I will admit that this is the first work of its kind that I've read. But what is missing from Eyring's analysis is a solid, hard look at Puritan doctrine and that society's unique patriarchal structure. Without this context, this unique New England grief is simply a general English reaction that can be found in any colony. Puritanism penetrated every thought, feeling, and action in the daily lives of these early colonists. Eyring consistently struggles to maintain objectivity and modern projection.

What's more, most of what is covered is from the perspective of white, Christian New Englanders, esp. the privileged Anne Bradstreet. Only one enslaved African-American is briefly mentioned, but left unexplored. Indigenous grief is discussed but only through their interactions with colonists, which is limiting. To address this properly, Eyring journeys outside of New England entirely, to 19th c. Hawai'i. Indigenous records in Eastern PA/NY or Tidewater Virginia could've been utilized instead I think. They lack the Puritanical influence, but are at least within the Algonquin cultural/language family.

But emotional and/or grief history is a subject that is rarely discussed and which I agree is critical to understanding reactions and counter-reactions throughout history. Sadness or disappointment is temporary, but bitterness, regret, sorrow and grief can linger for years or for whole lifetimes. As Eyring rightly points out, "most of the world's work is done by people who don't feel very well."