Seven More Books for Thinking About and Understanding Suicide

View original image Some time ago, I published a list on the LYSIS website of five books I consider essential for thinking about suicide. I chose O mito de Sísifo by Albert Camus, Levantar a mão sobre si mesmo by Jean Améry, Suicídio e alma by James Hillman, Suicídio: estudos sobre o desespero humano by Karl Menninger, and O suicídio by Émile Durkheim. That list, of course, was never intended to establish a canon. No selection of its kind could do so. Suicide cuts across many fields, including philosophy, literature, history, sociology, medicine, psychology, religion, law, and the arts. Each book illuminates one part of the problem while leaving others in shadow. Perhaps that is the condition of any serious reading on the subject. It can shed some light without fostering the illusion that we have finally understood everything. Suicide is no riddle we can solve by discovering a cause. A life does not end for a single reason. Even when we identify an illness, a loss, a humiliation, a conflict, or an experience of abandonment, we still have only part of that person's story. Their life as a whole remains beyond that account. Understanding therefore requires more time than quick classification allows. It means staying with what resists reduction. It means listening without immediately turning another person's words into a symptom, a sin, a crime, a weakness, or a diagnosis. The seven books in this second list take different paths. Some investigate voluntary death historically, others seek to describe it clinically, and still others enter the territory of the novel, memory, and literary creation. They offer a variety of perspectives. Fortunately so. I think that is precisely what we need.

1. O Deus Selvagem: um estudo do suicídio by A. Alvarez

First published in 1971, O Deus Selvagem remains one of the most unsettling works on the relationship between suicide, literature, and the imagination. A. Alvarez writes from close quarters, without the shelter of academic distance. His reflections arise from his friendships with poets, his closeness to Sylvia Plath, and his own experience of suffering and attempting to die. The position from which he writes is therefore unstable. He is a literary critic, a witness, a survivor, and a participant in part of the history he seeks to understand. This instability is the book's strength. It is also its danger. Alvarez traces a long cultural tradition, from religious condemnation and legal penalties imposed on the bodies of the dead through John Donne's Biathanatos, Chatterton, Romantic anguish, Dadaism, and Cesare Pavese. His guiding thread is the growing presence of voluntary death in the Western imagination. Once regarded as sin or crime, suicide comes to be presented, especially in modern times, as an extreme revelation of the inner life. It is the act supposedly capable of proving the seriousness of pain, the authenticity of a work, or a radical refusal of the world. That transformation deserves attention. Once death becomes a certificate of authenticity, the artist who dies voluntarily risks being granted a kind of posthumous consecration. Earlier writings are reordered around the final act. Poems become portents, images become symptoms, and hesitations become announcements. The entire body of work is read backwards, as if the outcome were secretly contained on every page. That is precisely what makes Sylvia Plath's presence so important and so problematic. Alvarez knew her, published her poems, and witnessed some of her final years at close range. His testimony offers an intimacy no archive could replace. That intimacy leaves uncertainty intact. Alvarez seeks to interpret intentions and distinguish a wish to die from a cry for help, a calculated risk, and an accident. Yet how far can anyone reconstruct the exact force of an intention after a death? When a witness becomes an interpreter, what they saw inevitably mingles with what they believe they understood. The book thus teaches an initial caution to anyone who wants to study suicide. Closeness does not make another person's life transparent. We may know someone, read their notebooks, and remember their conversations, and still have no key to their final act. Intimacy offers indispensable evidence while conferring no authority over the meaning of a death. Alvarez is also concerned with a distinctly literary problem. Why has voluntary death exerted such a fascination over writers and artists? What happens when suffering becomes a poem? Can art bring us closer to another's pain, or does it risk giving beauty, coherence, and grandeur to what may have been disorder, fear, and loneliness in lived experience? How can we write about suicide, allowing it to be heard without turning it into a spectacle? Alvarez refuses to let a diagnosis account for an entire life. He is equally unwilling to present artistic creation as reliable protection. Finding words for suffering need never mean mastering it. Writing may help give shape to experience, and it can repeatedly bring the writer close to the very images that wound them. A poem can neither be reduced to a clinical symptom nor taken for automatic salvation. A distance remains between the work and the death that no interpretation should erase. Alvarez also includes his own attempt in the inquiry. In doing so, he dismantles the comfortable separation between observer and observed. The critic interpreting the dead discovers that he, too, belongs to the territory he seeks to describe. His experience offers no universal yardstick. It shows how two people may approach death along different paths even when they share a vocabulary, books, and surroundings. Perhaps that is one of the most enduring lessons of O Deus Selvagem. The way someone died should never lay retrospective claim to their whole life. When we allow it to do so, Sylvia Plath ceases to be the author of a body of work and becomes the woman destined to die. Every poem becomes a farewell note, every moment of anguish a preparation, every obscure image a piece of evidence. Death takes a life hostage and begins to explain everything that, before it, had remained open and manifold. The book therefore also needs to be read against some of its own temptations. Its language is powerful and at times brings creation, courage, and self-destruction dangerously close together. The reader must keep asking whether we are understanding the attraction of death or taking part in its aesthetic construction. The boundary is sometimes hard to discern. O Deus Selvagem is an uncomfortable book to read, as it should be. Its value lies in showing that writing about art and suicide requires responsibility. The relationship itself remains open. Literature can bring us closer to another person's experience if we distinguish understanding from fascination, intensity from truth, and beauty from redemption. A Brazilian edition translated by Sonia Moreira is published by Companhia das Letras.

2. Quando a noite cai: entendendo a depressão e o suicídio by Kay Redfield Jamison

Kay Redfield Jamison knows psychological suffering from two perspectives seldom brought together so forcefully in one person. She is a researcher of mood disorders and someone who has lived through severe episodes of mania and depression and come close to death. These two positions make the distance between experience and science all the more visible. In Quando a noite cai, Jamison offers one of the most ambitious clinical syntheses of suicide published in the late twentieth century. The book covers the history of attitudes towards voluntary death, problems of definition and measurement, the differences between attempts and deaths, the psychology of the act, psychiatric disorders, the methods employed, genetic and neurobiological hypotheses, and possibilities for prevention. Individual cases appear alongside epidemiological studies, letters, family histories, and medical data. This movement between numbers and lives matters. Without statistics, we would miss patterns, differences among groups, changes over time, and the effects of particular public policies. Every pattern, however, comes at a price. Comparing cases entails setting aside some of the differences between them. A rate makes the collective dimension of the problem visible. It cannot tell us who a person was, what they lost, which words they lacked, or why the future came to seem uninhabitable. Jamison stresses the strong relationship between suicide and mental disorders, particularly mood disorders. That relationship deserves serious attention. Severe depression, mania, mixed states, psychosis, problematic substance use, and other forms of psychological suffering can profoundly alter perception, narrow the field of possibilities, and make death seem like the only imaginable break. Rejecting everything psychiatry has to offer would mean giving up knowledge and resources that save lives. We can recognize this contribution while scrutinizing the book's premises. A critical reading must ask how the presence of mental illness is established after a death. Many conclusions depend on medical records, interviews with relatives, and retrospective reconstruction. These procedures are necessary and fallible. In the aftermath, every sadness may seem like a sign, every obscure remark a warning, and every prior difficulty a stage in an inevitable process. The inquiry risks finding in the past precisely what it already knows happened in the end. We must also ask whether a frequent association can become a universal explanation. To assert that every suicide is a consequence of mental illness may relieve some of the old moral blame. The person is regarded as ill instead of a sinner or a criminal. This is an important shift and, in many contexts, a humanizing one. Yet exchanging one grammar for another leaves some problems unresolved. Judgment may give way to paternalism, while condemnation may reappear in the guise of presumed incapacity. The language of illness produces another kind of silence. A person speaking about their own death may find that their words are no longer received as reflection, conflict, or appeal. Everything they say will already have been interpreted as a symptom. The more articulate their critique of life, the greater the apparent proof that they are unfit to speak for themselves. A circle takes shape that is difficult to break. Their words are regarded as ill because they speak of death, and they speak of death because they are regarded as ill. Jamison's book goes further than this. Her writing remains attentive to individual stories and to the ambivalence that often runs through suicidal experience. A wish to die does not necessarily entail a wish for all the consequences of death. At times, a person wants to interrupt a pain, silence their awareness, escape a situation, or suspend a stretch of time that has become unbearable. The word “death” brings these experiences together while leaving them distinct. For anyone who wants to study suicide, Quando a noite cai also offers a methodological lesson. Prevention requires clinical knowledge, careful observation, accessible treatment, reduced immediate access to lethal means, and protection during periods of heightened vulnerability. Alongside these resources remains the question of the world in which suffering took shape. Medication may alter a mood. On its own, it cannot erase a debt, put an end to violence, rebuild a bond, or restore someone's place in a community. Perhaps the decisive point is to avoid two opposite simplifications. The first reduces every voluntary death to illness. The second rejects psychiatry so completely that we can no longer recognize real illnesses, extreme suffering, or treatments that can help. Between absolute medicalization and an abstract rejection of medicine lies a harder task. In each case, we must discern what care the person needs and how we can offer it while allowing their voice to be heard. The value of Quando a noite cai also lies in this tension. It gives us access to a powerful clinical interpretation and invites us to question its limits. A good book is under no obligation to confirm every view we hold. Sometimes its importance lies precisely in forcing us to think against it, alongside it, and beyond it. A Portuguese edition is published by Gryphus.

3. A redoma de vidro by Sylvia Plath

A redoma de vidro is a novel. That needs saying because Sylvia Plath's death so often takes possession of everything she wrote. Her poems and prose come to be read as though they contained, from the first line, a decision already made. A novel is never a death certificate issued in advance. Esther Greenwood should not be treated as a simple transcription of Sylvia Plath, nor should her story serve as a retrospective explanation of the author's death. The biographical proximity is real. Fiction reshapes, displaces, and transforms experience. When we immediately conflate author and character, we take away precisely what makes the novel a work of creation. Esther is a talented young woman facing a future that, from the outside, seems open. She receives recognition, goes to New York, moves in circles inaccessible to many women, and is in a position to imagine an intellectual career. The possibilities on offer, however, prove increasingly narrow. Work, marriage, motherhood, sexuality, independence, and success appear as competing destinies that demand irreversible sacrifices. The freedom to combine them eludes her. The image of the fig tree brings this conflict into focus. Each fruit seems to contain a possible life. She could become a writer, start a family, travel, love, study, or experience the world. Esther wants all these lives, yet she is told that choosing one means forfeiting the others. As she hesitates, the fruit starts to rot. Suffering can come from an absence of possibilities. It can also come from possibilities presented as mutually exclusive, as though building one life required murdering all the other lives she had imagined. This matters when thinking about suicide. Sometimes people see a range of futures ahead of them in which they cannot recognize themselves. There are doors, but each seems to lead to the loss of something essential in themselves. The multiplicity that was supposed to yield freedom turns into paralysis. The image of the bell jar is just as powerful because it reaches beyond inner sadness. The jar alters the air, the space, and Esther's relationship to the world. She can still see other people, but she can no longer breathe as they do. Still surrounded by voices, advice, and expectations, she experiences a loneliness that no order to pull herself together can undo. The jar can go with her anywhere. It takes shape in the relationship between a consciousness and the surroundings that suffocate it, as much a part of that relationship as of Esther or the world. This makes it difficult to draw a simple line between illness and society. There is real psychological suffering, with changes in sleep, perception, speech, and the ability to act. There is also a world that distributes the possibilities of life unequally, particularly for women. The novel will not let us choose comfortably between “the illness was in Esther” and “society produced it all.” The two dimensions run through one another. Medical treatment accordingly plays a decisive role. Esther encounters different institutions and practitioners. Her first experience of electroconvulsive therapy is marked by fear, a lack of explanation, and the violence of a procedure carried out before trust has been established. Later, under Dr Nolan's care, a similar treatment takes on a different meaning through preparation, presence, and commitment. The novel leaves any simple verdict on medicine behind. A technique never exists in isolation. The same procedure can be experienced as punishment or as care, depending on the relationship in which it takes place. This distinction is essential to suicide prevention. We have to ask whether a given intervention is clinically indicated and how it is presented. Does the person understand what is happening to them? Do they take part in decisions? Is there someone who can stay by their side? Care that deprives a patient of any voice may preserve a life biologically while deepening the feeling that the person no longer belongs to themselves. The novel also avoids portraying recovery as a definitive victory. The bell jar may lift, but its possibility does not disappear forever. Esther receives no guarantee against the future. This uncertainty makes the narrative more honest. Surviving a crisis does not save someone once and for all, any more than an attempt condemns anyone to repeat it. Life remains open, including to risks, relapses, and transformations. Reading A redoma de vidro simply for signs of Sylvia Plath's future death would repeat a violence done to her literature. It would allow biography to close what the novel leaves open. The book deserves to be read for giving shape to an experience that often remains without words. All paths seem to exist, yet none feels genuinely available. The world remains visible, but the air needed to inhabit it has grown scarce. For anyone who wants to understand suicide, the novel teaches that making a life habitable involves more than removing someone from immediate danger. It also means broadening the futures they can imagine and giving them room to live beyond the narrow alternatives they have been offered. Several Brazilian translations are available, including the Biblioteca Azul edition translated by Chico Mattoso and a more recent illustrated edition translated by Ana Guadalupe.

4. Perto das trevas by William Styron

Some kinds of suffering seem to destroy the very possibility of telling a story. A person wants to explain what is happening, but the available words, sadness, discouragement, anguish, exhaustion, seem too small. William Styron wrote Perto das trevas out of this inadequacy. The work began when Styron grew troubled by judgments directed at people who had died voluntarily, among them Primo Levi. Even educated readers suspected that suicide might call someone's earlier courage into question or expose a flaw in their character. Styron recognized that this judgment rested on ignorance of the pain of depression. He decided to make public an experience that had until then belonged to his private life. The book is short and difficult to read. Styron tries to describe how severe depression alters time, the body, thought, and the perception of the future. Suffering goes far beyond intense sadness. It changes the entire world. Activities lose their connection to pleasure, the simplest decisions require an extraordinary effort, the night takes on a hostile duration, and thought itself seems to lose its connections. One of the account's strengths is its resistance to sentimentality. Styron looks for metaphors because the word “depression” seems too weak to name the violence of the experience. He compares the mind to an old telephone exchange that has been flooded. Little by little, the circuits stop working. The image is valuable because it takes us beyond unhappy thoughts. Capacities that once seemed natural, such as concentrating, desiring, hoping, deciding, and recognizing oneself, become progressively inaccessible. The pain of depression has another quality that is difficult to convey. It can be felt almost physically, yet there is no precise place in the body to point to. This explains part of the loneliness of those who suffer. A visible wound calls for care. Pain with no apparent location risks being interpreted as exaggeration, weakness, or a lack of will. One of the most terrible features of despair is that it presents itself as knowledge. A person feels that the suffering will continue and believes they know it will. The future ceases to be open and repeats the present indefinitely. Death may then appear as the only imaginable interruption of that repetition. Its appeal cannot be reduced to a simple wish. Styron helps us understand why phrases such as “this will pass” do not always reach a person who is suffering. For the speaker, the future remains open. For someone inside the experience of depression, the capacity to imagine a different future may itself have disappeared. The words can be true and still find no place in the person's inner life where they can be received. There is still something to be done. A turning point comes when music unexpectedly restores a connection to life and allows Styron to recognize how serious the risk has become. The moment leaves his illness in place. It gives him the interval he needs to ask for help and agree to be hospitalized. The distinction matters. Whatever interrupts the movement towards death need not solve every problem in a person's life. Sometimes it need only create time for care to begin. The hospital offers shelter, though Styron does not idealize it. There is monotony, loss of autonomy, and the company of others in extreme distress. At that moment, though, the institution offers protection from a consciousness that has become dangerous to itself. The experience needs to be read with care. Some people encounter institutions that offer little welcome, hospitalization is sometimes unnecessary or harmful, and Styron's access to good care is itself a privilege that not everyone shares. His account also shows that prevention extends beyond the heroic instant when someone stops an act. It depends on a network that includes his wife's steadfast presence, the possibility of recognizing the risk, the availability of care, a willingness to accept help, and protected time until the intensity of the crisis subsides. No one of these elements explains his survival in isolation. It is important to recognize the book's limits. It describes one way of coming close to death among many. A wish to die has other possible origins besides depression, and many people with depression have no wish to die. Others will not necessarily experience Styron's recovery or respond to the same care. To turn one person's testimony into a universal explanation would betray the book's greatest value, its attempt to speak from a concrete experience. We must also guard against letting the idea of illness close the question once more. Styron's depression involves family history, bereavement, the body, medication, alcohol, ageing, literary creation, and personal relationships. Its sources are multiple. His testimony is powerful because it keeps these elements together without pretending to have organized them into a definitive explanation. Perto das trevas offers neither a romantic vision of suffering nor a formula for salvation. Its principal act is to find language for what long remained almost unsayable. For anyone who wants to study suicide, that language has a value of its own. It reminds us that before interpreting, diagnosing, or advising, we must try to understand the shape pain took for that person.

5. Diário de um escritor by Fiódor Dostoiévski

Dostoiévski treated suicide in his novels and beyond them. In Diário de um escritor, he brought together political commentary, news, religious reflections, memoir, short narratives, and analyses of Russian society. The book crosses the boundaries we tend to draw today between literature, philosophy, and journalism. This hybrid form allowed him to take a small event reported in the press and make it the basis of a question about his time. Among the events that drew his attention were the many voluntary deaths reported in newspapers. Dostoiévski treated them as part of a larger picture. He asked what they revealed about Russia, about poverty, about the disintegration of social bonds, about faith, and about a society's inability to recognize the suffering taking shape within it. One of the most disturbing pieces in the collection is “Dois suicídios,” published in October 1876. Dostoiévski places side by side the deaths of two young women from profoundly different social and cultural worlds. The first, a cosmopolitan young woman raised outside Russia, dies after leaving a note in French, marked by irony and an almost worldly reference to champagne. In the word chic, Dostoiévski detects a mixture of defiance, boredom, and contempt. The death seems to be surrounded by a consciousness that can find nothing in ordinary life to justify submitting to it. The second young woman is a poor seamstress. Unable to find work, she throws herself from a window. When her body is found, she is still holding a religious image. Elegance, provocation, and philosophical elaboration are entirely absent here. In Dostoiévski's words, living had simply become impossible. The two deaths could receive the same name and occupy the same statistical column. Yet they have very little in common. One seems to arise from suffocation in a world regarded as banal, the other from the material impossibility of staying alive. One leaves an ironic note, the other keeps an object of faith in her hands. One death invites psychological interpretation, while the other exposes hunger, unemployment, and abandonment. Dostoiévski asks which of the two suffered more. He soon recognizes that the question itself may be pitiless. How do we measure suffering? What instrument could compare two kinds of solitude? Did the poor young woman suffer more because want destroyed her life? Or did the absence of a visible cause make the first woman's despair deeper? Any attempt to establish a hierarchy soon reveals its violence. That impossibility is precisely what makes “Dois suicídios” so pertinent. Dostoiévski sees that a common category can hide essential differences. Saying both women “died by suicide” tells us something about how they died and almost nothing about the worlds that made their deaths possible. The piece also shows that social judgment is unequally distributed. Some deaths are read as spiritual tragedies, others as an almost natural consequence of poverty. Some prompt lengthy reflections, others disappear after a short notice. The space given to them in the press, the language used, and the explanations proposed all reveal the value a society placed on a life even before it ended. The observation remains pertinent today. When a public figure dies, people look for letters, interviews, diagnoses, and events that might explain the act. When a socially invisible person dies, the explanation may come down to a single word, such as debt, unemployment, drugs, or separation. Inequality continues after death. Some lives receive biographies. Others receive only causes. Elsewhere in Diário, Dostoiévski relates the rise in voluntary deaths to the loss of a higher idea of existence and the spiritual disarray of Russian society. His answer is profoundly Christian and may leave the contemporary reader unconvinced. At times faith appears as a necessary foundation, with too little inquiry into the ways religious institutions themselves have produced guilt, condemnation, and silence. The question remains all the same. Can a person live without some connection to something beyond the immediate repetition of days? That “something” need not be God. It could be another person, a community, a work, a responsibility, a memory, a cause, or the still fragile expectation that the world has yet to finish changing. Perhaps the most important point is that Dostoiévski never separates the individual question from the social one entirely. Faced with the death of the seamstress, he writes as though the news created a form of shared responsibility. He never knew the young woman and could not have prevented her death directly. Even so, he feels that the event concerns him too. A society bears no simple blame for every death that occurs within it. Yet a society that asks no questions about those deaths gives up understanding itself. For anyone who wants to study suicide, “Dois suicídios” teaches us to distrust the likeness created by a name. Two people may die by seemingly comparable acts while their deaths belong to entirely different grammars. The work begins with preserving the differences classification threatens to erase, which a quick search for common ground would miss. Reading Dostoiévski means entering a discussion whose answers we need not all accept. It is enough to see that he never treats suicide as a simple event. Each death opens a case that implicates the person who died and the society that witnessed their life without noticing it had become impossible to live.

6. A invenção do suicídio by Alexandre H. Reis

I wrote the final two books on this list. Their inclusion calls for an explanation. I make no claim to judge them at the distance I brought to the earlier books. I confess to some embarrassment, or perhaps modesty, in setting them beside the others. They are here because they grew out of the very questions that guide this reading and animate the work of LYSIS. The other books are here by choice. These are also here by virtue of intimacy. In A invenção do suicídio, I investigate an apparently simple question. Has the idea of suicide always existed? Human beings brought about their own deaths, of course, long before the word appeared or the concept took shape. We find voluntary deaths in ancient poems, Greek tragedies, Roman narratives, biblical texts, and accounts of martyrs. These deaths, however, were not necessarily understood as manifestations of a single phenomenon. Ajax, Lucretia, Cato, Judas, Christian virgins, martyrs, and defeated warriors did not think of themselves as belonging to the same category. Their deaths were interpreted through different grammars of honour, shame, sacrifice, witness, escape, freedom, fidelity, despair, or crime. Bringing them immediately under the word “suicide” may make comparison easier. It also projects onto the past a unity unknown to those who lived it. The emergence and consolidation of the word “suicide” allowed profoundly different experiences to be gathered under a single name. This was no neutral operation. Long before the term was coined, Augustine had already drawn certain voluntary deaths close to self-homicide. A person who died by their own hand could become both victim and murderer. The modern word would inherit part of this long moral construction. To ask about the invention of suicide is to distinguish the event from the name bestowed on it. The earlier deaths were real. People have died voluntarily in different ages. The idea that all these deaths express a single moral, psychological, or medical phenomenon has a history. The book investigates that history because concepts do more than neutrally describe. They select similarities, conceal differences, and shape which responses we consider legitimate. This is above all a book about our own time. I have set aside a chronological history of suicide, a far more extensive undertaking, for another project. The genealogy here investigates the origins of the categories by which we still judge, explain, and seek to prevent voluntary death. The past enters the inquiry because it continues to act in our language even when we no longer recognize its presence. Plato, Socrates, Sophocles, Aristotle, Augustine, Montaigne, Kant, Nietzsche, Viktor Frankl, Esquirol, William James, and many others enter the discussion as interlocutors necessary to an understanding of present conflicts, far from museum pieces. Each opens a part of the problem to inquiry, from prohibitions and their exceptions to freedom in the face of death, suffering, dignity, belonging, madness, care, autonomy, and the limits of the power exercised over another person's life. Augustine occupies a decisive place in this inquiry. By interpreting certain voluntary deaths as forms of homicide, he provides a grammar capable of passing through Christianity, law, and moral philosophy. A person who dies voluntarily is seen as having done something forbidden and comes to occupy the positions of agent, victim, and criminal at the same time. The expression homicidium sui prepares the way for an understanding in which a subject turns the murderer's violence against themselves. That grammar survives the weakening of religious condemnation. Part of its structure remains in the word “suicide” itself, formed on the model of homicide, parricide, and fratricide. The death remains within the domain of crime, even if the person held responsible is declared ill where they were once declared sinful. The historical change is real and its reach may be incomplete. In the nineteenth century, alienists offered another explanation. Voluntary death came increasingly to be associated with madness. Esquirol played a pivotal role in arguing that suicide, though no disease in its own right, manifested some form of mental alienation. The claim had an ambivalent consequence. It made it possible to challenge moral and legal penalties imposed on the dead and their families. It also extended medicine's authority over an experience now interpreted in advance as incapacity. The sinner becomes a patient, the priest gives way to the physician, and a religious prohibition becomes a therapeutic imperative. This was a genuine change. Psychiatry developed important knowledge and treatments from which many people have benefited. The genealogy shows how a new language can retain elements of the old. The authority that once saved the soul may reappear as the authority charged with saving a life, even against everything the person can say about themselves. The problem reaches the present through the almost automatic association of suicide with mental illness. Many cases do involve depression, psychosis, bipolar disorder, problematic substance use, or other severe forms of psychological suffering. Recognizing them can be essential to care. The difficulty begins when a frequent association becomes a necessary and universal identity. If someone wants to die, they must be ill. If they deny being ill, the denial becomes further proof that they lack insight into their condition. The result is a structure that is difficult to challenge. A person can speak, but their words arrive stripped of authority. They can give reasons, but the reasons will be treated as symptoms. They can ask to be heard and receive only an assessment. The book leaves these conflicts open in their particulars. It seeks to show how prevention that cannot listen may protect biological life at the cost of excluding a person from any part in understanding their own experience. At this point, it becomes necessary to examine the World Health Organization, public campaigns, and the contemporary idea of taboo critically. We often repeat the need to “talk about suicide.” Yet how are we to talk, with whom, and under what conditions? Speech can also perpetuate silence. A campaign may multiply messages while preventing someone from expressing what they really feel. We can invite a person to speak on condition that they first accept the vocabulary prepared for them, with its talk of illness, risk, warning signs, referrals, and treatment. The concept of taboo also deserves scrutiny. Saying suicide is taboo may seem obvious, yet society talks about it constantly in news reports, statistics, campaigns, protocols, films, and social media. Perhaps the problem lies in how some kinds of speech are authorized and others forbidden. We can speak to condemn, diagnose, and prevent. We find it harder to hear questions about freedom, autonomy, exhaustion, the right to die, or refusal of particular conditions of life. The book therefore discusses questions beyond the history of the concept, among them prevention, grief, bioethics, euthanasia, the right to die, freedom, and belonging. These questions arise together. To ask who can decide about death is also to ask who was able to take part in decisions about their own life. Autonomy exists within relationships, just as belonging should never become an argument for trapping someone in an unbearable existence. Viktor Frankl allows us to examine both the search for meaning and its risks. The claim that life retains meaning in every circumstance can give many people strength. As a demand, however, it can add guilt to suffering. On top of finding themselves unable to live, people can feel they have failed to discover the meaning everyone insists is there. William James helps us approach the possibility of staying through a different route, without conclusive proof that life is worth living. Between the certainty of meaning and the certainty of nothingness, there may be the fragile space of a wager. I wrote the book between 2018 and 2021, while I was still living in Brazil's Northeast, to guide my teaching in the course Preleções sobre o Suicídio. Over the course of 2022 and 2023, I read the material slowly and reviewed the sources. The work continued to mature before it went to reviewers at Editora UFABC. This origin helps explain its form. The chapters retain something of the class, the essay, and the group discussion. They offer answers alongside problems that can remain open to debate. To criticize the categories of suicide, mental illness, and prevention is to ask what kind of care we are offering. Suffering remains real and care remains necessary. The critique seeks to free genuine prevention from automatic responses. If a preventive practice treats every word as a symptom, every refusal as incapacity, and every difference as risk, it may preserve its protocols while losing sight of the person it intended to reach. The book's final question goes beyond whether we should save lives. It asks something more demanding. What kind of life are we willing to help build once immediate danger has passed? Preventing a death and returning someone to the conditions that made their existence unbearable leaves more to be done. We must create relationships, communities, and concrete conditions capable of making that life habitable again. Published by Editora UFABC in 2026, the book is available free of charge in digital format as A invenção do suicídio: genealogia dos nossos preconceitos morais e crítica da psiquiatria. The publisher is still promising the print edition for the end of 2026.

7. O Filósofo da Rua XV — O sorriso de Hegésias by Alexandre H. Reis

Where A invenção do suicídio questions the categories through which we think about voluntary death, O Filósofo da Rua XV asks what happens when those categories are imposed on a person. The novel brings certain philosophical problems into fiction and allows us to understand something difficult to learn from a treatise. There is a distance between what a person lives through, what they can say about it, and the story others construct about them. That is why I include it on the list. Readers who want to study suicide will find problems in the novel that take a different shape in historical research, psychiatric classifications, or statistics. Literature has no claim here to a superior truth. It can hold together experiences our theories tend to separate. It can hold the wish to die and the wish to stay, freedom and belonging, lucidity and hesitation, intimate decisions and public judgment, chosen death and imposed death. I still do not know whether O Filósofo da Rua XV should be called a novel of ideas. In a generous and rigorous review, Gabriela Weisman brings it close to that tradition. She shows how the book runs the risk of turning its characters into philosophical mouthpieces and how it escapes that risk. I am in no position to discuss its classification with the necessary distance. I am too close to the work and may still have one foot in its streets. My hesitation remains. I hope the novel was never written to demonstrate a thesis. If it has anything to teach, that lies partly in the ideas its characters defend and partly in what happens when those ideas are exposed to the circumstances of life. The protagonist arrives in Pelotas with a decision he has carefully considered. He acts from no sudden despair and knows both the history of philosophy and the arguments usually put forward in favour of life. Perhaps he knows them too well. For years, he helped people who wanted to die. He listened to students, welcomed strangers, and even stopped a man in debt from jumping off a bridge. Yet now it is he who intends to cross the southern border in search of his own death. This presents a first difficulty for anyone studying suicide. The person who wants to die does not constitute a separate human kind. The divide between an expert equipped to understand and prevent suicide and a “suicidal person” reduced to an object of assessment breaks down. The same person may give someone reasons to stay and at another time find no such reasons for himself. He may know the risk factors, philosophical arguments, and prevention techniques and still want to die. Knowledge does not set us outside the condition we seek to know. The novel also lets us follow something a diagnostic category rarely captures. The wish to die has a temporality. It can persist, recede, change, or return. It is no substance lodged inside someone and no essence by which we can define a person once and for all. The Philosopher arrives in the city with a plan, but between his decision and its possible fulfilment, the world intervenes. A café, a conversation, a book to return, a child, two dogs, a woman, a square, a gesture of trust. None of these is a sufficient argument against death on its own. Yet every encounter introduces a delay, and every delay contains a possibility that was absent before. Perhaps one of the novel's quietest lessons lies here. Sometimes prevention means sustaining time. Winning an argument, proving the abstract value of life, or taking every choice away from someone can miss what is needed. We can create an interval between suffering and an irreversible act. Something may need to be returned tomorrow, someone may still be waiting for an answer, and there may be a place to go back to. The narrative leaves Hegésias open to argument. The protagonist finds no proof that life has universal meaning and is no easy convert to a moral obligation to live. What the novel brings into question is the relationship between freedom and belonging. Can someone who already sees himself as if he had left the world take part in it again? Can another person's presence reach someone who has already made rational arrangements for his departure? If this happens, will it be through the force of an argument or through an experience for which no argument would suffice? Pelotas is more complicated than a welcoming community. The novel distinguishes two cities. There is a city made of fragile encounters, gestures of care, children, animals, friendships, and moments of recognition. There is also the City with a capital letter, the collective organism that watches, interprets, spreads rumours, produces diagnoses, and turns suspicions into sentences. One can make life habitable. The other can make a person a prisoner of the identity it assigns them. The City decides that the protagonist is “the suicidal man” before it has heard him. Then it begins to regard him as dangerous, as someone whose ideas might contaminate others. From then on his writings, translations, silence, stay in Pelotas, and intention to cross the border cease to be separate events. They form a single narrative. He is no longer someone who thinks about death or who once wanted to die. He becomes the Suicidal Philosopher, as though the word could exhaust everything he was, is, or could still become. At one point, a death by poisoning changes the City's relationship with the Philosopher and with the manuscript attributed to Hegésias. Accounts start to circulate before the facts can be established. The idea of suicide proves especially appealing. It is easier to tell, it arouses curiosity, and it allows people to imagine a corrupted soul, a dangerous book, and a philosopher capable of poisoning minds. The death is an event to be investigated and has become a story different people wish to control. Here the novel touches on a decisive problem for any study of suicide. A death comes to us through interpretation. Before becoming a statistic, a case note, a news story, or an example for a campaign, it has been given a name. Someone has gathered certain clues, set aside others, and attributed to the dead person an intention they can no longer confirm or deny. Asking whether a death was voluntary requires more than examining a body or identifying a substance in a report. It means reconstructing a human action without being able to question the person who acted. It means distinguishing accident, coercion, homicide, and intention, often in retrospect. The operation entails an uncertainty that we often conceal beneath the apparent security of classifications. The manuscript attributed to Hegésias adds another layer. The City begins to imagine that a book can kill and that someone who translates ideas about death could be held responsible for what others do with them. The novel grants words the power to wound, transform, persuade, and produce consequences. Between a word and an act, though, there is a person with a history, circumstances, and a particular way of interpreting what they read. Assigning direct causal force to a book allows society to avoid harder questions. A dangerous text and a person to blame are easier to find than answers about abandonment, suffering, violence, debt, loneliness, and a lack of belonging. The complexity of a death gives way to the simplicity of an accusation. The Praça dos Enforcados broadens this reflection further. Confronted with the memory of enslaved people and of bodies subjected to hunger, labour, humiliation, and violence, it becomes impossible to talk about voluntary death without asking about the conditions in which a will is formed. How far can a death be called a choice when someone's life has been hemmed in by poverty, fear, or the loss of any sovereignty over their own body? The novel brings physical death close to social death and reminds us that some people begin to die long before their bodies cease to live. Perhaps this is what fiction can teach in a way no other form can replace. A conceptual study can show that the term “suicide” brings different experiences together. The novel makes the reader live with those differences without resolving them quickly. We follow someone who wants to die, who has helped others to live, who refuses to be called suicidal, and who is nonetheless imprisoned by the story the City writes for him. The decisive question of the book reaches beyond whether life has value. When can a life come to feel like one's own again? Can someone choose a life freely, without acting from fear, guilt, or obligation? Can belonging give us reasons to stay without becoming an argument for denying all freedom? The novel keeps these questions open. It offers neither the reassurance of a campaign for life in the abstract nor the ease of a defence of death. It explores the conditions in which someone might once again experience the world as a place where they still belong. It also explores the danger of a society that, even when it sets out to judge or protect, takes away that person's right to say who they are. Perhaps anyone who seeks to understand suicide must learn precisely this. Asking why someone wants to die is only a beginning. We must ask what relationships, institutions, words, and forms of life make this wish possible, which of them intensify it, and which might open up a still unimagined future within a decision that seems already final. Published by Editora Literíssima in 2026, O Filósofo da Rua XV — O sorriso de Hegésias carries reflection on suicide to a point where philosophy, psychiatry, and prevention policies must recognize their limits. There, understanding goes beyond explaining a death. It means asking about the community we build around someone who can no longer find a place in it to stay or to live. See also Gabriela Weisman's review, O Filósofo da Rua XV: um romance de ideias e os perigos do gênero.

After the Last Page

These seven books disagree on almost everything. Alvarez brings literature, culture, and personal experience together. Jamison investigates the relationship between psychological suffering and suicide. Sylvia Plath turns the suffocation of a life into a novel. Styron tries to find words for depression. Dostoiévski asks about the social and spiritual differences between seemingly similar deaths. A invenção do suicídio asks about the history of the concept. O Filósofo da Rua XV takes these questions into a fictional life. The reader may finish with fewer certainties than they had at the beginning. The reading may still have done its work. In matters such as this, quick certainty is often a form of violence. It allows us to stop listening because we believe we already know what happened. We say it was illness, weakness, selfishness, a lack of faith, an impulse, or the consequence of a particular circumstance. The word closes what it should open. Understanding suicide means holding the question open long enough that a life does not disappear behind the name given to its death. Justification, condemnation, and definitive explanation leave that work undone. Perhaps books can help because they broaden our language. And when suffering finds words, it also becomes possible to share it. The hardest question remains. Can we build a community in which someone can say they want to die without being abandoned, judged, or immediately reduced to an illness? Can we hear those words while helping to create conditions that make their life habitable again? No book can answer that question on its own. Perhaps reading together is one way we can begin.

---

A note on care: If death feels close or life has become difficult to bear and your reasons for reading go beyond intellectual interest, reach out to someone who can stay and talk with you now. In Brazil, CVV offers free and confidential emotional support 24 hours a day by phone at 188 and through its website at cvv.org.br.