> Really? The purpose seems pretty clear to me, and I only skimmed it. To reinforce the value the book has in understanding how research around death and dying was framed in the 1970's.

The article is not _just_ a historical perspective of what happened "More than 40 years ago", it clearly says: "This book will remain relevant for all these specific cautionary reasons, and many more. I hope that in another four decades “The Craft of Dying” is republished for that historical moment’s own happy death movements; . . . ."

People have died "forever" so I was actually curious about what new great perspectives this article/book would offer; it's called: "The Enduring Genius of ‘The Craft of Dying’" after all. _Personally_ I didn't find it illuminating. That's all.

> Your comment comes across as intentionally obtuse as an excuse to proselytize. I just provided my personal view of the topic of death; spiritually and how I felt it in my own family. I often try to share my thoughts and faith; that is who I am and I try to be true to that.

>To reinforce the value the book has in understanding how research around death and dying was framed in the 1970's.

The article is quite vague about any findings, conclusions, or insights offered by the book.

I skimmed through the article to see what the book is about. The parts of the article I read was just lauding the book.

Reading the article feels like going to zombo.com. It tells you it's an amazing site, but not exactly what it does...

It reads like a review of a classic in a field, writing for an audience of people in that same field, all of whom will at least already have heard of the work in question and know, at least from encountering many quotations and references to it, what it's about.