In the opening passage of
The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, titled “A Few Words About This Book,” author Rebecca Skloot reports that “In many places I’ve adopted the words interviewees used to describe their worlds and experiences. In doing so, I’ve used the language of their times and backgrounds, including words such as colored. Members of the Lacks family often referred to
Johns Hopkins as “John Hopkin,” and I’ve kept their usage when they’re speaking” (xiii-xiv). Skloot goes on to report that one of Henrietta’s relatives told her “If you pretty up how people spoke and change the things they said, that’s dishonest” (page xiii). Why do you think Skloot chose to place these words at the beginning of her text? Why might she have thought them necessary? If the book is non-fiction (as Skloot states in the first line of the book), wouldn’t she expect readers to believe that the author would adopt “the words interviewees used to describe their world and experiences”? Isn’t that why writers use quotation marks?
Do you think some readers are likely to be skeptical of the viewpoints of offered by characters who use dialects that are not generally considered “high prestige”? Is that a legitimate reason to paraphrase them instead of quoting them?
I think Skloot realized that some readers might find her certain spellings as errors and in order to insure that her readers did not take their time finding her "mistakes" rather than taking in the information, she went ahead and made note of using the spellings of the people she interviewed.
ReplyDeleteI also believe that some readers could be judgmental of the way certain characters speak in this book; but, if Skloot had not written the characters' responses in the way that they were given, then we would not be able to get the full degree of who these characters really are and what they truly believe in.
Chelsi Norris
I recently read "Their Eyes Were Watching God" and though it carries great esteem now, that was not always the case. The usage of words that were really spoken at the time it was set sent African Americans into an uproar. The book was given no justice simply because it was considered offensive instead of an honest look at everyday life through the eyes of a black women in that time period. I believe Skloot put this in as a disclaimer to prevent stepping on anyone's toes. She says she steps forth to present the honest truth about Ms. Lacks as never presented before. How could she achieve this without the words straight from the people closest to Ms. Lacks? One of the main points, if you will, is the fact that these cells could've been anyone, and she deserves her respect that she's been denied by being treated so impersonally. So Skloot gave Henrietta's family their original voice, complete with their own slang, grammar, and poise.
ReplyDeleteSkloot wants to portray Henrietta's life exactly as it was so how could she accomplish that without using the terms and wordings they used in everyday life. I think today most readers are informed of the way people talked from that era, that region especially, so I don’t think readers will find it that unusual when they come across the slang dialect spoken by Henrietta's family. Maybe the reason she chose to include the information is because it provides an insight into her family's attitude and pride towards their heritage as well as how closely portrayed the accounts are going to be in this book.
ReplyDeleteAshley Huhman
I believe Skloot added this explaination so readers would not find her quotes offensive. The dialect shows that Henrietta and her family were uneducated and that is a big factor in their lives. If readers thought Skloot was stereotyping it would most likely cause problems. So I agree with Kelsea Rabe when she says that Skloot did this to avoid stepping on toes.
ReplyDeleteMorgan Hicks
Rebecca Skloot most likely chose to add these pieces of information to the beginning of the book so that readers would be prepared for the distinct verbal differences amongst characters. This information was incorporated into the book no differently than “[sic]” would be included in a direct quote. While Skloot does use direct quotes from interviews, she also states on page xiv that some scenes have been re-created because they happened years ago during Henrietta's life. In order to give readers a complete understanding of the characters she encountered in writing the book, Skloot included not only physical descriptions, but verbal descriptions as well. By using the language and slang of the culture and time period, Skloot presents an extremely captivating story in a setting that can be easily experienced from the audience standpoint. Writers often have a tendency to "dumb down" material to suit their audience’s expectations; in, doing so, writers are susceptible to losing credibility. In contrast, Skloot honestly presents the facts she gathered without fear of how the audience will respond.
ReplyDeleteEmily Davis
In a work of nonfiction most would expect that an author would adopt the exact dialect used by the interviewees. However, if Skloot did not including this information at the beginning of the book, then some may assume that Skloot paraphrased and edited quotes for content to fit her story. Because Skloot quoted the interviewees exactly the way they presented information, the audience can better grasp the realism in the text. The characters become more than characters; they become people with real personality, opinions, joy, and pain. If quotes were not exact, this vital perspective would be lost.
ReplyDeleteAllon Gillispie
The way Skloot included the differing dialects in her work adds to the realism, people who see this story in their heads as they read get a much better, more fleshed-out experience of the characters involved than if she had just used the proper spellings and dull, monotonous text. If that was the case this work would have resembled a very long essay, instead of a book.
ReplyDeleteI believe Rebecca Skloot put these words in the begin of her text to avoid any offense that some people might take while reading her text, and she most likely wanted to make this clear from the very beginning of her book so there would not be any debate on the issue later. By using the original dialect from her interviewees, Skloot can paint a more elaborate picture of the time and place that all of this took place, since it was so long ago. I think some readers might look down or scoff at the characters in her book that are "illiterate" and these readers may find such responses to be less valuable or even unreliable.
ReplyDeleteI think Skloot put these introductions, so to speak, in to prepare people for what they are about to read. After reading this, people know that she didn't change any of the quotes to fit her story better, offend people, or to sound more dramatic and that she is trying to be as truthful and real as possible.
ReplyDeleteKarli Plunkett
This opening passage may seem slightly redundant to most readers. It seems that most everyone knows that people in that region of the world speak with a dialect. Therefore, it would be expected for her to reflect this dialect in her quotations. Personally, I feel that the only problem with deleting this portion would be the loss of the direct quote stating the viewpoint of the family of altering quotations. If someone was to argue that they were “skeptical of viewpoints offered by characters who use dialects,” I would argue that a paraphrased quotation with a quality of speech that does not reflect the character who has said it would cause even more skepticism.
ReplyDeleteMelody Dunn
The consensus view here is that Skloot's decision to use direct quotations from her sources that reveal their dialect (as opposed to paraphrasing their ideas in the more prestigious Standard American English) contributes to the book's realism and affirms Skloot's conscientiousness as a journalist. My follow up questions, for those who have weighed in here, are these: why do you think some people make negative judgments about people who speak a less prestigious dialect? Is it fair to suppose that a person who speaks in a less prestigious dialect is likely to be less educated than someone who speaks Standard American English? What if the person writes in a non-prestigious dialect? Do you ever notice yourself (or someone you know) adjusting your pronunciation in order to address a certain audience? Can you see how someone might think such an adjustment would be dishonest or fake?
ReplyDeleteAll people have first impressions, so those that hear someone speak in non-proper English most likely make assumptions that they are not as educated as others. I do not think you should automatically make critical judgments on people you do not know, but it’s one of those things that everybody does on all subjects of a person. When I got up to speak at graduation, I tried to pronounce everything as clearly as possible. Afterwards my parents said they could not even hear my country accent. I do not think it should be considered fake to try and sound the best you can in certain situations because since people do judge based on what you present to them you should be able to leave the best impression possible.
ReplyDeleteAshley Huhman
I think people are judged in the way that they speak because at times it makes them appear uneducated and dumb. Some people know the correct way they are supposed to speak but choose not to. Henrietta's case is different though since she really couldn't control the fact that her schooling is not up to par. In this instance, people should not be judged for things they cannot control. I do think that in certain situations, certain ways of speaking are needed. You wouldn't speak to your boss in the same manner you would chat with one of your closest friends. As long as the dialect change is professional and truly needed, I don't consider it fake or dishonest.
ReplyDeleteChelsi Norris