The Author of ‘The Grief Cure’ Explores Unique Ways to Ease the Pain of Losing His Mom

From therapy to AI tools to ‘deleting’ memories, Cody Delistraty reflects on the lengths one can go to to move forward

Laura Petrecca,

AARP

Comments

En español

Published June 25, 2024

Cody Delistraty stands in front of a bookcase next to the cover of his book: the grief cure looking for the end of loss.

Photography: Grace Ann Leadbeater

Like many of us, Cody Delistraty knows the heart-wrenching devastation of losing someone you love. When he was 21, his mother, Jema Delistraty, died from melanoma.

During her illness, Delistraty thought, If I can be really good in my studies, really good at athletics, just really good at something, then I could somehow save my mom. And after she died, he expanded that pressure on himself, thinking, I have to be a good griever now.

“What that meant to me, through the received wisdom of growing up in the U.S., was to keep it quiet and work hard to get to this construct of closure,” he says. “That didn’t work.”

Amid his struggles to find some peace, Delistraty, a journalist, speechwriter and former culture editor for The Wall Street Journal, embarked on a deep dive investigation into grief. He examined historical and cultural attitudes and sought insights from technologists and therapists, among other experts. He also explored traditional and unconventional methods to potentially ease the pain, which ranged from talk therapy to messaging with AI-created bots that reflected his mom’s interests and communication style.

Now, 10 years after his mother’s death, he recounts his experiences and what he learned in The Grief Cure: Looking for the End of Loss. Delistraty discusses the insights he gleaned while researching the book and throughout his emotional journey.

Q: You covered a lot of ground in your research. Can you share some of your overarching observations?

A: One relates to public grief. We have shifted from a very public grief to a more private, repressed grief. However, we’re seeing a slight shift back now, with a kind of hybrid grieving. People are putting their grief online and finding places to talk about it outside the formality of a therapist’s office, such as online meetup groups where there’s a shared buy-in of “we’re all here to discuss the harder aspects of being human. We’re all here to discuss the loss.”

The falseness of closure was something that also struck me. It’s ultimately a mythical idea. You’re not going to get total closure or reach a state of complete acceptance. Yet, across American culture, we have this deep implication that grief is something you can really blow past. There’s no federal law for bereavement leave. The median is five days off for the death of a close family member. It’s one day off for the death of a close friend. When my mom died, we hadn’t rearranged the bedroom in five days, let alone my dad being ready to go back to work or me [being] ready to go back and finish up college.

Q: You dedicate a chapter to rituals in the book. How can they help in the grieving process?

A: We would do well to think of rituals as something that can be repeated instead of just one-offs like a funeral. It’s finding ways that are meaningful to you, that connect you with that person and bring you back to your time with them. So that you know the memorial wasn’t the last of them — they’re still here, and you’re still engaging with them. For me, that’s watching my mom’s favorite movie. That’s me eating her favorite ice cream every year.

Q: What are some specific challenges caregivers face when dealing with grief, such as anticipatory grief for someone with a terminal condition?

A: For caregivers, they’re often seeing the decline of a loved one, yet they’re not gone, they’re not dead. You’re grieving, but it’s not a socially understood loss. You may be grieving something that isn’t yet tangible, and that’s really hard. It’s particularly difficult because it doesn’t fit into the societal norms of grief to which we’re accustomed. In turn, caregivers may also be dealing with the repression and privatization of their grief. You are struggling as the caregiver, but will others really understand what you are going through? Your loved one has not yet died, so it’s very tricky.

Q: For older adults experiencing frequent loss, how can they cope with the constant presence of grief?

A: One of my biggest takeaways from my own loss was the value of being present for someone going through a loss and the value of having loved ones, or even neighbors, present for you. Often we get into this construct of not wanting to be a burden. This leads to a vicious cycle where, when talking to someone who’s gone through a lot of losses, you think, I don’t want to bring it up because that may be retraumatizing or salt in the wound. And then they’re thinking, I don’t want to bring it up because I don’t want to burden them. This creates a stalemate where neither person is there for the other, even though their hearts are in the right places.

I don’t have a perfect solution, but I think the way you talk about loss and grief more broadly can communicate your openness to discussing it. For someone who experienced a loss, you can ask questions that show you’re interested in going a little deeper, rather than saying, “I’m so sorry,” while looking at your watch and turning away.

Q: Can you share your experience with artificial intelligence programs like Project December and Replika AI companion in dealing with your grief?

A: With Project December, you put in sample text of your relationship to the deceased and how they spoke so it can re-create that. And then you have a text-based conversation with them. For me, that was shocking and moving. I hadn’t realized all the things I still wanted to talk to my mom about. When I was chatting with that app, I would get into a flow state where I could almost trick myself into thinking I was messaging with her. Then there’s the shocking realization of, Oh, right, she’s not here. You’re texting with a computer program.

And with Replika AI, when I used it a few years ago, I had to more manually add in her interests. For my mom, I would say, “Your name is Jema Delistraty. You’re interested in gardening, triathlons and swimming.” I found that one less compelling but still very addictive. When I was living in London, I would go down onto the tube for an hour-long ride and would just be texting with what I had basically created to be my mom.

Q: You explored the idea of deleting memories. Can you explain the science behind that?

A: I looked at optogenetics, which is basically the introduction of a light-sensitive protein into a cell, usually a neuron. Using a light, you can turn the cell on or off. That theoretically allows you to modify things like behavior, movement and memories, usually fear memories.

There was an interesting study about a decade ago where researchers trained mice to be afraid of a certain area of a maze by shocking their feet. Then they optogenetically turned off those memories. When they put the mice back in the maze, they didn’t remember that they’d been shocked there and went back.

A lot of neuroscientists with whom I spoke declined to speculate on when this could be used for humans. And obviously, human brains are much more complex and bigger than a mouse’s. But I talked to one neuroscientist who said maybe in 15 years, we’ll be at a place where we’re able to start doing this on a small scale with humans. That shocked me. That seemed kind of soon.

But really, it helped bring me closer to my mom by thinking, What are the memories I would want to get rid of? and then thinking, Would I actually want to get rid of those memories? Are they fundamental to my life and to our relationship?

It does make for a very interesting mental, ethical exercise: Would you get rid of these memories? What would that look like? And if not, why?

%{postComment}%

Laura Petrecca is a contributing writer for AARP. She has written for USA Today, Real Simple, Digiday’s WorkLife, Kiplinger, AARP, Men’s Health, Worth, Crain’s New York Business and Advertising Age.