Grief Is for People

Part 3 departs from the linear, mostly forward movement of the narrative. By going back further in time to examine key aspects of Russell’s life, Crosley attempts to identify three potential circumstances that may have—in isolation or in combination—played a role in leading to Russell’s decision to end his life. This shift in structure underscores the fragmented and nonlinear way that grief often operates, mirroring Crosley’s attempt to piece together Russell’s life and her understanding of his death. Part 1 explores a sudden and noticeable change in Russell’s personal life—one that abruptly shifted from hosting social functions and drawing people together to retreating. As this change occurred, Crosley was highly confused, unable to pinpoint the cause of this change and even wondering if she had done something to offend Russell or cause him to attempt to withdraw from their friendship. It is only in retrospect that she realizes that a possible romantic affair between a mutual friend and Russell’s partner was the true cause of the end of the parties. Crosley’s recognition of her limited perspective highlights the disjointed nature of interpersonal relationships, particularly when viewed through the lens of hindsight. By reframing her confusion about Russell’s withdrawal as a consequence of his personal struggles, Crosley emphasizes the way that grief can shift one’s understanding of past events. With this theory, Crosley hints at relationship tensions creating Russell’s unhappiness and depression. Importantly, she treads carefully where Russell’s partner—who survives Russell’s death—is concerned, not wanting to lob accusations or create further dissent. She recognizes, as she explores this period, that there are likely aspects of Russell’s personal life to which she was not completely privy. This careful navigation of Russell’s personal relationships highlights the idea of respecting the privacy and boundaries of those left behind, even as Crosley seeks clarity. Part 3 is also useful in painting a picture of a key element of Crosley’s friendship with Russell: While she has noted that their relationship shifted from a professional connection to a close friendship, she illustrates this by describing the idyllic period of the early 2000s.

The details surrounding the public fallout involving the publishing mishap of James Frey are, by contrast, a circumstance that Crosley witnessed much more directly. She approaches this incident with an aim toward objectivity, neither accusing Russell of being guilty of wrongdoing nor exonerating him. She does not seek to rewrite history or to imagine “what if” scenarios. Instead, she concentrates on the impact that the incident had on Russell. Crosley’s focus on Russell’s emotional response to the scandal, rather than the details of the controversy itself, shifts the narrative’s emphasis from external events to internal struggles, furthering the exploration of how external pressures can compound personal grief. Crosley’s tone and point of view remain the same in Part 3 as she recounts the accusations of sexual harassment levied against Russell. Importantly, her aim here is not to place blame or determine culpability but instead to consider how this period shaped Russell. Similarly, while Crosley indirectly acknowledges how some of Russell’s words and manners of interacting with employees could be regarded differently than they were understood by her, a close friend, she underscores the generational and cultural shifts that influence workplace dynamics, pointing to how evolving norms can create misunderstandings and tensions that deeply affect individuals. Importantly, she does not seek to point fingers nor speculate as to what could have or should have been done differently by either Russell or those who surrounded him. Instead, her look into the past is an effort to excavate the forces in Russell’s past that worked together to shape him. This excavation reflects the broader human impulse to construct meaning out of loss, even when complete understanding remains elusive. Again, part of this excavation is motivated out of Social Expectations Involving Death and Death by Suicide—Crosley is certain that Russell’s choice to die by suicide could not have come about suddenly nor out of the blue.

Indeed, throughout each of the three parts, hindsight is an important tool by which Crosley can make meaning of the trauma of Russell’s absence. Experiences that Russell had that could have seemed innocuous or less significant take on greater importance considering his death by suicide. By revisiting these experiences, Crosley illustrates the ripple effects of trauma, where seemingly disconnected events suddenly merge. This looking back to examine the past is an important action in Crosley’s journey through grief: Plagued by confusion as to Russell’s mental state, she must rely on interactions with Russell or observations to which she was privy. Because she was not privy to the entire details of the relationship between Russell and his partner and because her career at Knopf ended when the sexual harassment allegations unfolded, there is room for Crosley’s suppositions to be only part of the truth. This acknowledgment of her limited perspective serves as a reminder that grief is not only deeply personal but also shaped by the unknowable facets of another’s life. She makes meaning out of what she knows to shed greater light on the mysterious nature of death, but she does not entertain significant guessing when it comes to the parts of life she does not understand.