#emersoncollege

[thecurvycritic]

So proud to honor my @HowardU #Bison @chadwickboseman as part of @EmersonSOC tribute🙏🏽💗#OscarTalk2021 #emersoncollege #awardsseason #blackpanther #maraineysblackbottom #42 #getonup #blackexcellence #howard #howarduniversity https://www.instagram.com/p/CNk42xTr758/?igshid=gb30uev70ofa

[shereewrites]

I'm so excited to be part of this beautiful issue. Thanks to the editorial team @redivider_mag See below. Our newest issue of Redivider, 18.1, is now live! Check out the amazing writers we have showcased in it! #redivider #emersoncollege #emersonredivider #litmag #literarymagazine #fiction #nonfiction #graphicnarrative #poetry #blurredgenre #blurredgenrecontest https://t.co/9ywpotUrO2 https://www.instagram.com/p/CKE_HLkBQWS/?igshid=7prbae44r4xh

[explorelearncreate]

IMG_4708 2 by Nigel Cooper Via Flickr: Canon 5D MarkII | 85mm | Suffolk Boston, MA "Emerson College"

[spicyv]

Without fail, @wers889 knows how to make my ride home better. Thank U so much❣️🙏🎶📻 #889FMWERS #WERS #WERS889FM #EmersonCollege #PublicRadio #GUSter #GUSterrhoids #FaFa #BuddyChrist #SpicyV #Voravut #BackInMassachusetts #MassLife (at Massachusetts) https://www.instagram.com/p/CBO44THgNGbpBu7632jht9x7_rkCWnsgGtpVMI0/?igshid=hqc22zt2a4w8

[stretchjournalemerson]

What I Call Home: An Exploration of Privilege

By Katherine Healy 

It’s hard to love a place and know a place. The first week of college I brought my newfound friends to the town that I learned to walk in, grew up in, and spent hours upon hours simply existing in. However, I was shocked by their reactions. “This is so beautiful,” “what a place to grow up in,” and “do you know how lucky you are to live here?” were the only sounds in a car where everyone stared out the windows. Although I was shocked, I understood their reactions. The beauty of my town is obvious: blue is smeared across the sky and the sea while green compliments it from below. 

I don’t remember moving to Marshfield, Massachusetts. I think I was able to say “Mom” and “Dad” when I did, but not much else. However, the move from Florida was motivated: my parents were dead set on my future education. I was destined to go to the best of the best. Therefore, I went to a very specific elementary school. Now referred to by many as “The Academy,” usually accompanied by a soft laugh, my school’s name was always associated with prestige in my small town. With only 60 children in my graduation class, we were told for years that we were to achieve great things; how could we not? We were given all the skills, materials, and counseling to do so. However, with small bows in my hair and wide eyes, I never asked why. Why were we the best? The brightest? The most likely to succeed?

Years later, and hopefully years wiser, the reason becomes less pixelated but more nuanced. My elementary school is not as picture-perfect as my parents once believed. While the academics were exactly what my parents always dream of, there was a reason. Marshfield is 95.9% white. And, because of our demographics, our education reflects exactly what we are. We read stories about white characters by white authors in towns that felt eerily similar to Marshfield. We learned whitewashed history and assumed that it was nothing but the truth. We are all smart—we have to be—but in the way that Marshfield wants us to be.

However, this is not my elementary school’s only fault. As one of five elementary schools in my town, imaginary borders were drawn for the district years ago. However, in 2014, these borders suddenly changed. In a shocking school committee vote, Marshfield redistricted, sending 43 students from my elementary school to the neighboring one. While never explicitly mentioned by anyone of status in my town, a rumor about the reason for redistricting has circulated for years. Marshfield wanted to send students with disabilities and IEPs to a different elementary school. Despite this disgraceful and ignorant choice, parents simply talked about the inconvenience the choice established for their families. Cognizant that this is regarded as a rumor, I reached out to my town’s current School Committee Chair. As the student representative for two years for the committee and the chair being my Youth and Government advisor for two years, we developed an honest relationship. Although quickly responding to my first text inquiring about asking about a rumor, he left the question itself unanswered. While this does not concede anything, it is evident that this is not a matter he is interested in discussing. But, in a town built upon ignorance, it's hard to believe the town was destined for anything else. 

Born and raised on stolen Wampanoag territory, my town is a clear reminder of all that is destroyed. Instead of repenting our injustice to the native people, we celebrate the conquers. In second grade we took a field trip to Edward Winslow’s house--located in the center of my town and the site of a Senior Leader of Plymouth Colony. We learn the history of a man who built his livelihood on top of other people’s, crushing them with each movement. Then, a year later in third grade, we traveled to Plimoth Plantation to learn about the peaceful relationship between the Pilgrims and the Wampanoag people. They leave out the genocide part. So, how does a town get to be so ignorant? So unaware of their own faults? 

Ultimately, it comes down to one word: privilege. But, for many in Marshfield, that word sits funny in their mouth. Unpacking one’s own privilege is never easy. For me, it included nights crying and reworking and reflecting on everything I had ever known. However, people in conservative Marshfield view it as a deeming and demanding word. When called out, people go on the attack: “you’re making me seem like a bad person” and “I’ve never had it easy” usually perforate the conversation about privilege. Because, to many, Marshfield is not the epitome of privilege, instead it is the definition of blue-collar life. While Marshfield is not racially diverse, it is certainly socioeconomically diverse. 

Like many other coastal Massachusetts towns, people settle in: they build homes for generations to live in and they create careers for their children to work in. Their way of life is specific, and, more often than not, predescribed. They labor day in and day out to provide for their family. Even to my own extremely liberal family, privilege is a gritty topic. My mother grew up surrounded by poverty. With a paralyzed father, eight siblings, and sporadic foster children, money was tight. My mom recounts molasses sandwiches for dinner and years where Christmas was postponed because they couldn’t even afford their typical Charlie Brown tree. When you are questioning your next meal it’s hard to believe you are privileged. However, on the opposite side of the same spectrum, exists my father. Born and bred in a high-class white tower, my father’s biggest problem was that his real-estate developer father did not attend his high school hockey games. Although I am not minimizing the effect that had on him, he has never even heard of this discussion--nevermind participated in it. So, when socioeconomic status gets filtered into the intersectional conversation surrounding privilege—how do you navigate? My parents chose to meet in the middle. Now living a life of middle class blissfulness, they never have to have this conversation. The problem isn’t that they’re unaware, it’s that they never have to be.   

Upon reflection, I often wonder, was my education worth it? Was an “astonishing” reading level even worth it? How could I have truly learned if I was in a tower of privilege? The walls of this tower were covered in mirrors; everywhere I looked there were just reflections of myself. 

But, despite all these unanswered questions, it’s still home. I still wake up in the middle of the night longing for what used to be. I still get homesick for the sea. My best, most treasured memories exist between Marshfied’s sea walls. When I turned eight my grandmother painted a picture of me. On the canvas it was me with hair as bouncy and red as ever, but slowly growing. Three versions of me exist in the painting: each older than the last, but all in Marshfield. When I drive down the picturesque streets of Marshfield, I see each version on the streets. I see little me: happy as a clam on my elementary school playground. I see the next me: curious and bright in my town library. Finally, I see the last me: head down and ashamed, seeing Marshfield for all it will ever be. Not pictured is the fourth me: aware of what Marshfield is but still loving it, nevertheless. 

Youthful ignorance is exactly that. It is head tilted back from laughing and a hazy glow from the moon. It is nights where there is no destination but joy in every right and left turn. It is the ability to fall and scrape your knees with no consequences. It is reading until odd hours of the morning with your bedroom window open and crickets chirping. The feeling never goes away. I will always, infinitely be young and in Marshfield. I will always be wonderstruck by my own youth--and the consequent ignorance.

When people talk about home, they don’t talk about the piece of you that’s left there. In my case, that piece is nurtured and ignorant, blind to the world around her. However, it’s still me. It’s still a phantom limb I feel every day. But, I was only able to reflect by leaving. At Emerson, with its discussions and unpacking, I am able to witness, and sometimes participate, in conversations that weren’t even ideas in Marshfield. I am able to learn from stories and perspectives that are diverse, creating an education that is authentic rather than binary and whitewashed. I am able to grow as a person. I still can’t answer all the questions. Because of the foundation I was given, I have more to learn than my peers. But, I am learning nevertheless. So, I will always love Marshfield. I will always long for it's comforting embrace. Yet, I see it clearer now. I see it for everything it will ever be. 

Works Cited

“Parents React to Marshfield Redistricting Plan.” The Patriot Ledger, Quincy, MA: Local News, Politics, Entertainment & Sports in Quincy, MA. Accessed November 5, 2019. https://www.patriotledger.com/article/20140304/news/140308650?template=ampart.

“U.S. Census Bureau QuickFacts: Marshfield Town, Plymouth County, Massachusetts.” Census Bureau QuickFacts. Accessed November 5, 2019. https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/marshfieldtownplymouthcountymassachusetts/AGE295218.

Acknowledgements

With such a personal essay, it is hard not to get personal with my thanks. First, to the people that read my essay: Sophia and Noah. Both of your writing inspires me as both a writer and editor. You remind me, constantly and consistently, why I am pursuing this and why it is what I have always wanted. Sometimes, when you are an editor, no one really cares about your work. But, both of you continue to show an unprecedented amount of care towards my work. In regards to the essay itself, I have to thank its inspiration. Thank you to my parents for always being transparent with your faults. You have taught me to grow from your mistakes and my own. And, most of all, thank you to my muse: Marshfield. Thank you for letting me love you and leave you. Thank you for all the love and all the bruises. I will be forever a part of you. 

[stretchjournalemerson]

Do Aphrodisiacs Really Make You Sexually Aroused?

By Athena Nassar

You are sitting on a picnic blanket with your lover. You feed her strawberries dipped in dark chocolate, because you think she enjoys them. Or maybe you are hoping that she will embody the spirit of Persephone and swallow them like pomegranate seeds. Either way, she is sitting in front of you with strawberry juice dripping down her chin onto her floral dress. She calls you to taste her, and her spaghetti strap tastes like the cherry stem at the bottom of an Old-Fashioned, but what are your intentions? She might sleep with you in a few hours, but will it be because of the chocolate strawberries that you so purposely fed her earlier that day? According to a recent study in The Journal of Sexual Medicine, the chocolate itself certainly doesn’t have enough phenylethylamine to make her jump your bones. Although it may feel as if you are closer to the Promised Land of unclothed women after a few cocktails, aphrodisiacs do not actually play a hand in his/her sexual arousal, and here’s why.

The movie 9½ Weeks, also known as the genesis of all S&M movies, lays out this utopia solely comprised of food and sex. In a scene that occupies a fat ten minutes of the film, Mickey Rourke feeds Kim Basinger an assortment of foods that I never knew could taste good together. The camera is zoomed in on Basinger’s mouth while she consumes a jalapeño pepper followed by a maraschino cherry. Just when I think things couldn’t get any worse, she downs a diced egg before the jello has the chance to get all the way down her throat. To top it all off, Mickey Rourke rubs honey on her breasts, and I just know that can’t be comfortable. Besides Kim Basinger being all too compliant, there is a critical misconception that this scene perpetuates. The visual of Basinger eating a variety of condiments while blindfolded suggests that she is being stimulated by the food itself, but Bettina Pause, a psychologist at Heinrich Heine University, claims that “a lot of our communication is influenced by chemosignals.” Considering the fact that humans have a pheromone nerve running from the nose into the brain, Basinger was most likely drawn to Rourke’s individual odorprint rather than his odd selection of petit fours. According to Pause, the aroma that emanates off of breastfeeding women encourages other women without infants to reproduce.

Now, I’m not arguing that aphrodisiacs don’t bring us any pleasure at all, just not the kind of pleasure that might first come to mind. The Smell and Taste Treatment and Research Foundation confirms that the scent of banana nut bread has the power to arouse women more intensely than any regular old banana, so there must be some truth to this aphrodisiac claim after all. My guess is that this boost of sexual arousal is due to the nutmeg, especially since the scent is amplified in the process of baking the banana nut bread. According to The National Center for Biotechnology Information, herbs and spices such as red ginseng and saffron are the only scientifically proven aphrodisiacs. Surely there is a certain satisfaction that we feel when we bite into a succulent piece of watermelon, but does this trigger some sort of sexual longing or are we just content with the fact that we fulfilled a strictly nonsexual craving? As humans that need food to survive, it would make sense to say that our brains feel pleasure when our stomachs are full. A study by The Journal of Neuroscience seems to agree with this assumption, concluding that “eating prompts the brain to release feel good hormones known as endorphins.” Of course, overstimulation of these endorphins can lead to obesity, or in other words, too much of a good thing is ultimately a bad thing. Although some sugar-filled foods generate more pleasure than others, this is not to be confused with a titillating sensation.

If I were to ask Google about the sexual enhancements of any food, the internet would surely find a way to muster together numerous articles about how that food makes you better in bed, so where do we draw the line? Does every food magically make you better in bed? What do we classify as aphrodisiacs? In the middle ages, people determined whether a food was an aphrodisiac or not based on the doctrine of signatures. Coined by German philosopher Jakob Böhme, the doctrine of signatures is defined as “the belief that natural objects that look like a part of the body can cure diseases that would arise there.” Similarly, foods that resembled human sex organs such as oysters, asparagus, and sea cucumbers were thought to heighten passion. Foods that were warm or moist such as chili peppers or curry were thought to provoke a similar feeling. Of course, we know that this theory is drastically wrong, and many classic pieces of literature have been written on the basis of this flawed ideology to further the belief that consuming oysters will contribute to vaginal wetness. In Bradley C. Bennett’s essay “Doctrine of Signatures: An Explanation of Medicinal Plant Discovery or Dissemination of Knowledge?” Bennett advises us to not try to cure a heart disease with a heart-shaped leaf, because there happens to be 2,584 leaves with the same exact shape. In my opinion, we shouldn't try to cure heartbreak with erotic food either.

The romance novel Like Water for Chocolate illustrates a new Mexican recipe for every month. Although her true love Pedro asks for her hand in marriage, Tita, the youngest of three girls, cannot marry, because she is forced to care for her aging mother. In the month of December, the heartbroken Tita makes chiles in walnut sauce for her niece’s wedding. Upon ingesting these chiles, the guests cannot resist the urge to make “mad passionate love wherever they happen to end up… some under the bridge between Piedras Negras and Eagle Pass… the more conservative, in their cars, hastily pulled over to the side of the road” (Esquivel 242). Tita, overwhelmed with lust, grabs Pedro’s hand, and they both go into a dark room. The room is so saturated in passion that it drives the doves, the pigs, and the chickens to flee the ranch. Tita is described as “experiencing a climax so intense that her closed eyes glowed, and a brilliant tunnel appears before her,” and suddenly, she opens her eyes to Pedro lying beside her, dead (Esquivel 243). Although Like Water for Chocolate depicts two lovers who die naked in each other's arms from the effects of a single chile smothered in walnut sauce, the United States Food and Drug Administration does not recognize any chemical in particular as a natural aphrodisiac. For these results, you would certainly need an abnormally large dose of sildenafil, also referred to as viagra.

In fact, one of the most popular aphrodisiacs, the Spanish fly, causes a very non-sexual reaction if it is consumed. Cantharidin, a chemical which is secreted by blister beetles, can cause a rash to form on the urethra, as well as a painful erection that can potentially last for several hours known as priapism. In extreme circumstances, ingesting this so-called aphrodisiac can even lead to death. Although chiles and diluted pomegranates won’t influence your libido, they are definitely a safer option than any version of the Spanish fly, whether it be emulsified, powdered, filtered, or so on. Marketing companies continue to advertise the Spanish fly as a love potion, either not knowing or not caring that it causes an allergic reaction. The Spanish fly is advertised on Amazon as “the number one aphrodisiac” in a bottle labeled “LOVE SEXPLOSION” with the price of $99.99, and that is not including shipping. Around fifty percent of the reviews say something along the lines of “did not work at all,” “not what I was hoping for,” or “will return later.” The customers were unsatisfied with the results to say the least, but when they are purchasing products that look like the image on your right, who is really to blame?

When you think about it, it isn’t that difficult to believe that aphrodisiacs are completely buried in mythology. After all, aphrodisiacs did earn their name from the goddess Aphrodite who emerged from the stomach of a large scallop shell, hence seafood being rumored as a sexual stimulant. Oysters, among other shellfish, are considered to be a natural aphrodisiac due to their supply of zinc and amino acids. According to Michael Krychman, a gynecologist at the Southern California Center for Sexual Health and Survivorship Medicine, “there is a very large placebo effect” that occurs in the experience of eating oysters. Sex is laced in the action of slurping something gooey down your throat, and often times, the experience itself can produce adrenaline. Oysters do contain zinc which increases testosterone levels and male sperm count, but the quantity of sperm produced by the testes has absolutely nothing to do with attraction. Barry R. Komisaruk, a professor of psychology at Rutgers University, presents an interesting question: “Could oysters possibly satisfy sexual deprivation?” The answer is most likely no, unless you happen to have a wet and messy fetishism or any other fetish pertaining to food.

Food and its correlation to sex is a major component of many films and works of literature, and the bible is no different. In the story of Adam and Eve, the first man and woman are unashamed of their nakedness until a serpent tempts Eve into eating an apple from the tree of knowledge. This depiction of the forbidden fruit as a temptation results in a further sexualization of these fruits beyond the biblical meaning. Circling back to Komisaruk’s question of sexual deprivation, do we only yearn for things that we are deprived of? If the bible had placed sloppy joes instead of apples in the Garden of Eden, would we sexualize that too?

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Laura Esquivel for writing Like Water for Chocolate.

Works Cited

9½ Weeks. Directed by Adrian Lyne, performances by Mickey Rourke and Kim Basinger, Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, 1986.

Ansari, Shahid (et al). “Exploring Scientifically Proven Herbal Aphrodisiacs.” National Center for Biotechnology Information, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3731873/

Ault, Alicia. “Are Oysters an Aphrodisiac?” Smithsonian, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smithsonian-institution/are-oysters-aphrodisiac-180962148/

Bennett, B.C. “Doctrine of Signatures: An explanation of medicinal plant discovery or Dissemination of knowledge?” Economic Botany, Vol. 61, 246–255 (2007).

Böhme, Jakob. The Signature of All Things. Giles Calvert, 1651.

Dallas, Mary. “Eating Feeds ‘Feel Good’ Hormones in the Brain.” WebMD, https://www.webmd.com/brain/news/20170831/eating-feeds-feel-good-hormones-in-the-brain

Eplett, Layla. “When Sparks Fly: Aphrodisiacs and the Fruit Fly.” Scientific American, https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/when-sparks-fly-aphrodisiacs-and-the-fruit-fly/

Esquivel, Laura. Like Water for Chocolate. Doubleday, 1989.

Hadhazy, Adam. “Do Pheromones Play a Role in Our Sex Lives?” Scientific American, https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/pheromones-sex-lives/

Like Water for Chocolate. Directed by Alfonso Arau, performances by Lumi Cavazos and Marco Leonardi, Miramax, 1992.

“LOVE SEXPLOSION Spanish Fly.” Amazon, https://www.amazon.com/Spanish-Fly-1-Natural-Aphrodisiac/dp/B073NPY7VF. Accessed 31 March 2020.  

O’Connor, Anahad. “The Claim: Chocolate Is An Aphrodisiac.” The New York Times, https://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/18/health/18real.html

Puri, Ravi, and Raman Puri. Natural Aphrodisiacs: Myth or Reality. Xlibris Corporation, 2011.

Rupp, Rebecca. “Sex and the Celery: Ancient Greeks Get Busy With Help From Veggies.” National Geographic, https://www.nationalgeographic.com/culture/food/the-plate/2014/05/20/sex-celery-ancient-greeks-get-busy-help-veggie/

Sage, Jessie. “Forget sexy-time foods, the best aphrodisiacs come from the real relationship work.” Pittsburgh City Paper, https://www.pghcitypaper.com/pittsburgh/forget-sexy-time-foods-the-best-aphrodisiacs-come-from-the-real-relationship-work/Content?oid=16090770

Shaw, Gina. “Aphrodisiac Foods: Real or Placebo Effect?” Berkeley Wellness, https://www.berkeleywellness.com/self-care/sexual-health/article/aphrodisiac-foods-real-or-placebo-effect

Te, Faith. Eggplant No. 2, Philippine Islands.

Magee, Elaine. “Aphrodisiacs: Fact or Fiction?” WebMD, https://www.webmd.com/sex/features/aphrodisiacs-fact-or-fiction#1

Malmed, Alexandra. “Love Potions: A Brief History of Aphrodisiacs.” Vogue, https://www.vogue.com/article/what-foods-are-aphrodisiacs-history

[stretchjournalemerson]

Contact Zone and the Family

By Aaron Homem 

July 26, 2018. Portugal. It’s around seven at night, but it couldn’t feel any later - the lack of air conditioning and overwhelming heat has brought on both nausea and exhaustion. Around an extended aluminum table, I have within my reach every possible meat product that I can possibly name: cow, goat, pig, followed by numerous other “mystery meats.” A Super Bock in hand, or was it a Sagres? Didn’t matter the name, I drank. Everyone at the table was family, what did it matter if I had one, two, or three beers. This was an easy alternative to making an unsuccessful conversation; they all speak Portuguese, and each movement of their lips registered as secrets that I couldn’t latch onto. So I kept drinking. Across the table, I caught my cousin David (pronounced Da-veed) condescendingly speaking in my direction, as if I was a newborn with no conscious idea of what was taking place. His words left his mouth like rapidfire, but I could only make out a single word: Spielberg. My mother did love telling people that her son was an aspiring film major, so David’s attempt to connect with me by speaking about film didn’t exactly go over my head. 

Still, all I did was nod. 

I can acknowledge that there was an attempt by my monolingual Portuguese speaking cousin to form a relationship with me, a monolingual English speaker, but even then I didn’t feel a connection. How could a relationship exist on the basis of only occasionally understanding each other? The language barrier was not an abstract concept, but a tangible obstacle that wasn’t going to be easily overcome: at least not in the present moment. With language being an inherent factor in my inability to relate with my Portuguese family, I will use this paper to dissect a single major question: how does being monolingual (English speaking) affect my ability to form a relationship with my monolingual (Portuguese speaking) family?

To grapple with the natural separating factor brought upon by language, I use Stanford Professor Mary Louise Pratt’s concept of the “contact zone,” which she originated in the article “Arts of the Contact Zone.” Pratt’s term is used to refer to “social spaces where cultures meet, clash, and grapple with each other, often in contexts of highly asymmetrical relations of power” (Pratt 4).  Using a two-part historical letter to Spanish King Philip III - New Chronicle and Good Government by Felipe Guaman Poma de Ayala (or simply Guaman Poma), an account of an indigenous Inca’s view of Spanish conquest of Peru - Pratt systematically furthers her definition of a contact zone. Poma’s letter is uniquely written in two languages (Spanish and Quechua), with Poma using “the official Spanish genre for his own ends” as a way to address both his own community, and that of the metropolitan Spanish Community (Pratt 4). In the first part of the letter, Poma rewrote Christian history with the Incans rather than Europeans at the forefront of the narrative; the New Chronicle is what Pratt identifies as an autoethnographic text, in which people (in this case Poma) “describe themselves in ways that engage with representations that others have made of them” (Pratt 5). 

These texts are constructed “in response to” representations of the subjugated culture (the Incas) by the conqueror (the Spanish), merging the indigenous language and customs to intervene in the typical “metropolitan modes of understanding” (Pratt 6). While autoethnography is seen as a literary art of the contact zone by Pratt - along with transculturation, critique, collaboration, bilingualism, etc - she stressed that miscomprehension, incomprehension, dead letters, unread masterpieces, absolute heterogeneity of meaning are “some of the perils of writing in the contact zone” (Pratt 11). Pratt, a professor of higher education, is also focused on the concept of “safe spaces,” which “refer to social and intellectual spaces where groups can constitute themselves as horizontal, homogeneous, sovereign communities with high degrees of trust, shared understandings, and temporary protection from legacies of oppression” (Pratt 17). These places can foster wisdom and understanding, but also breed misunderstanding and hurt, particularly in relation to the classroom setting. Although Pratt is mainly focused on the contact zone in relationship with higher education, Oxford professor James Clifford expands Pratt’s original idea to include “cultural tensions within the same state, region, or city” (qtd. in O’Connell 850). Working from this principle, the dinner table setting is another way to explore “culture tension” relating to the intersectionality of language and identity. Furthermore, location (Portugal) can now act as a greater focal point in illustrating the effects of monolingualism on family relations. 

Neither my cousin nor I (or our family for that matter) verbally defined the unique auditorial roles that we occupied at that moment: but while unspoken, they were actively present. While I won’t speak on behalf of David, I found myself incapable of relating to his identity as Portuguese-speaking, when I was mainly attuned to relating with family, who like me, were self-identified as English-speaking. While Pratt’s concept of autoethnography is based around an inherent historical power struggle - between the subjugated and the metropolitan conqueror - she doesn’t often explore the contact zone on the small scale; the contact zone present not defined by a power struggle, but by comfort and discomfort. Noel Patrick O’Connell, a Sociology professor whose career has focused on the autoethnographic ethnographic study of the lives of deaf people, describes the contact zone between deaf and hearing identities as a “disjuncture” (O’Connell 858); when examining how my cousin and I relate, there is an apparent disjuncture (or tension) caused by who is comfortable and uncomfortable in the given situation. 

Auditorial contact zones, as defined by O’Connell, create an environment (defined by hearing) where people become “consciously aware of their identity” (O’Connell 858). What’s present at this moment of “conscious awareness” is a glaring case of cognitive dissonance for both parties. In Lagahrinhos, Portugal, where the majority (the comfortable) of people speak soley Portuguese, I have become a minority (discomfort) and I can’t possibly expect for anyone to suddenly speak in a language that I would understand. The discomfort arose from my ability to recognize that language, like Pratt insists, doesn’t exist to create a “unified and homogenous social world,” and that it would require more will than I had to cross the language barrier. However, “Spielberg” was an attempt by my cousin to break the disjuncture, perhaps unknowingly, unleashing a torrent of discomfort upon himself. Yet, my cousin’s English wasn’t exactly enough, at least for myself; for me, comfort could only be attained during a full conversation, preferably in my own native language. Being an English-speaking male in English-speaking America has always been an inherent privilege, but having that verbal and auditory privilege stripped away was jarring, even if somewhat expected. This bias manifested itself into the mounting number of beer bottles, remnants of my reluctance to build off the foundation laid out by David. In her essay “Out and About as a Global Citizen” about an English speaker visiting Kenya, Dr. Anu Taranath argues that while we travel to experience “something different,” we are often confronted by our inability to reconcile “what to do with the differences we have found.” My inability to react to David only drove him back from a place of discomfort to a place of comfort, returning to his conversation with the rest of the family: our difference only breeding disconnect.  

Uncomfortable: all I wanted at that moment was some quiet. Even at seventeen I was expected to ask permission before leaving the table. The act left me at my mother’s mercy. Without even looking up from her plate, and giving it to me straight, I knew my request was denied: all she said was “talk.” I mustered a sly response, bluntly telling her the obvious, “I can’t understand them.” Hitting her like a curse, my mother looked me straight in the eyes, and just as bluntly, said “that’s your problem.”

Her eyes returned to her plate.

Without knowing it, my ineptitude at picking up languages, indirectly (and perhaps metaphorically) lead to one of the perils of the contact zone: lost letters. I didn’t let this bother me too much; some people are neurologically better at learning languages, and I didn’t believe I could be blamed as such. However, I found myself confounded when I saw David relating with my younger cousins. For them a relationship was not built on a verbal or auditory level, but on action: simply kicking around a soccer ball earlier was enough to help build a relationship. In referencing the “cultural devastation” that can accompany language loss, Joshua Fishman, who is widely credited for founding the field of sociology of language, stated that “A traditionally associated language is more than just a tool of communication for its culture... [It] is often viewed as a very specific gift, a marker of identity and a specific responsibility vis-à-vis future generations” (qtd. in Haynes 2). Noticeably, my cousins aren’t confronted with this idea of language as a “specific responsibility,” whereas the notion was quite ubiquitous during my own childhood: my loss of the language was its own unique “marker of identity.” Whatever the reason for this phenomenon (and perhaps they were just too young to realize it), they seemingly didn’t have to consider language as a separating factor. However, in my own experience, I have typically found it easier to relate with others on a verbal level. Admittedly, I identify this as a particular flaw in my thinking, but because of my complete assimilation into one culture (English-speaking), I can’t overcome the difficulty in accepting another. Fortunately for my mother, who is bilingual, both English-speaking and Portuguese-speaking cultures act as “safe spaces.” For her, the idea of being Portuguese and American is intrinsically linked to her identity, whereas my only “shared understanding” with my Portuguese relatives is that we are related by blood. Personally, this disconnect is best summarized by John Milton’s Adam, who claimed “solitude sometimes is best society;” instead of embracing the culture around me, I retreated inward, to my own thoughts, to my safe space, defined by the sole language I knew (Paradise Lost XIII. 249-250). 

Work Cited

Haynes, Eric. “What Is Language Loss?” Cal.org, Center for Applied Linguistics, 2010.

www.cal.org/heritage/pdfs/what-is-language-loss.pdf. Accessed 27 Nov. 2019.

Milton, John. Paradise Lost. Third edition, W.W. Norton & Company, 2017. 

O'Connell, Noel Patrick. “Teaching Irish Sign Language in Contact Zones: An 

Autoethnography.” The Qualitative Report, vol. 22, no. 3, 19 Mar. 2017, pp. 849–867.

nsuworks.nova.edu/tqr/vol22/iss3/11/. Accessed 14 Nov. 2019.

Pratt, Mary Louise. "Arts of the Contact Zone," Profession, 1991. pp 33-40.

Taranath, Anu. “Out And About As A Global Citizen.” Away.

awayjournal.org/article/out-and-about-as-a-global-citizen. Accessed 29 Nov. 2019. 

[stretchjournalemerson]

J. K. Rowling: Ruined or Revered?

By Cayleigh Pine

When I was in fifth grade, my overly-Christian mother finally allowed me to read the famous Harry Potter series, the same books that millions of children became avid readers of to the dismay of conservative church-goers against witchcraft. I distinctly remember being obsessed with the series, reading one book after another before bed, in restaurants and even during my brother’s basketball games. I became attached to the fictional wizarding world, and I admired author J.K. Rowling’s description of characters that any reader could fall in love with. And readers certainly did, with Harry Potter spanning a blockbuster film franchise, a theme park, a Broadway play, a video game, as well as several controversies regarding its creator. In an age where the fanbase of Harry Potter is stronger than ever, it seems that there are complexities beneath the surface of this fandom, with many furious at Rowling for adding new (and admittingly, strange) details to the Potter-canon, as well as problematic statements posted online. Going from an idolized billionaire authorial goddess to someone almost as hated as her Voldemort antagonist, Potter fans have changed over the years in their support of Rowling and how they view the series due to her many controversies. Due to this, many are conflicted on if they should still be fans of these works, or if they should allow Rowling’s influence to taint the positive message behind Harry Potter. All of this leads into the question: Should readers separate the author from their texts, or is their intent all-encompassing? 

Readers tend to become fans of not only their favorite books, but of the authors that write them, leading them into learning about the author’s personal background and writing process. However, others tend to ignore who the author is in favor of not letting them influence how they read a story. “Death of the Author” is a literary concept that was created by Roland Barthes in the essay La mort de l'auteur published in 1967 (Barthes). This theory spawned off of the New Criticism literary movement, delving into the idea that readers should not have the author’s intention influence their understanding of the work being read, acting as though the author is dead or non-existent. Barthes argues that giving a text a single interpretation from the author limits the creativity and imagination the readers can develop off of that work, and how interpretive tyranny only works to the detriment of the reader, forcing an idea on them instead of having the reader come up with their own understanding (Barthes 5). This theorist explains that instead of looking to our authors as god-like and creating something out of nothing, Barthes tries to explain through this concept that there are no original works since writers are influenced by multiple factors, such as: mythology, religion, and other authors. This means there should be multiple interpretations since there are various sources (Barthes 4). In Ancient Greece, playwrights were open to where the sources of their stories came from, re-telling the tales of Achilles and Electra and others and never proclaiming to be original. However, in 1960s society, authors liked to pretend they were the sole, divine creator of their literary universes, and this has continued to the present. The popularity behind the term “Death of the Author” has risen and fallen throughout the years, but the support behind this literary concept has since gained traction with the recent advent of social media. Authors are now posting on their Twitter about character's motivations or secrets that were never expounded upon in their books, leading fans into an uproar against authorial intent. 

J.K. Rowling has always been an author in the public eye, her Harry Potter novels launching her into a celebrity icon due to how well-loved they are. With around 500 million copies sold world-wide, she became beloved by many who thought of her as their favorite author (Pottermore). One of the many reasons for this is due to the Barthes-like influence her readers hold in viewing Rowling’s work. Christian groups protested the series after every release, believing that what was in the books promoted Satanism and the occult (Halford 2). Despite Rowling being a Christian (Halford 3), these religious fundamentalists practiced “Death of the Author” to ignore Rowling’s background that is similar to theirs, instead viewing their own interpretation of the Harry Potter series as an unholy promotion of witchcraft for children, which is a very different perspective from what the author intended. However, this also worked in the reverse for readers of the same religion. Many other Christians that are fans of the series used Barthes’ theory to interpret many Christian allegories in the series that they could relate to their own backgrounds, a common example being Harry’s sacrificial death and resurrection in Deathly Hallows mimicking that of Jesus Christ’s in The Bible. Christians seem to find their religion in the stories Rowling created, intentionally or not, and use their interpretations as evidence to the series being in support of or against Christianity. 

However, religious groups are not alone in using “Death of the Author” to interpret Rowling’s writing. According to the study: “The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice” published in the Journal of Applied Social Psychology, psychologist Loris Vezzali asked fifth graders to fill out a questionnaire about their attitudes toward minority groups, then had them read excerpts from the Harry Potter books that dealt with prejudice. Specifically, the blood prejudice that is a major theme in the books about how some “pure-bloods” consider themselves better wizards than “half-bloods” or “muggle-borns” due their different backgrounds. According to readers, this is an allegory for racism, and this theory shines through with how Vezzali’s study proved that young readers living vicariously through the characters in Harry Potter impacted their attitudes positively towards marginalized people in real life (Vezzali). Readers tend to use this as a basis for the series being progressive, interpreting the series to be against racism. Unfortunately, the series is not as cut and dry as this. According to the Midwest Quarterly, author Christine Schott argues that there is racism prevalent in this series, but fans ignore these instances. The house elves in this story are essentially slaves for pureblood wizard families and who “do not want to be freed” even when characters offer to help save them. Schott explains that the creation of creatures that desire to be slaves teaches readers a message that some beings are naturally inferior to others and want to be enslaved, which is a horrible message if these books are supposedly “progressive” (Schott). It seems here that Harry Potter can be, and has been, interpreted in various ways, all due to who the reader is and how they utilize “Death of the Author”. 

Besides there being many interpretations of this series, the majority of fans tend to look at the books as an allegory for sticking up for underrepresented groups. It seems that Rowling also gravitated to this positive interpretation, with how she began to make additions to her wizarding world in order to appear inclusive, but they all seemed to backfire. Her controversies began in a 2007 Q&A session at Carnegie Hall with fans of the recently released Deathly Hallows, where she stated Dumbledore was gay (Smith 2). This split the fandom into two groups: supporters who thought this was great representation for the LGBTQ+ community, and those that questioned why Rowling felt the need to reveal this if she never included Dumbledore’s sexuality in the books. The latter’s opinion has intensified over the eight years since this comment, and with Rowling’s new Fantastic Beasts film franchise—prequels including a young Dumbledore—that still do not explore his sexuality, fans are speculating that she has been using Dumbledore as a way to prove she is “progressive” with nothing to show for it, accusing her of the harmful marketing tactic “queer-baiting” in order to attract the queer audience while not offending conservative consumers (Bradley 3). This past comment led into more controversial statements, like her comparing her fictional werewolves to the AIDs epidemic in the US (Baillie 2). This shocked many people because most of the werewolves in her books were framed as villains that preyed on young wizards, so with Rowling’s commentary, this comment becomes a metaphor for gay people preying on children. Because of Rowling, the readers’ interpretation has shifted from viewing werewolves as mythological creatures to now gay predators in disguise. The add-ons do not end there, with Rowling beginning to use her characters to advance her political views, utilizing the titular character Harry Potter to say that he would support the boycott against Israel, so you should, too, as well as to deny describing characters’ races in her books in order to appeal to a more diverse crowd (Donaldson 4). She constantly uses her Twitter to inform fans of her new changes to her fictional universe, yet she disappoints them by not including her supposedly progressive ideals in her works outside of social media. Her race and sexuality-bending has become such a hot topic that it became a meme when a comedic article called, “J. K. Rowling Proves That You, the Reader, Were Gay All Along” was published in 2019 to The Hard Times, poking fun at Rowling’s new revelations about characters’ identities that are never shown in her books (Hernandez). Since then, thousands of social media users made Youtube videos, tweets, and memes, parodying her characters, and even her readers, finding out from her that they had an identity they never knew about. However, even with all of this, Rowling was never seen as a fully negative celebrity, at least until her most recent tweet. 

In December of 2019, Rowling posted about supporting a transphobic woman named Maya Forstater in her mission on spreading the message that transwomen steal the jobs of ciswomen, repping the hashtag #IStandwithMaya proudly for all of her 14.5 million followers to see (@jk_rowling). This was met with huge outrage from fans, especially those in the LGBTQ+ community. Readers became upset because they felt if they liked Harry Potter, they were supporting a transphobe, and many began to attribute this series with a negative connotation (Donaldson 5). Her fans were mostly upset with the hypocrisy behind this tweet and how Rowling could disregard a minority group, even though her books supposedly stood up against prejudice. However, others argue that Rowling can say and do anything she wants with her characters and their identities, and even the overall message of her book, due to the fact that she is the creator of the series. Writer Natasha Troyka states that, “Barthes’ argument in The Death of the Author focuses on the impossibility of guessing the author’s intentions. If we can’t read an author’s mind, we shouldn’t fixate on authorial intent when reading a story” (Troyka 4). In the case of Rowling’s use of social media, her fans are almost able to read her mind about her intentions due to her excessive tweets. But even with her explanations, fans are rejecting her new form of Twitter-storytelling, using not only Barthes’ theory to ignore her authorial intent, but a rejection of social media in itself. Due to the fact that Rowling is not writing any more physical Harry Potter books and posting add-ons to her Twitter, fans do not count these changes as “canon”, and Troyka argues that that is largely due to the lack of respect fans hold of Twitter versus a book (Troyka 5). This writer mentions how with every sequel the wizarding world changed, with turning from bad to good (in the case of Snape) or even additions to the lore (The Deathly Hallows being created). Troyka asks: What’s the difference between a sequel and a tweet? Who decides the boundaries of works, if it is extra or canon? If it happens on Twitter, does it make the writing any less “real”? The argument here is that even if fans disapprove of Rowling’s quasi-progressive add-ons to Harry Potter, it is still her writing and she still is the creator, so they should count as part of the series, regardless of what platform they are released on. Despite this, it seems that fans are using Barthes’ theory to not only kill off the author, but also any disliked changes she wants to make to the series. 

Even though fans hate Rowling’s new additions, considering them more fanfiction than canon, she has always been supportive of fans using her work to create their own fanfiction, with her spokesperson saying she is, “... flattered people wanted to write their own stories based on her characters” (Waters 1). This is not always the case with many authors, such as author Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) threatening to sue her fans if they write anything involving her characters. And then you have former-Youtuber-turned-author John Green, who not only supports whatever fans want to do with his work, but the concept of “Death of the Author” itself (“Death of the Author.”). Green became a famous author off of social media, gaining a fanbase through informational literary videos that analyze classic novels, and then finally releasing a book of his own. In his book, The Fault in Our Stars, the protagonist Hazel gets to meet her favorite author, and learns he’s a reclusive alcoholic whose personality ruins his works for her. This is a commentary on how much influence an author can have on their works, and how an author can ruin their own books for their fans with their wrongdoings that can taint their art. In 2014, Green tweeted, “Books belong to their readers” (@johngreen), agreeing with Barthes’ theory that fans get to hold the interpretation of the work and ignore the author behind it, which is probably a stance he later regretted when he started suffering backlash from fans about his portrayals of teenage girls (“Death of the Author”). In a Tumblr post, a fan described Green as, “...a creep that panders to teenage girls to amass a cult-like following”, wherein Green responded saying he never sexually assaulted anyone (Jusino 3). It was an odd response considering the post never mentioned him doing this, so fans immediately were suspicious. This uproar faded into nothing, but it left many readers feeling uncomfortable with his writing, and in recent years, many posts online shame Green’s portrayal of teenage girls for being two-dimensional. This has led to many using fanfiction as a way to fix what Green created, having the readers utilize their own interpretations “for good”. This is also seen with Rowling’s fans creating fanfiction that they deem better than Rowling’s books simply because it follows their interpretations instead of hers. From this, it is made apparent that when readers begin to dislike the author, they either step away from their works, separate the art from the artist, or they rewrite it to better suit their own interpretations. 

Rowling seems to bank on the fact that her fans are so besotted by Harry Potter that none of her controversies can get in the way of people’s love for the wizarding world. Even with all of her problematic statements, Potter fans are still around, shown in how her recent prequel films racked up around $814 million worldwide (Mendelson 3), and the Harry Potter and the Cursed Child play based on the franchise breaking monetary records on Broadway (Chellman 3). It seems that even though there are those that are against Rowling and her political stances, the majority are not against her work and will not be boycotting Harry Potter any time soon. 

 Overall, it appears that J.K. Rowling remains one of the most famous authors in the world, and her problematic comments throughout her career have not done much to bring down her rule other than turn her into a comedic meme. Personally, I believe that it would take a lot more than problematic tweets to shut down this massive franchise, especially since Rowling has not faced any real-world consequences monetarily-wise. This goes to show just how much people love Harry Potter since they are willing to pay the bills of someone who may hold harmful beliefs that readers do not agree with. It has become such a phenomenon that people simply cannot leave this series due to a problematic author, and unless Rowling Avada-Kedevra’s someone, I believe that fans will keep separating her from her work in order to enjoy it without a guilty conscience. Fans are comfortable using “Death of the Author” to ignore Rowling’s controversial past, and even I am guilty of this. I used to automatically associate Harry Potter with Rowling, but now I view the series as its own entity with no relation to its creator in order to feel as though I am not supporting Rowling. It seems that there is no clear answer on whether separating the author’s work from them is morally correct or not, however it appears to be a popular choice for fans that want to take their own interpretation of the series and do as they please with it, even if that means blocking out—or just blocking on Twitter—the very creator of the wizarding world they love. 

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank my mother for eventually letting me read Harry Potter, J.K. Rowling for writing the series, as well as for being such a fascinating topic, and Professor MKB for supporting me and this paper with her wonderful feedback. 

Works Cited 

Barthes, Roland. La mort de l'auteur (Death of the Author). Aspen Journal, 1967.

http://www.tbook.constantvzw.org/wp-content/death_authorbarthes.pdf

Baillie, Katie. "JK Rowling says Remus Lupin’s condition as a werewolf is ‘a metaphor for

illnesses with a stigma, like HIV and AIDS’ ." Metro News, 9 Sept. 2016, metro.co.uk/2016/09/09/jk-rowling-says-remus-lupins-condition-as-a-werewolf-is-a-metaphor-for-hiv-and-aids-6118903/.

Bradley, Laura. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald and Dumbledore’s Vexing

Sexuality, 16 Nov. 2018, www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2018/11/fantastic-beasts-the-crimes-of-grindelwald-dumbledore-gay-queerbaiting.

Chellman, Jack. "The Gay Romance In The Cursed Child: A Letter To JK Rowling." Huffington

Post, 4 Aug. 2016, www.huffpost.com/entry/the-gay-romance-in-the-cursed-child-a-letter-to-jk_b_57a2a99de4b0c863d4002748?guccounter=1&guce_referrer=aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZ29vZ2xlLmNvbS8&guce_referrer_sig=AQAAAKENG0nWy3.

Donaldson, Kayleigh. " J.K. Rowling is the Exemplification of Why We Need the Death of the

Author." Pajiba, 24 Dec. 2019,

www.pajiba.com/miscellaneous/jk-rowling-is-the-exemplification-of-why-we-need-the-death-of-the-author.php.

Ellis, Lindsey. “Death of the Author.” Youtube, 31 Dec. 2018, https://youtu.be/MGn9x4-Y_7A.

Halford, Macy. Harry Potter and Religion, The New Yorker, 4 Nov. 2010,

www.newyorker.com/books/page-turner/harry-potter-and-religion.

JK Rowling (@jk_rowling). “Dress however you please. Call yourself whatever you like. Sleep

with any consenting adult who’ll have you. Live your best life in peace and security. But force women out of their jobs for stating that sex is real? #IStandWithMaya.” 19 Dec 2019, 12:57 PM. Tweet. 

Jusino, Teresa. "What John Green Needs to Learn About Having a Dialogue With Female YA

Readers." The Mary Sue, 2 July 2015, www.themarysue.com/john-green-female-ya-readers/.

Mendelson, Scott. "'Crimes Of Grindelwald' May Have Destroyed The 'Fantastic Beasts' Saga."

Forbes, 19 Nov. 2018, www.forbes.com/sites/scottmendelson/2018/11/19/box-office-crimes-of-grindelwald-may-have-killed-the-fantastic-beasts-saga-jk-rowling-johnny-depp/#483bd42122a2.

Pottermore (@pottermore). “However, when Hogwarts’ plumbing became more elaborate in the

eighteenth century (this was a rare instance of wizards copying Muggles, because hitherto they simply relieved themselves wherever they stood, and vanished the evidence)…" 4 Jan 2019, 1:34 PM. Tweet.  

Pyrocynical. “J.K Rowling just ruined Harry potter.” Youtube, 3 Apr. 2019,

https://youtu.be/n3fwERuvEqI

Romano, Aja. "The Harry Potter universe still can't translate its gay subtext to text. It's a

problem." Vox News, 4 Sept. 2016, www.vox.com/2016/9/4/12534818/harry-potter-cursed-child-rowling-queerbaiting.

Rowling, and John Tiffany. Harry Potter and the Cursed Child: Parts One and Two. , 2016.

Print.

Rowling, J.K., author. Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them: The Original Screenplay. First

edition. New York, NY: Arthur A. Levine Books, an imprint of Scholastic Inc., 2016.

Rowling, J. K., author. Harry Potter And the Sorcerer's Stone. New York :Arthur A. Levine

Books, 1998.

Seamus Gorman. “J.K. Rowling's Decline... (from the perspective of a harry potter fan).”

Youtube, 25 Mar 2019, https://youtu.be/CSXFdb_G4C8

Schott, Christine. “The House Elf Problem: Why Harry Potter Is More Relevant Now Than

Ever.” Midwest Quarterly, vol. 61, no. 2, Winter 2020, pp. 259–273. EBSCOhost, search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=141673717&site=eds-live.

Smith, David. "Dumbledore was Gay, JK Tells Amazed Fans." The Guardian, 21 Oct. 2007,

www.theguardian.com/uk/2007/oct/21/film.books.

Troyka, Natasha. "J.K. Rowling and the Assassination of the Author." Medium, 3 June 2019,

www.medium.com/@natashatroyka/j-k-rowling-and-the-assassination-of-the-author-49a66a756983.

Waters, Darren. "Rowling Backs Potter Fan Fiction." BBC News, 27 May 2004,

news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/3753001.stm.

Wimsatt, W. K., and M. C. Beardsley. “The Intentional Fallacy.” The Sewanee Review, vol. 54,

no. 3, 1946, pp. 468–488. JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/27537676. Accessed 27 Feb. 2020.

Vezzali, Loris, et al. "The Greatest Magic of Harry Potter: Reducing Prejudice." The Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 23 July 2014, doi:https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12279.