One Body, One Immunity: Eula Biss' ON IMMUNITY: AN INOCULATION

In my attempt to read more non-fiction, I picked up On Immunity: An Inoculation by Eula Biss, a book that I've been eyeing for about a year, but wanted to wait until it came out in paperback to buy.

If the cover is at all familiar, it is one of Rubens'
most famous paintings, Achilles Dipped into
the River Styx.

In general I have a hard time making myself read non-fiction. For reasons I have yet to figure out, fiction is just more compelling to me than non-fiction, but I want to keep learning about things I don't know about. One reason On Immunity particularly interested me was because it speaks to debates going on now. On Immunity details the history of vaccinations, and how that history involves how we as human beings have conceptualized our own bodies, others' bodies, others' bodies in relation to our own, disease, and health. Biss is especially concerned with the metaphors we use, such as the war metaphor, of our bodies battling against an invader or enemy. This project started when she was pregnant with her son, and wanted to know more about vaccinations, considering there is a growing number of people against vaccinations. Biss is pro-vaccinations, but she explores the anxieties behind those that are not, and clearly presents the overwhelming amount of evidence that vaccinations are in no way dangerous.

The most powerful aspect of the book is Biss' exploration of how there is this fallacy that we as individuals are self-contained, and that our bodies do not necessarily effect others, and they don't effect us, this fallacy that we can make our own choices (in terms of vaccinations) because we are individuals, when in reality we are a community of bodies, making up one body. In order to protect the health of many, we need to vaccinate, we 'owe our bodies to each other' (18). This issue intersects with race and economics, as those who tend to choose to not vaccinate their children are white, college-educated, and have annual income of upwards of $75,000 a year, which can then affect those who cannot afford to give their children all the recommended vaccinations, and they tend to be black, younger unmarried mothers, and live in poverty (27). Those that come from a place of privilege put those that do not have access to proper healthcare at risk. 

One reason people tend to be wary of vaccinations is their belief that it is a purely capitalistic venture, that 'Big Pharma' just wants to make money off of everyone by saying that vaccinations are absolutely necessary. Biss rejects this as a conspiracy theory, and actually talks about how pharmaceutical companies do not see huge profits from vaccinations (113). Vaccinations in fact, are in opposition to capitalism: receiving vaccinations is 'a system in which both the burdens and the benefits are shared across the entire population. Vaccination allows us to use products of capitalism [private pharmaceutical companies] for purposes that are counters to the pressures of capital' (96). 

This all makes think of a passage from World War Z by Max Brooks. Now now, hang in there with me for a second: be open to this. World War Z is a book that is actually very smart in its discussion of disease, health, humanity as a community, and democracy. Brief summary: World War Z is about a zombie outbreak that almost decimates the human population on earth. The story is told from the point of view of many survivors detailing the various aspects of the catastrophe. At the end of the novel, one character says that there isn't anyone to blame. Not the politicians or businessman that used the outbreak for their own ends, but that everyone is responsible: 'That's the price of living in a democracy; we all gotta take the rap' (334). That line has stuck with me for a long time, and often echoes in my mind. I'm reminded me of this because in my mind, democracy is on the opposite side of the spectrum from capitalism, but at the same time, it is democracy that allows capitalism to exist. (Also take note this is definitely through the lens of democracy in the U.S., as is Biss' book, which largely focuses on the vaccination debate in the U.S.). Through the lens of Brooks' quote, I think it is important to note that in the foundation of the U.S. is a responsibility for each other, to consider others in our decisions. One cannot just ask, 'what is best for my child?', but 'what is best for all children?' It also points to the fact that one cannot stand by and simply berate those that would choose not to vaccinate their children, but actually take responsibility and work toward mending the systems and conditions that would push them to make those decisions, i.e., SES inequality, racial inequality, education, medical-industrial complex, and so on and so on.

Backwards and Forwards to MAD MEN

Last night, I went to a talk at The Strand about Mad Men Carousel, critic Matt Zoller Seitz's new book, which is a critical companion to the television series Mad Men. The book contains recaps and analysis for each episode of the series, and provides extensive footnotes for each episode. Every episode of Mad Men is jam-packed with references and allusions - the footnotes begin that work of breaking those down, though one book is certainly not enough to do that.

 


Seitz spoke on a panel with fellow critics who love Mad Men and contributed to the book. They talked about when they first started to watch the show, what made them keep watching, spoke generally and specifically about themes in the series, and took audience questions. It was a really fantastic talk, and I just wanted to note a few interesting points made throughout the night. And if you haven't watched Mad Men, please do! Yes it is another show (mainly) about privileged sad white people problems, but the show is so humane and brilliant in that the characters in the show are so fully realized. The subjectivity of each is believable. And the structure and composition of the show is unparalleled, in my opinion. It is one of those few experiences where I have felt like I am watching a novel happen on the screen (if you couldn't already tell, novels are IT for me - there is no other medium as beautiful and profound to me). But Mad Men is also a very good example of what the medium of television can do.

Anyway! Here are some things from the talk:

• Seitz and Co. talked a lot about how many think Mad Men can be very 'on the nose' about its themes, about how it goes about connecting the lives of the characters to the various historic events of the 1960s. Seitz and crew disagreed, and Seitz said, 'Mad Men is smarter than anyone who thinks they're smarter than Mad Men.' I think at first glance, Mad Men can seem very on-the-nose, or it can be dismissed because come on, do we really need another show about white people? We really don't, but I think there is so much in Mad Men that is still valuable to consider, and can be revisited over and over again to mine for new meanings and connections.
• [Slight spoilers for the finale] Seitz and Co. were asked about how they felt about the ending of the finale, which, like any series finale, was contentious among fans. They specifically addressed the point as to whether or not the ending was meant to be read as highly cynical, suggesting that our protagonist Don Draper has made no progress. Seitz argued against this by pointing out the very first shot in the pilot vs. the very last shot of the finale. At the beginning of the pilot, we get a close-up of Don, but it is a close-up of the back of his head. When we first meet him, we do not actually see his face, meaning that he is closed off from us and others around him, as he is in a restaurant. While the last shot in the series finale is a close-up of his face; he is meditating with others, and smiling, suggesting a new openness. How much of a better person Don is, despite the fact that he goes back to McCann and commodifies the hippie movement for a Coca-Cola ad, there is still growth, or at least an awareness of who he is and what he's doing. Wow.

I really love going to talks, because they remind me a bit of college, in that you are with others who are (hopefully) just as excited about something as you are, and the conversation and insights that derive from that kind of enthusiasm are always so interesting. It's also nice to be in conversation with others because they will reveal things and spark thoughts that you could never have on your own, which is why it is so important to me to talk about books. And I haven't re-watched any Mad Men since the finale in April, but it might be time...

Signatures from MZS and contributors!

A Glimpse into NAZI LITERATURE IN THE AMERICAS

In my quest to read everything by and about Roberto Bolaño ever, I recently picked up Nazi Literature in the Americas, a very odd, fascinating, detailed book about people and things that do not exist. So basically, it does what fiction does, but on a whole other level. 

Nazi Literature in the Americas is meant to be an encyclopedia of right-wing authors, carefully detailing their lives, works, and political views. The thing is that none of the authors are real. The intricate details of their lives, the lists of various book they've written or read are also made up. In the back of the novel, is not only a glossary of 'secondary figures' in the lives of the authors already written about, but a glossary of all of the works, real and imagined, that are mentioned in the novel, including their supposed publisher and year released. The ability to make up this kind of detail, to create this entire web of lives, is a great example of what makes Bolaño such an incredibly important writer.

In Bolaño's writing, I am perpetually fascinated by the narrative voice in his works. As in By Night in Chile, Amulet, or parts of The Savage Detectives, we get a first-person narration, and in many other of his works, there seems to be a third-person omniscient narrator, although that is never quite the case. As we zoom in and out of the lives of the numerous characters in Bolaño's works, there is a sense that the narrator is close to the characters in that they overlap and run in similar circles in the universe of the story or novel. This is really salient in Nazi Literature in the Americas, and by the end, we even find out that this narrator has been Roberto Bolaño himself, though most likely that is still a persona, as Arturo Belano is Bolaño's surrogate/persona in many of his stories, and most prominently in The Savage Detectives and Amulet.

Let me provide an example. In Nazi Literature in Americas, we get what seems to be a simple retelling of the events of their lives. But then we get lines from the narrator that are interpretive because of a personality. For example, the account of Silvio Salvático (47-48), a prolific poet who died in an old-age home, and whose 'books were never published. His manuscripts were probably thrown out with the trash or burned by the orderlies' (48). A simple third-person omniscient narrator would be able to tell us whether those manuscripts were trashed or burned, but we are left with the narrator speculating - the life of Silvio Salvático and his works are still a mystery to our narrator, and to us.

Little moments like the one above are peppered throughout the novel, and in the last story, the account of Carlos Ramirez Hoffman (179-204), the narrator is a part of the story, and named Roberto Bolaño. Hoffman was a poet that would write his poetry in the sky with an airplane, and was also a murderer. Bolaño's character is asked to help find Hoffman, because he knew him at one point.

This tenuous, gradual reveal of the narrator actually being Bolaño, or as I said before at least a persona Bolaño takes on, especially considering Hoffman is not a real person, is so fascinating to me because it perfectly showcases this kind of smashing of fiction and reality in the endeavor that is Nazi Literature in the Americas. All of fiction is about reading about people that are not real, but Bolaño makes that the very foundation of this novel: the constant acknowledgement and participation in something that is not real. The verisimilitude of the novel would make you think that you could get lost in the novel, but I think the effect is much more in 1) making you kind of wish these people and their works were real, because their lives are rendered so lucidly, and their works seemingly so interesting 2) wondering why are you are reading account after account of the 'biographies' of people that do not exist. So as a reader, we are never 'lost' in the world of the novel, and the lives of these characters, while Bolaño is our unknown, mysterious guide. 

As with all of Bolaño's works, I never walk away from them feeling comfortable or sure of what I've read. I think because the characters and the loping paths they take are so perfectly rendered, that as a reader, you become aware of a profound inability to understand them and their world, which I think is a crucial element of Bolaño's works. With Nazi Literature in the Americas, we only get a glimpse into the enormous and sprawling world these characters inhabit, and perhaps the only thing to do is to make the effort to see into that world.