TILoHL Blog post #3

What does it mean to be an author, to tell a story? Is the author the authority, or should the subjects have a say in their own lives? In The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, Rebecca Skloot tells the story of Henrietta Lacks writing about experiences in detail that she could neither have known about nor experienced. In the past, particularly in writings from the Anti-Slavery movement, this was a common practice, and was seen as a necessary tactic to combat the evil of slavery. However, we live in a very different world today, so, is this still fair? Or does this kind of book allow privileged outsiders to reap the benefits (this is a highly successful work) of another’s suffering?  Explain whether or not you think this kind authorship is appropriate. If yes, why? What “gives them the right”? If no, why not? Aren’t these stories important? If we didn’t hear them from these White women, would we hear them at all? 

Be it in fictitious or factual publications, an author’s objective should be to tell a story to his or her reader, either as means to inform or to entertain (even both). However, many fine lines are treaded regarding authority around the information the author uses, often surrounding net profits and fame. In Rebecca Skloot’s case, the author of The Immortal Life of Henrietta Lacks, she sought to inform her readers of the tragic history surrounding the biologically important HeLa cells, both from the angles of the scientists involved with the cells, and the many hearsay stories surrounding Henrietta Lacks herself, much of which can be backed mostly by testimony.

First and foremost, I must comment that I do not particularly agree with any one of the sides in this dichotomous setup. Personally, I feel that Rebecca Skloot is merely giving a historical and informative viewpoint of past events in Lacks’ life. True as it may be that Skloot would never personally understand Lacks’ tragic past, Skloot’s authorship in this case was not centered solely on the basis of profit or gain, especially when you consider that many of such events occurred at a time where it would be physically impossible. However so, it is also true that unless some form of royalties are issued to those families’ or persons’ whose namesakes being used, the use of their information and stories can be viewed as unethical or abusive.

In my personal opinion, if Skloot had not done such intrusive investigation, the historical analysis of the lady behind the world-famous HeLa cells would likely have remained a mystery to the general public, likely requiring extensive research by an individual in order to make any leeway in discovering more information. Not to mention that this publication served to aid progress in varying sociological and humanist aspects of the scientific world. Considering many events in the book, both unethical treatment of Henrietta Lacks and the horrifyingly abusive techniques carried out by scientists, a reader who is likely not intensively involved with biological sciences will then be informed of the questionable past of many scientific progress, but is also exposed to the progressive research allotted by the study of the HeLa cells. These points, however, do not make it fair for the author to receive all of the privileges that come with such historical story telling.

The point that we only hear of such stories from white women is both a moot yet awkwardly spot on point. Many stories told by the oppressed have survived the rough wear and tear of history, yet in the era present within the story of Henrietta Lacks, many stories of the slaves or abused minorities are now just an undiscoverable part of history. Furthermore, stories told by white women at the time would likely survive with better accuracy as they would likely be literate and able to document such stories on paper rather than word-of-mouth. Not to say that the stories would all be lost with time, but rather the stories’ accuracy would remain considerably consistent throughout history.

All in all, I must adhere to the idea that this type of authorship, as potentially abusive as it can be, is necessary in order to preserve history. This type of authorship, however, should not be the privilege of anyone until consent from the appropriate involved persons is given. Also, some form of reparation or repayment should be issued for parties involved within the story’s publication. This ensures that the abuse present in the earlier segregation days would not be repeated in our current time as all involved persons would have a valid output in what is to be decided with the use of their personal information.