Interview

“I Have an Entire Cat Skeleton”

Third in a series of interviews with poets who collect things.

by Richard Siken
Jane Mead is the author of Liminal (forthcoming), The Lord And The General Din Of The World, and House of Poured-Out Waters. She manages a ranch in Northern California.

Richard Siken: What do you collect?
Jane Mead: Bones.

Can you describe some of them?
Most of the bones in my collection I have found; some of them have been presents. The one that looks the funniest was a present. It’s a manatee skull. It’s just a dodo of a skull, and a manatee is a dodo-looking animal. I love that. I have a Bengal tiger skull, lots of little tiny rodent bones, and skulls from owl kill—I have jars and jars of those. I have an entire cat skeleton, a whole jar of fish vertebra that are almost the same size—like poker chips—an alligator skull, a mountain lion skull, tens and tens of deer skulls, and several of the skulls from our horses. Not including the tiny ones, which would be hundreds, I have maybe 35 or 40 skulls. Some of them are hanging in the garage. The ones that are really beautiful and well cured are in the kitchen, or they’re on bookshelves. Some of them are just in boxes. I try to keep similar ones all together. I have a lot of coyote skulls and those are all together, though the lower jawbones are all mixed up. So some of them are really well taken care of and then some aren’t.



Do you cure them yourself?
Yes. I have several that are professionally cured that I am pretty sure originated at the San Diego Zoo, like the Bengal tiger skull. That was professionally cured. Many of them I find myself, in—obviously—different states of decomposition. Sometimes they’re already pretty well done. And then, sometimes I have to start from scratch, and that can be an ugly, smelly process. It’s sort of fallen down now, but we had a cage—an old chicken coop—that we would put the bones in and the little black beetles—the kind you see on roadkill—basically, they would just go to work. The cage keeps animals out.

Otherwise there’s so much you can’t do yourself, without really damaging the delicate parts—the eggshell bubble around the ear cavity, parts like that. They do a lot of the work, the beetles, but there’s also boiling and scrubbing and bleaching. I did go through a phase, when I was little, when I would put bones in my mother’s dishwasher. It didn’t really work that well, partly because they got too steamed; they got soft. The process was more damaging than helpful.

But boiling, boiling is great. You can boil a skull or some bones with a little bit of bleach and keep an eye on it, make sure you’re not going too far. Boiling works really well, but the beetles are the main thing. They do the very delicate work.



What’s the most important item in your collection?
I think of my collection in two parts: the things I find myself, or that friends have found, and then things that have been cured by professionals. The Bengal tiger is really gorgeous, so that’s definitely one of my favorites—but it came to me already cured. And that entire cat skeleton—a friend found it under a house. I have every single bone—the end of the toes, the tail, the entire thing. It died under a house and somehow it was protected from larger predators and it decomposed without being dragged around, which is the problem with most things when they’re decomposing, they’re also getting dragged around by a bunch of animals, torn apart. So it’s really hard to find something that’s actually whole. So the cat is very important, because it is whole.

Why collect stuff? How do you decide on, or give in to, the impulse to collect?
When I was really young—I must have been four or five—we were traveling across [the] country, and I found the hoof and part of the leg of a fawn. It must have been dried out enough that it wasn’t stinky, but I know it still had fur on it. I kept that thing forever. I loved it. I had a kind of fascination early on.

I have no idea where the impulse comes from. You could argue, I suppose, that it comes from food gathering—a basic impulse toward hoarding.

But I really think a lot of it is the desire to protect something, preserve it. When I look at that cat, for example, I think, “My god, if this cat gets shifted around too much, it’s not going to hang together. All these bones will be spread far and wide. It will not be a full cat.” Same thing with a lot of the bones: if this thing is not protected, it will not exist. So there’s some kind of sense inside me that the thing is worthwhile. For me, much of it is aesthetic. I just think they’re beautiful, so it’s love, too.



A sort of guardianship?
Yes. It’s impossible not to feel that. I can’t look at something like the skeleton of a cat and say no. I have lots of snake skeletons that are in different states of completion, and there’s no way I would leave something like that out in the hills. It wouldn’t be in my nature. I come from a collecting family as well. My father collected all sorts of things, some stuff that might be seen as useless and would not be protected in the general scheme of things.

My father was, for quite a while, the curator of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard. And when I was a kid, I used to go down the aisles of the basement there. They seemed very narrow and the shelves very tall. In any case, they were filled with jars of collections in formaldehyde. And that was his world, the world that he lived in, so that what I was doing didn’t seem in any way peculiar. In fact, when Harvard changed over to modern specimen jars, he kept some of the old handblown ones, and those are the jars I use now for some of the smaller bones. He also wrote articles about his research, and my mother drew the scientific drawings of fish skeletons for those articles.

I don’t suppose you’re ever going to be done with your collection?
No. There’s no reason to be done. If I lived in a tiny little apartment, I’d need storage space or something, but no, no, there is no outer limit. I think it will get harder and harder to stop.



Poems are documents. Collections are documents. What does your collection document that your poetry doesn’t?
It’s hard for me to think about comparing the two. I guess they both preserve things. Poems preserve things in thought or image but not in reality. Maybe that gets back to the thing about wanting to protect and preserve; that impulse for preserving something in a poem might be in some ways similar to collecting. Protecting something you found in the woods is very much about that thing, though. So it’s very hard for me to actually make that comparison to poetry, where you are preserving a thought.

Do your friends and family understand your obsession, or do they give you grief?
No, they don’t give me grief. And nobody’s really given me a lot of grief about writing poetry either, so that’s pretty good, I guess.

I think they understand [that] my collecting is based on scientific curiosity. It’s incredible that you can take the tibia of a mouse and put it next to the tibia of a cow and they look almost exactly the same. Yet then I think, “Of course they look the same—why wouldn’t they? They serve the same purpose.” I think that my parents being who they were—my father being a naturalist, my mother really also being a naturalist, if not by profession then by training—probably made it a lot easier than it [otherwise] would have been for me to have this sort of collection as a kid. My mother, for example, drove that cat all the way from New Mexico to North Carolina for me. She put this thing in her trunk and drove it all the way. I consider that very understanding.

Sometimes I find [that] people react a little bit. The only reaction I find annoying is the assumption that it’s morbid—peculiar or exhibitionistic. Why would you do this morbid thing unless it was some kind of exhibition? But to me it’s not a morbid fascination at all; it’s a fascination with the beautiful. It’s about evolution; it’s about looking at evolution and how it happened—life. And [skeletons and bones] are gorgeous architectural and engineering feats.



Is there a line you won’t cross, or have crossed—like going into debt or building an addition to your house—when it comes to collecting?
I’ve never killed anything for its bones, and I don’t think I ever would. I might kill a mouse to get it out of my house, but I wouldn’t kill it for its skeleton. That somehow goes against everything that it’s all about. It really is, in many ways, a life-affirming thing. There’s a store in New York that sells bones, and they actually raise things in some cases to kill and cure. I don’t like that. I wouldn’t buy things there.

And I’m not sure how I feel about human bones. I’ve never had an opportunity to collect anything that was human, particularly a skull. All considerations aside—in that it’s probably illegal to have them, and if you had one, where’d it come from, does it belong to a burial ground or a homeless person—all that aside, just the fact that something was human would make me feel somehow differently about it.

I’ve never dug up one of my dogs for the skull. I’ve thought about it, but I’ve never done that. It would be disruptive.

Photos by Jennifer Chandler
Originally Published: April 19, 2007

COMMENTS (10)

On April 20, 2007 at 6:07pm Elizabeth Williams wrote:
Is it possible to ask Ms. Mead a question?

I also collect bones!

I think it is interesting to see the differences between the animal bone structures.

I have an entire skeleton of a raccoon, but I do not know how to assemble it to keep it together. Can I use glue? Right now it is in a shoebox and I would rather have it on display.

Thanks!

On August 20, 2007 at 6:32am Eugenia Kay wrote:
I was thrilled to find this article about your bone collection. I too collect bones/skeletons but not as thoroughly or beautifully as you do. My father was an artist and collected all sorts of dead things mostly to paint but then he kept them around. As a child I found a red-tailed hawk dead on the side of the road and carried it home (in my arms like a baby) for my father to paint. We kept it wrapped up in the freezer for a while! I am an elementary teacher and love to share my fascination with bones with my students.

Thanks for the affirmation and inspiration.

On February 5, 2008 at 12:17pm wrote:
ewe that is gross

On February 18, 2008 at 12:39pm me wrote:
Dude or Dudette...

In seeing your Amazing collection, I can honestly say that it ranks up there among the most UNIQUE collections Ive seen. The number one and most eccentric collection I've seen has been that belonging to an this college GEOLOGY professor

who collected fossilized dinosaur SKAT.. Yeap dude collects Dinosaur Caca.. <<-- bizarre..... But unique and ORIGINAL...

On April 5, 2008 at 3:00pm Mari wrote:
FYI, Jane Mead's much-anticipated (May

'08) third collection is titled THE USABLE

FIELD, not LIMINAL as is referenced

above.

On April 15, 2008 at 11:06pm bob wrote:
Her poetry is like dry bones too, so I

guess it makes a sad kind of sense.

Another trust-fund poet, this one with

1,300 acre ranch in Napa Ca. to loll

around on. And what has she Done with

all her resources? Judging by a google

search, got grants.

On June 30, 2008 at 3:17pm judy booth wrote:
Jane is a remarkable woman -- gifted poet and rescuer and caretaker of much more than bones --

On December 10, 2008 at 4:17pm Jamie Irons wrote:
Horace lived on his Sabine farm, supported by Maecenas, and produced a timeless body of work.

Personally I find it rather tasteless that one would object to Ms Mead's living on a ranch in the Napa Valley, let alone questioning what she "has...Done [sic] with all her resources," when it is apparent that she has written some fine poetry, and is good enough at her craft to teach at the Iowa Workshop.

I once had occasion (actually, several occasions) to meet the poet's father (he passed away some years ago), and was quite impressed with his generosity and intelligence. These traits seem to have passed to his daughter; one line of evidence is her approach and attitude toward the collecting that is described above.

Jamie Irons

On March 23, 2009 at 12:26pm Susan Rapp wrote:
This is interesting and I am oddly drawn to it. It could be part of a Bohemian Rustic Decor setting + be totally urban cool.

On May 4, 2010 at 9:31am melissa wrote:
this guy is soooooooooooo amazing

POST A COMMENT

Poetryfoundation.org welcomes comments that foster dialogue and cultivate an open community on the site. Comments on articles must be approved by the site moderators before they appear on the site. By submitting a comment, you give the Poetry Foundation the right to publish it. Please note: We require comments to include a name and e-mail address. Read more about our privacy policy.

Related

More Poets' Collections

Biography

In her recent profile of Richard Siken, Nell Casey wrote “he effectively juxtaposes holy wishes with mundane images—making them both seem beautiful by some strange lyrical alchemy.” His poems unwind on the page effortlessly, barely pausing for breath; the speaker’s voice wracked with sexual obsession. His book Crush won the 2004 Yale Series of Younger Poets prize selected by Louise Glück. It was also a finalist for the National . . .

Continue reading this biography

Originally appeared in Poetry magazine.

This poem has learning resources.

This poem is good for children.

This poem has related video.

This poem has related audio.