THE IMMORTAL LIFE OF HENRIETTA LACKS
Part one: Life
Writing topic #2: one of Henrietta’s relatives said to Skloot, “if you pretty up how people spoke and change the things they said, that’s dishonest’. Throughout, Skloot is true to the dialect in which people spoke to her: the Lackses speak in a heavy Southern accent, and Lengauer and Hsu speak as non-native English speakers. What impact did the decision to maintain speech authenticity have on the story?
When Rebecca Skloot was interviewing the family and friends of Henrietta Lacks one of them said to Skloot that if she changes the words they said to her, the story will sound unreal because “it’s taking away their lives, their experiences, and their selves”. For this reason, Skloot decided to maintain the words of the interviewees.
In my opinion, the decision to maintain the “native dialect” of the interviewees give us a more realistic idea of how was Henrietta’s life. Sometimes, when the authors change this words, the information in the stories can be wrong. It is better to keep the interviewees words in this story since nobody knows too much about Henrietta Lacks. As a result, the story will be clearer for the audience.
Based on the family and friends' words we can understand more about how they felt about the situation. Over time things change and if the author uses words according to this time, maybe their real sentiments, attitudes or words can show us a different meaning. Maybe, when they were talking with Skloot, they tried to transmit their experiences with their words because that’s how they could explain to her.
The decision of Rebecca Skloot to keep the interviewees’ words is synonymous with respect in my point of view. The family and friends can see that their opinion is important and that they didn’t waste their time talking with Skloot because she decided to keep their words, knowledge and opinion. In the end, they will see that the story of the life of Henrietta’s is not based on lies, but in truth thanks to them.
Writing topic #2: one of Henrietta’s relatives said to Skloot, “if you pretty up how people spoke and change the things they said, that’s dishonest’. Throughout, Skloot is true to the dialect in which people spoke to her: the Lackses speak in a heavy Southern accent, and Lengauer and Hsu speak as non-native English speakers. What impact did the decision to maintain speech authenticity have on the story?
When Rebecca Skloot was interviewing the family and friends of Henrietta Lacks one of them said to Skloot that if she changes the words they said to her, the story will sound unreal because “it’s taking away their lives, their experiences, and their selves”. For this reason, Skloot decided to maintain the words of the interviewees.
In my opinion, the decision to maintain the “native dialect” of the interviewees give us a more realistic idea of how was Henrietta’s life. Sometimes, when the authors change this words, the information in the stories can be wrong. It is better to keep the interviewees words in this story since nobody knows too much about Henrietta Lacks. As a result, the story will be clearer for the audience.
Based on the family and friends' words we can understand more about how they felt about the situation. Over time things change and if the author uses words according to this time, maybe their real sentiments, attitudes or words can show us a different meaning. Maybe, when they were talking with Skloot, they tried to transmit their experiences with their words because that’s how they could explain to her.
The decision of Rebecca Skloot to keep the interviewees’ words is synonymous with respect in my point of view. The family and friends can see that their opinion is important and that they didn’t waste their time talking with Skloot because she decided to keep their words, knowledge and opinion. In the end, they will see that the story of the life of Henrietta’s is not based on lies, but in truth thanks to them.
COMMON READ
Human Guinea Pigs
The last three weeks my partners and I were participating in different college activities related to the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. One of these was “Human Guinea Pigs” by Beth Lilach, a very interesting activity that caused a big impact on me. The victims were treated very badly and some scientists were involved in it.
First, something that caught my attention was that most of the people used for this research were prisoners, women, babies and twins that were treated without anesthesia. How cruel was that! The victims were frozen to death, burned alive, had live autopsies, organs removed or were connected in the wrong way, and they also injected chemical animal blood to the victims. Those prisoners were “fattened up” for “good results”. For example, one of the investigators was Dr. Ishii, director of the “Japanese experiments at Unit 731” from 1934 to 1945 and responsible of almost 20000 deaths. When he was doing one of his experiments he reported, “I inserted the scalpel directly into the logs neck and opened the chest. At first there was a terrible scream, but the voice soon tells silent” and in his defense Dr. Ishii said “I just received an order”.
Like Dr. Ishii, there were other research workers that conducted their own experiments. Walter Reed was responsible for injecting people with the yellow fever in 1900. If some of them survived at the yellow fever, Walter Reed paid them $100. Dr. Rhoads infected Puerto Ricans with cancer at Rockefeller Institute in 1931. We also learned that in 1966 the U.S. Army and the C.I.A threw toxins and bacteria in the NYC subway system. This information caught the attention of the whole audience because this occurred here in our city and some of the students felt deception about it.
In conclusion, all these experiments caused a big impact not only on me, but on all of humanity too. These were very painful and sad, but very interesting. I enjoy the presentation. This teach me an important phase of the medical history.
The last three weeks my partners and I were participating in different college activities related to the book “The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks”. One of these was “Human Guinea Pigs” by Beth Lilach, a very interesting activity that caused a big impact on me. The victims were treated very badly and some scientists were involved in it.
First, something that caught my attention was that most of the people used for this research were prisoners, women, babies and twins that were treated without anesthesia. How cruel was that! The victims were frozen to death, burned alive, had live autopsies, organs removed or were connected in the wrong way, and they also injected chemical animal blood to the victims. Those prisoners were “fattened up” for “good results”. For example, one of the investigators was Dr. Ishii, director of the “Japanese experiments at Unit 731” from 1934 to 1945 and responsible of almost 20000 deaths. When he was doing one of his experiments he reported, “I inserted the scalpel directly into the logs neck and opened the chest. At first there was a terrible scream, but the voice soon tells silent” and in his defense Dr. Ishii said “I just received an order”.
Like Dr. Ishii, there were other research workers that conducted their own experiments. Walter Reed was responsible for injecting people with the yellow fever in 1900. If some of them survived at the yellow fever, Walter Reed paid them $100. Dr. Rhoads infected Puerto Ricans with cancer at Rockefeller Institute in 1931. We also learned that in 1966 the U.S. Army and the C.I.A threw toxins and bacteria in the NYC subway system. This information caught the attention of the whole audience because this occurred here in our city and some of the students felt deception about it.
In conclusion, all these experiments caused a big impact not only on me, but on all of humanity too. These were very painful and sad, but very interesting. I enjoy the presentation. This teach me an important phase of the medical history.