was able to keep track of throughout the reading process.

By: Logan Skorupa

Logan Skorupa — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 21:07:17 +0000

Hi Emily. While it somehow doesn’t feel right to say I ‘enjoyed’ reading this book on accidental deaths, I did find the stories engaging and Spence’s arguments (however few of them there are) interesting and compelling. In particular I thought the argument presented in chapter 8 and on page 245 that the acceptance of accidental deaths as a fact of life actively stunted efforts to reduce and/or eliminate the risk of death to be very convincing, as I have anecdotal evidence of my own that supports Spence’s conclusion (granted in much lower stake situations). I would also be interested to see more arguments made from this data, but do concede that this would ultimately be the subject of another book.

Honestly, my comment feels like a long-winded way to say I agree with your appraisal of the book overall (I didn’t mind the numbers at all, finding them helpful and interesting as well as being placed in good spots structurally) and agree that this work helped me specifically as a reference for how to engage with the Bills of Mortality.

By: Matthew Inman

Matthew Inman — Wed, 27 Apr 2022 01:23:17 +0000

I appreciated Spence’s efforts to make this work more than just anecdotes about everyday life or human interest stories, which Emily points out in her review. While the book certainly contains many intriguing accounts of accidents and life in London, Spence is clearly seeking to find a deeper level that helps explain the understandings and mentalities that people held about accidents and death in this time period. I think one of his best ideas, that he puts right at the beginning of the book, is that accidents should be understood as “communally constructed events” that depend upon social and cultural arrangements. This can be seen in the general population’s high concern about fires which, while certainly a danger, rarely resulted in fatalities. Drowning, on the other hand, was the primary cause of sudden violent death, yet there’s a sense that most people were rather nonchalant about this very real threat. This contrast can perhaps be explained by the Great Fire of 1666 which loomed large in the collective consciousness, or the fact that drowning risk was considered a sort of occupational hazard that couldn’t be mitigated. My point is that Spence shows that the way people thought about fire and drowning were constructions of social and cultural influence, rather than assessments of the actual probability of risk posed by those types of accidents.