Rumor is a major source of vaccine rejection. The author discusses in detail the case of Andrew Wakefield and his contention that MMR (measles, mumps, rubella) vaccine causes autism. This belief, based on a 1998 paper in The Lancet (later retracted) has been shown to be false by numerous large-scale studies, but is accepted by perhaps millions of people throughout the world.    

In Stuck, Dr. Larson makes a strong case that vaccine hesitancy and rejection are widespread and growing global problems. The book is much weaker in proposing effective solutions. It’s clear that simple solutions, based on the premise that resistance will fade away as soon as public health agencies “educate” people, have failed.  Dr. Larson recommends listening more carefully to antivaxxers’ concerns and developing creative pro-vaccine messaging. Since the publication of her book, the massive initiative to vaccinate the American population against Covid has confirmed the extent and multiplicity of antivaccine beliefs in our society. It has also led public health agencies to develop more sensitive and engaging messaging than in the past. Nonetheless, the core problem remains.  

Stuck
Heidi J. Larson 
Oxford University Press, New York, 2020:  155 pages. 
A previous version of this review was published in the NYU Literature, Arts, and Medicine Database.
Web image by Medhum.org

The Iranian-American author, Azar Nafisi (b. 1955), reminisces about her experiences teaching English literature in Iran before, during and after the revolution and the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). The book opens near the end of her sojourn in Tehran. A small group of young women, who have been friends since they were University students, gather in the author’s home to read and discuss English novels. They wear western clothes, remove their veils, and eat sweets. Some have been in prison. They conceal their simple purpose from fathers, husbands, brothers, because meeting to read Western fiction would be construed as an act of defiance.  

In four sections, two named for twentieth-century novels and two for nineteenth-century authors — “Lolita” “Gatsby” “James” and “Austen,” Nafisi constructs a series of flashbacks that describe the events of late 1970s to the 1990s in the inner and outer world of an academic woman. The books and writers used in the section headings have walk-on parts or starring roles that jar in this ostensibly alien context. Yet, they work surprisingly well for the women students, stimulating them to think in new ways about the situation in which they find themselves. Conversely, as the students assimilate the English and American writers into their world, we learn more about their Iran. 

Myriad details of moment, garb, color, and food, evoke the everyday “feel” of protests and atrocities that are known in the West only through journalist’s reports. The long descriptions contrast sharply with a relentless and probably deliberate lack of precision about several basic things. For example, the author withholds her age and the identity and the nature of her relationship with “my magician,” a greatly admired man –perhaps a lover or a teacher–who seems to exist on chocolate and philosophy.  

Possessives and the first-person singular are used liberally (“my students”) to remind us that this is one woman’s story—notwithstanding the solace, but barely developed presence, of a husband, two children, and a mother. The decision may have been made to protect personal privacy. But the result also conspires to build a narcissistic tone, as if the author marvels at her own creativity, attractiveness, resilience, survival, and escape.  

Some of the most engaging passages describe the male students’ difficulty with literature that they perceive to be immoral (for its sexual content or for the agency it assigns women). In the social climate, the young men are utterly unable to accept great writing on its own terms. One wonders how they would react to Nafisi’s own book and her portrayal of them. The wonderful device of a mock trial of Gatsby (pp. 120-136) challenges the students by going to the heart of the conflict of politics, religion, literature, and justice; it would work well as an excerpt and is worthy of emulation in our classrooms. The work deepens our understanding and complicates the impressions of Iran that are generated by a steady diet of news reports. 

In 2024, Reading Lolita in Tehran became a film directed by Israeli filmmaker Eran Riklis. 

Born into a privileged, Iranian family and educated in both England and the United States, Nafisi saw the great changes in her beloved country as the encroachment of a retrograde, unthinking tyranny, hostile to women and to reason. She moved to the United States in 1997 and became a citizen in 2008. She has served as a professor of English literature in several universities, holds at least nine honorary doctorates and numerous awards and prizes for her creative work. 

Reading Lolita in Tehran
Azar Nafisi
Random House, New York 2003
347 pages

From the Vault:
In these times, certain works of literature seem to be as relevant to us now as when they were published — possibly more relevant than the times that they depict. From the vault of the now closed Literature, Arts and Medicine Database, we will pluck a few items for their power and timeliness.

Web photo by  ariyan Dv 

Located near Woodstock, geographically and culturally, Jened offered a space free from the discrimination the summer residents encountered elsewhere. Campers engaged in uninhibited physical activities, uncensored storytelling, self-governance, mutual caretaking, real friendships, irreverent insider humor, romance, and fun. One powerful, sobering scene allows viewers to overhear campers with diverse disabilities share common experiences: being disrespected or ignored at school, overly protected at home, isolated everywhere. Another tracks the campers’ hilarity and pride over an outbreak of “crabs.” One camper declares his counselor’s demonstration of how to kiss, “Best physical therapy ever!”  

The second and longer part of the film follows several former campers into their adult lives. They become parents, spouses, professionals, and disability rights activists at a crucial historic moment for disability legislation. Both parts of the film propose that the liberty and solidarity experienced at Jened emboldened several of the campers to seek opportunity and equality in the world beyond their camp. 

While former camper Jim Lebrecht narrates the film, Judy Huemann—who died in 2023—is its political and moral center. A wheelchair user, Heumann rose from Jened camper to counselor. Campers revered her for successfully suing the New York City Department of Education for the right to teach. When she and several former campers unexpectedly reunited in Berkeley, California, they participated in the Independent Living Movement that famously started there. An astute leader, Heumann inspired an astonishing 25-day sit-in at the Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEW) offices in San Francisco’s Federal Office Building in 1977.  She and her disabled colleagues risked their health and their lives—they slept on the floor and improvised medical necessities—to convince HEW to enforce the anti-discrimination section of the 1973 Rehabilitation Act: Section 504. Heumann’s uncompromising standoff with the HEW representative is unforgettable. As is her daily urging for the occupiers to hold fast. Regular deliveries of food, supplies, and solidarity from the Black Panthers and other marginalized groups fueled the protesters’ determinism and ultimate success. 

In other archival footage, Heumann, demanding accessible taxies, leads demonstrators to gridlock traffic in New York City intersections. Still other protestors abandon their wheelchairs and pull themselves up the steps of the U.S. Capitol to insist on disability civil rights. Recently filmed interviews with several former campers affirm that, despite the work toward disability justice that remains, they live fuller, more vibrant lives as a result of their camp experiences and the legislation they demanded.  

Crip Camp is an indispensable film because it’s told from the rarely seen perspective of disabled teenagers . The Jened campers’ irrepressible personalities, candor, and accomplishments demolish stereotypes about disability. It’s simultaneously painful to confront the inhospitable world they had to navigate and still do. The film’s co-directors, Jim LeBrecht and Nicole Newnhan, prompt us to ask why histories of the civil rights projects of the’ 60s to ‘70s have largely ignored the struggles and successes of disability activists. Yet as Crip Camp raises awareness of the “nothing about us without us” campaigns for disability rights, it also makes me restless for more documentaries. Without doubt, we have more to learn about the history and politics of the passage—and enforcement—of laws through the 1990 Americans with Disabilities Act and its 2008 Amendment.

Crip Camp: A Disability Revolution 
Directed by Jim LeBrecht and Nicole Newnhan 
Higher Ground Productions: 2020, RT: 104 minutes 

For more information about Crip Camp and its Impact Campaign, please visit https://cripcamp.com/

The action in James, which is told in the first person, follows a good part of Twain’s story line. James, a slave, overhears that he is to be sold to a man in New Orleans and separated from his wife and family, so he flees his owner’s home and hides on a small island in the Mississippi River to buy time and plan. Meanwhile, Huck’s father, a violent alcoholic, has returned to town, and to get away from him, Huck has faked his own death, has run away from home, and is also sheltering on the same island. Together Huck and James flee down the Mississippi on a raft. With Huck thought to be dead and the runaway James presumed to be his killer, James realizes that Huck’s safety and survival are the only proofs of his innocence.   

Many of the episodes of Twain’s novel are here, but when James and Huck become separated, James’s independent narrative begins. He is left in the service of a blacksmith, where his singing attracts the attention of a leader of a minstrel troupe, who purchases him. But to perform, James must first be made up as a white man and then wear blackface. The troupe also contains a light-skinned black man passing as white, who befriends James and runs away with him. They wind up on a crowded riverboat and James discovers that Huck is on the same boat. The ship’s boiler explodes, the ship capsizes, and James must decide to save either his friend or Huck. He saves Huck (there are multiple reasons for this) and then sets about trying to return home to find his family and get them to safety…and freedom. 

James is often funny, but it is not light. Separation of families, whippings, and killings are presented as the backdrop to daily life—which renders them even more horrible. However, Everett is not just interested in retelling the Huck Finn story from another character’s viewpoint; he is interested in telling a different story: James’s. Turning the racial dynamic upside down, Everett’s slaves speak perfect English among themselves, but purposely revert to deep stereotypical dialect when around white people. They understand that by code-switching in this way they are giving the whites what they want and expect; to do otherwise would challenge the rigid social hierarchy and thus put the slaves in grave danger. Their use of dialect keeps them relatively safe, and importantly, helps them maintain a kind of control of the situation. When you have so little, a secret is a powerful thing. 

For much of the book is about power. There is a wonderful scene early in the novel where James is holding a class for slave children in which he drills them on the way they must speak around whites: 

“White folks expect us to sound a certain way, and it can only help if we don’t disappoint them,” I said. “The only ones who suffer when they are made to feel inferior is us. Perhaps I should say when they don’t feel ‘superior.’ So, let’s pause to review some of the basics.” 

The children then proceed to enumerate the rules: don’t make eye contact, never speak first, never address any subject directly when talking to another slave. The correct way to report a fire in the kitchen is not “Fire, fire!”, but “Lawdy, missum! Looky dere.”—because “…we must let the whites be the ones who name the trouble.” In this and other sections Everett lets us peek behind a curtain to see Black resistance in action. He also makes us see beyond Twain’s literary stereotype to understand the enslaved Black characters as fully formed people: aware, articulate, clever, and possessed of deep emotional lives, creators of a complex society within the general society of the time and place. Everett isn’t interested in the myth of the long-suffering, infinitely patient, preternaturally wise servant, except to explode it.  

James suggests that it is the control of the tools of the intellect—primarily spoken language (though James can read and write as well)—that is ultimately the slaves’ power and their defense. Denying the enslaved an education was, of course, a way of keeping them down, and many in the South fought hard to maintain this status quo. James’s treasured possessions are a book, a notebook, and a pencil, and the code-switching mentioned above is not merely a defense, but a way in which white masters can be manipulated.  

Besides education, Everett explores another source of power (or its lack): skin color, its implications and, despite the rigid social system, its malleability. Beyond the primary black/white power implications of the antebellum South, we have in the minstrel performance section white men in blackface, a black man “passing” as white who dons blackface, and a black man who must be made up to look white before he can put on blackface. There is even a biracial character in the novel, who shows up so unexpectedly that the reader is left to wonder about the author’s motivation here; is he saying this is far more common than anyone thought? Is he sending up the Great American Novel? Saying that the black and white roots of American history—and literature— are more inextricably commingled than we could imagine? Everett doesn’t expound on this but leaves us to hypothesize. 

 Perhaps the most obvious signifier of power in the novel is in the title. The protagonist is not James, the name the white world—his enslaver—calls him. but James, the name he chooses for himself. At one point he is told to identify himself:  

He is not someone’s property, no longer to be identified by a name someone else has given him. He has chosen this name, and the ability to name (see the children’s discussion above) is a power in itself. 

James is brilliant, clever, eminently readable, a tale of personal victory and an emotionally rich yet biting commentary on the dynamics of race relations. It is also grimly serious in its portrayal of the horrors of daily life for enslaved people in the antebellum South. Everett starts with Twain’s work and takes it in another direction, with another voice heard from. James’s intelligence, humanity, and determination run through the entire novel; in Everett’s telling, James is not simply Huck’s long-suffering sidekick, the good loyal companion who is ultimately liberated—literally—by Huck and Tom Sawyer. James has his own agenda, and though he may be bought and sold, he is at no time a pawn. He is hyperaware of his situation and always searching for a way to accomplish his ends; he has agency. Near the novel’s end we even have a Biblical moment where James brings down a cataclysm upon his enslavers and leads his people to freedom.  

A retelling of Huckleberry Finn, indeed. 

James is shortlisted for the 2024 Booker Prize. Nonso Anozie reads an excerpt:

James
Percival Everett 
Doubleday, New York
320 pp (hardcover) 

Feature image by Guille Pozzi