Scan barcode
A review by swoody788
Dr. Mütter's Marvels: A True Tale of Intrigue and Innovation at the Dawn of Modern Medicine by Cristin O'Keefe Aptowicz
2.0
I'm going to sound like a snob here but that's a label I'm willing to risk in this review. It is obvious to me that Aptowicz is not a historian. When I pick up a work of historical nonfiction I expect to be presented with mostly facts and maybe a few acknowledged assumptions or conclusions the author has made based on his or her research. Key words being "few" and "acknowledged". A historian projecting his or her modern-day opinions or ideals onto historical figures with no factual basis really bothers me. Aptowicz herself admitted that her subject, Dr. Thomas Dent Mütter, did not keep a journal and left very few personal documents, so how in the world can she constantly describe how he was feeling about certain situations? I respect the research that she did do to bring Mütter's story back into public knowledge, but please either stick with the facts or label your book historical fiction.
Much more troubling than her projection of feelings onto Mütter, however, was her villanization of Mütter's colleague, Dr. Charles Meigs, who she basically attempted to turn into a foil for her main character. I believe that Mütter was an exceptional surgeon for his time, and very innovative and forward-thinking, but does that mean that his contemporaries who followed current practices and were a little more reticent to change were bad people? Give me a break. As the story progressed and Aptowicz continued to vilify Meigs, I trusted her less and less as an author, so that by the end I was incredibly skeptical of all she had written. Her habit of rejoicing in Meigs' setbacks and trials really bothered me, especially as she described the losses he endured in his last years of life as if he deserved them in some sort of poetically justified way.
All that being said, the subject matter was very interesting to me and easily kept my attention until the last few chapters. I would be interested to visit the museum in Philadelphia where Mütter's collection is housed and to learn more about him from a more reliable source.
Much more troubling than her projection of feelings onto Mütter, however, was her villanization of Mütter's colleague, Dr. Charles Meigs, who she basically attempted to turn into a foil for her main character. I believe that Mütter was an exceptional surgeon for his time, and very innovative and forward-thinking, but does that mean that his contemporaries who followed current practices and were a little more reticent to change were bad people? Give me a break. As the story progressed and Aptowicz continued to vilify Meigs, I trusted her less and less as an author, so that by the end I was incredibly skeptical of all she had written. Her habit of rejoicing in Meigs' setbacks and trials really bothered me, especially as she described the losses he endured in his last years of life as if he deserved them in some sort of poetically justified way.
All that being said, the subject matter was very interesting to me and easily kept my attention until the last few chapters. I would be interested to visit the museum in Philadelphia where Mütter's collection is housed and to learn more about him from a more reliable source.