Can you separate an author from his work? Can you look at their literature in the same way when you learn how incredibly problematic some of them can be? Sometimes we put our heroes on pedestals, forgetting how flawed they are. Can we disentangle and disengage ourselves from this information and yet, still appreciate their work? It’s a tightrope that I’m struggling to walk across, and I still haven’t reached the end point.
Take J. K. Rowling. She brought us the beloved Harry Potter series, inspired countless across the world to write, to read, to delve further into fantastical literature. Then came The Cursed Child. Then came other wizarding schools. Then came Fantastic Beasts. She expanded the universe to encapsulate the beginning of time to the very present. Fantastic Beasts: The Crimes of Grindelwald, came out a few weeks ago, continuing Newt Scamander’s adventures into Europe, just as Grindelwald’s reign of terror is about to commence.
I haven’t gone to see the movie, and I don’t think I will. Not just because I think Rowling should stop trying to milk the series past a point of no return, or that having Johnny Depp continue to play Grindelwald in spite of domestic violence allegations (in a franchise that addresses themes of abuse, too!) is a rather hypocritical casting choice. These are big issues that should be addressed for another time. But Rowling’s problematic representation of marginalized peoples becomes more and more evident with each attempt to broaden the magical world we love(d).
There’s the issue of Dumbledore’s unstated sexuality. Announcing that Dumbledore is gay after the series ended seems to have been an afterthought on Rowling’s part. It’s never explicitly stated in the books, nor is it shown in the movies. Even the newest addition to the franchise, The Crimes of Grindelwald, remains oddly vague about Dumbledore’s relationship with Grindelwald. This delegation of queerness to an implicit nature as opposed to an explicit one is just more undeserved brownie points towards Rowling.
I can talk about the new revelation of Hermione not being white and how the American wizarding school of Ilvermorny (and American magic in general) reeks of colonialism and appropriation of Native American culture. This pandering to marginalized groups is not doing them justice. And writing a mere paragraph or two (when I should be writing pages upon pages) would only briefly scratch the surface.
Even discussing how Nagini is played by an Asian actress deserves an entire article on its own. An Asian actress landed a major role in a well-loved movie franchise, and it’s a subservient, subordinate position, as we all know Nagini becomes one of Voldemort’s Horcruxes who executes his every command, only to be killed by Neville Longbottom.
Either represent your readers well, or don’t represent them at all, I’d say. We aren’t tick marks on a board for diversity. Just leave the world of Harry Potter as the wondrous creation it was, Rowling. I’m still waiting on that letter from Hogwarts.
-Raisa Alexis Santos
The C-Section “Epidemic”
According to a study, one in three births occur by C-section—roughly thirty percent. That’s a pretty staggering number considering that it used to be only five percent in 1970. It turns out that many of these C-sections are medically unnecessary but rather induced after a certain gestational age. Physicians and health care experts are pretty divided in their explanations for this increase. Some believe that inducing labor after 39 weeks maximizes the potential for a positive health outcomes in mothers and newborns. Others believe that the prevalence of this surgery is for life-saving reasons but only to a point—the fact that hospitals benefit from high C-section rates must be acknowledged. Insurance companies reimburse hospitals thousands of dollars more for a C-section surgical birth than for a vaginal birth. Even more, obstetricians are less likely to face a negligence lawsuit when they opt to perform surgery.
You might be wondering—isn’t it a good thing that both hospitals and mothers (and their children) can benefit from a C-section? No, not really. The surgery significantly increases the risk of maternal and postpartum infection, hemorrhage, and blood clots. Future pregnancies can become increasingly complicated. And new mothers have the burden of simultaneously recovering from a major surgery. Babies born by cesarean face respiratory complications, and an increased risk for asthma, eczema, and severe allergies. They are also more likely to refuse being breastfed.
You’d think that when it comes to low-risk pregnancies, the decision to perform a C-section would be left up to the pregnant woman. Yet, even as the demand for natural childbirth rises, hospitals fail to accommodate patient desire. A recent article revealed that New York State has only four natural birthing centers. Two are located in New York City, however, one will be shutting down at the end of the year. This is despite the fact that about 1000 women were scheduled to deliver babies there. Now they must choose between paying a ton of money to hire a home-birth midwife, or going to a hospital that might be too quick to use medical intervention.
Every woman has a right to a natural birth—this is true in theory, but perhaps not in practice.
-Maryam
Sources
Sky-high C-section rates in the US don’t translate to better birth outcomes
C-Sections Are Both Overused and Not Available When Needed, Study Shows
https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-labor-weeks-benefit-pregnant-women.html
The Junction Journal 