The Softer Side of Searing

The New Yorker has been kind enough to publish my letter, where I point out that Autistic kids don't have black mirrors for eyes. (Their version // my initial version.) I really appreciate them doing this because I hope it will make their readers consider the effects of dehumanizing language. I don't refer to my hurt feelings, but to the way people may behave after being exposed again and again to the idea that Autistic kids are bad tempered, bad to be around, and different to the point of being inhuman.

I also hope that the wording of my letter will remind people that autism is just one of the many disabilities that exist. I feel this is an important thing to remember, both for Autistic people's benefit and for the benefit of people with other disabilities.

When the New Yorker first edited my letter, I didn't like some of the changes they made. I worried that they would not publish my letter if I argued, but the Letters Editor was very nice and accommodated the 3 requests that I had.

However, I want to point something out. I summarized the black mirrors quote this way:

Shapin claims that Autistic children's eyes "are not windows to their souls, but black mirrors."

The New Yorker wanted to change it to:

Shapin mentions the struggle of parents whose autistic children’s eyes "are not windows to their souls, but black mirrors."

My original letter did not mention parents at all, nor did it need to. It was only about a 9-word phrase describing Autistic kids' eyes. Knowing that this phrase appeared in a sentence about parents does not explain or excuse it. It is just as bad to write, "Autism parents suffer because their kids have black mirrors for eyes," as, "Autistic kids have black mirrors for eyes"--and for the purposes of my letter, I don't see the value of one over the other.

I explained why I did not agree with the edit--"Bringing up parents' 'struggle,' when it's not relevant to my point, is something that I don't agree with because I think media discussions of autism are already biased toward the experiences of parents. (Of course their experiences are important; they are just not the only perspective, and they're often treated that way.) That line doesn't represent how I would write."

It's a bad habit the media has when discussing autism--always inserting the perspective of parents, whether or not there is a reason to do so.  I've read a lot of great deconstructions of this by Autistic people, but my favorite is Zoe's parody article from a few years ago, Person With Autism Manages to Do Something:

How does Joe Autie feel about his achievement? “We’re very proud of him,” said his mother.

Anyway, I suggested that if the editor wanted to provide context, it would be better to quote more of the review. Now the letter includes the entire sentence that the black mirrors line is from:

It’s a searing experience to have a child who doesn’t talk, who doesn’t want to be touched, who self-harms, who demands a regularity and an order that parents can’t supply, whose eyes are not windows to their souls but black mirrors.

This edit is okay with me, but does have an unfortunate result. My letter begins with this quote, but only talks about black mirrors--giving the impression that there's nothing to say about the rest of this quote. However, it's actually pretty awful from beginning to end. I just decided to write in about "black mirrors" because it was the most obviously wrong and offensive part of the sentence, and I felt I could write something very short about it.

I want to address the rest of the sentence, though, except for the part about the "searing experience." If people feel "seared" by having Autistic kids, I can't argue with that--it's how they feel. I feel "seared" by reading that it's "searing" to have a kid like me--and that's how I feel. If feelings can't be criticized, it's a tie. However, I can and will criticize the list of reasons that Autistic kids are "searing."

After "black mirrors," what stuck out to me is the self harm--specifically the construction, "It's a searing experience to have a child who self-harms." I'm afraid that this is such a common construction, when writing about autism, that it's not obvious what is wrong with this picture. Imagine the following description of a violent accident:

Kendra, a kindergarten teacher, slipped on the steps of her house; she fell and cracked her head open on the sidewalk. It was very upsetting to all the people on the street to see Kendra lying there. Kendra's husband fell into a deep depression, unable to deal with what had happened. Kendra's students were very distressed when she could not come back to work because of her brain injury.

Hopefully this example gets the point across. Everyone has good reason to be seriously affected by Kendra's accident, especially her husband. But we don't expect to have their perspectives emphasized to the point that they entirely drown out Kendra's perspective of her situation. Her physical condition is only described in terms of its effect on others, and her feelings aren't described at all.

That is just a ridiculous way to describe something bad happening to Kendra--because first and foremost, it happens to Kendra. It does not happen to the people around her, no matter how much they love her. I can't speak to every person's experience of self harm, but in my experience it feels pretty bad internally--and physically, of course, it hurts a lot. No one else's reaction to self-harm is as "searing" as being in that situation yourself. To frame a child self injuring in terms of how someone else feels about it is unbelievably unempathetic to the child; and when it happens over and over in the media to the point of being unremarkable, that is really disturbing.

However, as I read the multi-faceted "searing" quote again and again, what stands out the most is the implication that autism is volitional--that Autistic children are being Autistic on purpose, just to torture the people around them. I addressed this idea a few years ago in my post Behavior vs. Ability. I was saying that those who are more empathetic to a disabled person will usually see the person's actions/inactions in terms of what they are not able to do, the fact that they may have to do things in alternate ways, and that they are trying to cope. On the other hand, there's the colder view that the actions are all there is--the person "prefers to do this," "refuses to do that." No reason is given, and no acknowledgment is given to the idea that a reason might exist. The person is just being bad.

It's subtle. But look what Shapin says:

a child who doesn’t talk

Why not "a child who can't talk?" Does Shapin mean to say that kids who can't talk are just refusing to talk? Does he really believe they can talk?

a child who demands a regularity and an order that parents can’t supply

Why not "a child who needs a regularity and an order that parents can't supply?" I doubt the child is drawing up a contract of "demands" like a rock band demanding green M&Ms in their rider. The child is upset when things aren't regular and orderly. The child is struggling, not "demanding" things.

(Imagine if the New Yorker had wanted to edit my letter to discuss "the struggles of children with black mirrors for eyes" instead of "the struggles of parents who have children with black mirrors for eyes." It's really too bad how surprising that would be.)

And how come the child "doesn't" talk, but the parents "can't" supply order? Why not say "the parents refuse to supply the order the child needs?" Because Shapin has empathy for the parents and understands there are things they can't do--but the child is just a mirror-eyed cipher.

Well, I'm just spitballing here--I don't want to go point by point through the whole sentence and edit everything to make it sound more like the child is in fact disabled--not "demanding" the things they need to function, not refusing to talk to "sear" their parents, not self-harming just for the hell of it. At that point, the sentence would no longer be as damaging to Autistic kids, but it still wouldn't be very good. ("This is the worst writing I've ever seen in the New Yorker," was my mom's comment, although her judgment may have been affected by all that searing I did to her.)

Anyway, I just wanted to give the searing sentence a more thorough look, and now I'll shuffle off with 2 boring postscripts:

1. I want to be very clear that I was not offended by the idea that Autistic kids' eyes look black, or that they look different from other people's eyes. I was offended by the context and implications. I don't like the resemblance to the Black-Eyed Children urban legend and to the purely black eyes (including black sclera) in a lot of ghost/alien/monster characters in movies and TV. I don't like the idea that our body parts aren't flesh but metal, or the idea of us having "nothing behind our eyes" where other people have souls.

However, lots of people do have glass eyes, metal spines, and so on. There's nothing supernatural about that either. When I jump on this quote like, "How dare you say this!" it is NOT because I think there's something horrific or monstrous about anybody who really has glass eyes, has very different looking eyes (no pupils, etc.), or doesn't have any eyes at all. It is because of the context and the tropes it's drawing on. And while the insult was specifically aimed at Autistic people, I don't think it does blind people any favors either to talk in such a weirdly tragifying, spooky way about eyes that look different, or eyes that do not focus and make eye contact.

2. It's hardly worth responding to, but Shapin says some really false and insulting things about the neurodiversity or Autistic self advocacy movement. I assume these are regurgitated from the book. For a smart and clear self advocate response to In a Different Key, that explains exactly how untrue these assertions are, I recommend Ari Ne'eman's review.

behavior vs. ability

Some people do different things or need different things from the average person. (Or the imaginary average person.) Other people have to decide how they feel about that difference.

1. Should the average person accept that some people do this different thing, and not be mad about it? Should institutions and communities try to adjust to meet the needs of these people?

2. Or should the person who's different change their needs to be more like the average person's needs, change their behavior to draw less discrimination and aggression, and be held responsible for any ways they get hurt if they fail to change?

As a person who does and needs some different things, I feel like option one is the right answer in most cases, unless the different thing someone does is being a serial killer. The majority of the time I feel like it's just a more interesting and efficient way to live.

However, usually a minority group's right to option one is supported or denied on the grounds of whether they can help being different or not. If you want someone to be responsible for your bad behavior toward them, you argue that they are being different on purpose.

One example I can think of is people who are against gay marriage and go around saying, "But gay people already CAN get married! They can marry the opposite sex!" This puts the blame on gay people for not changing our needs to match the majority. I also saw someone who, when asked if gay people were allowed in their religion, said that we probably wouldn't be interested in joining anyway. This implies that if people wanted to not be excluded for being different, we just wouldn't be different.

There is also the whole idea that poor people are poor because of some kind of moral failing and everyone who tries not to be poor isn't. Therefore not helping people who are poor is supposed to be tough love encouraging them to straighten up and become rich.

When people argue for option one, they say that the difference is involuntary. "I was born gay. If I could take a pill to be straight I would. The idea of kissing a man makes me want to throw up." Etc. What I think about this dichotomy isn't the point because it's so universal. If you try to talk about this stuff in other ways most people will not even know what you're saying. When you say that someone can't help being different, you're almost always indicating that you're on their side.

Therefore you can kind of tell what side someone's on just by how they talk about someone who is different.

Medical and mainstream culture descriptions of autism are steeped in option two language. They are very superficial descriptions of things Autistic people do, with the implication that Autistic people do these things simply because they like them, or for no reason at all.

1. "Autistic people stim" not "Autistic people stim BECAUSE" or "Autistic people have motor/sensory stuff going on that causes them to move like this or be soothed by doing this."

2. "Autistic people avoid eye contact" not "It scares Autistic people to look at other people's eyes."

3. "Autistic people avoid touch" not "Some kinds of touch can scare or hurt Autistic people."

4. "Autistic people have 'splinter skills' and strong interests and like to do the same thing over and over" not "Autistic people can learn specific things better than general things, and see number five."

5. "Autistic people like rituals and are resistant to change" not "Autistic people do better when they are in situations where they know what's going on and what's coming next, to the extent that some people can't handle life at all when it's not like that."

#5 has been on my mind a lot lately because the last few months have involved me having to do a lot of unplanned things and make a lot of sudden transitions. This has reduced my quality of life and my ability to do other stuff, which is clearly because I have a disability that makes it hard for me to emotionally and cognitive cope with surprise and change. However some people would say it's because I want to make out with train schedules.

Some OTHER people would probably say that because professionals don't know exactly why Autistic people do certain things (the reasons I'm giving are from Autistic cultural/anecdotal knowledge, not from books), they have to phrase everything in terms of what an Autistic person chooses to do. First of all, the reason professionals don't know why Autistic people do things is because they usually only study how to to make Autistic people not do things. I think their phrasing shows what they are interested in knowing not what they're able to know.

But I also I just fail to believe that people can't say, "It seems like Autistic people have to do this, for some reason."

I made up an imaginary mobility impaired person and I'm going to tell you a slightly unlikely but not absurdist story about his life. People are a little less likely to blame SOME mobility impaired people for their problems, which is why I think this story helps illustrate my point. But I'm also sure that it has literally happened plenty of times.

An imaginary kid named Sidney learns to walk at the usual age, but he always sits down crying after a few steps. Even when adults try to encourage him, the same thing happens. Sometimes they can bribe him with candy to walk across the room, but he cries while he's walking. When Sidney gets old enough to talk, he confirms that walking more than a few steps really hurts.

Not finding any immediate solutions, Sidney's parents continue to push him around in a stroller. Eventually they get him a wheelchair so he can be more independent. As he grows up, a few things change about how Sidney gets around, but since he is an imaginary person I won't go into detail. The short version is, he grows up to be an almost full time wheelchair user.

No one is able to trace Sidney's problem to a genetic condition or an injury to his legs or brain.

If a doctor describes Sidney's disability as "preferring to use a wheelchair and avoid walking," this doctor is not on Sidney's side. The description fails to acknowledge Sidney's experiences and implies that he's irrational. It doesn't encourage healthcare providers to try and help Sidney with his actual problems--in fact it may mean he can't access services he needs. It doesn't encourage other people to accommodate Sidney's wheelchair. It doesn't encourage Sidney to feel confident in speaking up against injustice, seeking help, and just taking care of his own body.

In many ways, this description of Sidney's disability can physically, emotionally, and socially hurt him. If the doctor says he wants to help people like Sidney, Sidney better watch out.

this is a collection of tumblr posts so it may get longer

Maybe you know what's going on. If you don't that's okay. I don't want to use the person's name and maybe that's dumb but it just seems like such an archetypal situation that I don't see the point of causing drama. He seems unreachable. If you know who this is you already know. It's a non-disabled parent vs. disabled people internet drama thing. It is taking a lot out of me and I'm not even directly involved.

Zero

[I deleted this post immediately after making it]

has ted ever considered treating other people with 1% compassion? just do it! it'll be great!

One

also, before I go back to sleep, because I can’t yet thanks to this ridiculousness.

it happens to be a fact that at one point You Know Who wrote in an email to either Z or me (I don’t remember which, because it was a while ago and it was an incredibly horrible series of days in my life for reasons that had little to do with him but definitely exacerbated how much the situation upset me) something like this:

“when this started happening my friends started telling me that I shouldn’t try to talk to self-advocates because it wouldn’t end well and they wouldn’t listen but I tried to anyway and I’m really regretting this because everyone has been so mean to me and not listened!!”

okay dude, so let’s look at this.

basically he’s setting up the fact that he tried to engage with self-advocates (also known as disabled adults!) as, like, some kind of awesome favor. like, the baseline thing that you would expect would be that he wouldn’t do it. and his friends told him not to do it because self-advocates are not nice, or maybe just don’t understand these issues because they’re not smart enough. (but when it actually matters, we are smart and NLMC.) I mean, this is what I already don’t get, because if your work is about disability and making things better for disabled kids, how could you think listening to disabled people is anything other than vital? because one day your kid will be an adult who people are trying to decide if it’s worth it to listen to, or if engaging with them ~won’t be worth it~ or whatever.

but you’re trying to figure out if disabled adults are going to be nice/cool/~understanding enough to deserve your time. yeah okay. I hope you engage with your kid even if they wake up on the wrong side of the bed and aren’t reasonable or in a good mood. (disclaimer, my impression of You Know Who is he would do this because he seems like a really good dad, but I have NO IDEA why I am required to say this when I am disagreeing with him or why he thinks people are required to take his advocacy work into account when disagreeing with something he said especially because he clearly doesn’t give a fuck about what any of the ~disabled adults~ arguing with him experience or what our work has been like.)

anyway, this guy decides to be an epic saint and actually answer/talk to disabled people who disagree with him even though someone told him that the disabled people would just be dicks. and the disabled people in question…were dicks, in his opinion. so his conclusion is to like try to guilt-trip us because HE LISTENED TO US EVEN THOUGH HE WAS TOLD NOT TO BOTHER. because he’s the nicest guy in the world. and we weren’t nice back!!

but if you really care what disabled adults have to say then you just would listen and you wouldn’t think you deserve something for listening! AND if you think someone wasn’t nice to you (which I couldn’t disagree with more in this case) you would still want to engage because it’s important! you definitely wouldn’t be like “ooh this is starting to prove that I shouldn’t have engaged with you”

IN CONCLUSION, this is a really good way of making it sound like you want disabled adults to shut up and practically all you have done is say things like this!

Two

[obviously, this was also a direct comment on one of his posts]

Hi R, it’s Amanda. We talked a bit in comments and by email when this first happened, and (as I probably said) I can’t do this conversation well because it’s a big emotional/psychiatric trigger for me to hear people being told their disabilities aren’t significant. (I understand if you think I’m misinterpreting what you said or taking it too much to heart, but you said that Zoe lives independently and that isn’t true. That is a perfect illustration of why parents should not try to bring in personal information when having these conversations with self-advocates.)

So I apologize for messy/badly thought out parts of this comment. But I would like to point out that I’ve never seen Zoe try to represent the point of view of someone with a disability that’s different from hers or more severe than hers—just her own point of view. I feel that we start having this conversation where we argue the legitimacy of things that haven’t actually happened. I actually see you acknowledging/agreeing with a lot of things that Zoe said in her letter and I don’t really think there is a lot of disagreement when it comes to actual ideas. And obviously Zoe cares a lot about talking to you and engaging with you, because she is making an effort to do so and has initiated most of the conversations you’ve had.

The biggest difference of opinion that I see seems to be that you feel attacked but no one I know feels like they have attacked you. I didn’t think Zoe’s original post was that mean or aggressive, except for one word choice that she later apologized for. But you’re saying she turned you into a “bogeyman?” And that you wish you could have heard from her when you first made the post with suggestions of how to make it be more inclusive—but that’s exactly what her original post WAS. She linked it in the comments of your post because she intended for you to read it and think about it.

I think you’re a great parent who has done a lot of important work for AAC users. At one point in an email you said that my reaction really bothered you because I was a longtime reader of your blog and knew about your work. But I don’t see why or how someone is supposed to take your work into account when responding to something you said that they thought was offensive. A person can do good work and still say something that other people find worthy of addressing. Personally I’d be really happy if this conversation stuck to opinions and ideas and stopped being about anyone’s life or work.

(I have to say that when in posts and comments you have tried to talk about what any of us know or experience in our personal lives, you have often been wrong, as with the comment about living independently. Which is one reason I’d like you to stop.)

Anyway, I’m getting off track, but I have seen you say that you were turned into a bogeyman, take words out of context to turn them into examples of how you were insulted (like when someone wrote a post saying that you and Zoe had both made “dick moves” in the conversation, and you said that you’d been called a dick), Tweet about things that self-advocates have said to you in emails that you think were stupid or offensive, and tell people like Zoe who have been fairly polite that you would have happily listened if they’d been MORE polite. To me, it looks like you think you’re in this situation where people don’t like you and are trying to bully you. That is what is most confusing to me because I think you are wrong. If disabled people didn’t care about you we wouldn’t be trying to reach out to you and talk to you! Most of the things you’re calling attacks happened because A DISABLED PERSON WANTED TO ENGAGE WITH YOU. I can see why someone would say that this really makes it hard for disabled adults to talk, because no matter what we do, you react as if we’re punching you in the face. I really don’t get it, with the work you do for your daughter, that you make it seem like disabled adults have to meet an impossible standard for it to be “worth it” for you to listen. To me your work/parenting and your reaction to this situation seem like they belong to two completely different people.

Three

“People who are struggling just to live every day don’t have the luxury for discussions like this.”—one of Ted’s friends on twitter


HEAD MEET DESK
FOREVER

but….but….HE IS HAVING IT!!! so therefore he ALSO sucks

and you’re talking about it on twitter so you suck too!

everyone sucks! we all have luxurious not-really-disabled lives!

[Savannah reblogged this and pointed out it's kind of like "poor people can't have nice things if they're poor." it sort of reminds me of people taking pictures of homeless people who have cell phones and maybe that explains why it feels so hateful. the constant desire to assert that people in a situation that blows are actually having a great time.]

Four

you know, when ted and I talked by email he sort of (very unenthusiastically) apologized for doing the whole YOU’RE SO MILDLY DISABLED thing to Zoe, Julia, and me. I basically spilled my guts to him, I linked him to the page from the passing project where people talk about wanting to hurt themselves or become injured to opt out of “invisible disability.” (I have to make a new version of the passing project at some point because there is so much I left out, particularly in this area, because about three times more people talked about this kind of thing than I had room for.)

I tried to say, hey, I might be jealous of someone with limited speech because they get assumed to need support, while I’m presumed to either not need support or to be able to ask for it! But that is just a feeling coming out of my own shitty circumstances and it’s not VALID. And it’s really hurtful! So it’s not something I need to go around announcing, especially as a way to silence someone with limited speech.

so ted was like…okay. That makes sense. I was jealous too.

yeah, no. here ted was again yesterday, saying that people who can “live independently and self-advocate” (even though he’s talking to someone who doesn’t live independently, well never mind, SHE HAS A BLOG, obviously the most important ADL) have “privilege.”

now, the truth is I don’t really want to argue with this. I have privilege over, like, another lesbian who gets regularly perceived as a lesbian by strangers. for example I’m moving to Cincinnati which I’m told is kind of conservative/homophobic in some places, but for me, that doesn’t matter at all because no one on the street is going to assume that I’m gay. whereas someone who looks “more lesbian” has to think about this stuff when they think about where they’re going to live.

it’s complicated because passing can be tough, and especially in terms of disability, passing can lead to all these real problems of not getting support. being treated like I don’t have a disability, or seeing other people treated that way, actually sickens me, it’s just really horrible. so I’m not sure I’d use the word privilege when it comes to disability? but I’m not sure I wouldn’t either. what I do know is if I was talking to ted’s daughter about disability, I’d be aware that we have way different stigma experiences because she’s more “visibly” disabled, and that would probably be something I was thinking about just as much as I’d be thinking about how best to listen to/communicate with someone who has more limited speech and uses AAC.

but no one is talking to ted’s daughter! we’re talking to ted. so please someone explain how this is relevant.

different experience of stigma DOES matter, but I don’t think it means such a clear-cut, huge different in privilege that any non-disabled person needs to be telling disabled people about it over and over. or like going on his Twitter (seriously is he a high school girl??) and posting about how we’re “ignoring our privilege.” what does that even mean? what would not ignoring our privilege look like? do we have to start every post/comment we make with a little checklist of our privilege over ted’s daughter (as far as we can tell, since we’ve never met her, and like I said these things are far from clear-cut)?

now, here’s what I think. ted, despite being aware of what privilege means from a social justice standpoint, isn’t actually using it that way. ted just means that he thinks we have it easier than his daughter. which, as I said, is totally fine, people play those little games in their head and resent other people all the time for having what they think are easier lives. it’s when you decide that those feelings/games actually represent FACTS or are somehow political that…you become a huge fail.

imagine if I thought it was relevant whenever I argued with someone to be like, “You’re straight! You’re a man! You’re better-looking than I am! You’re from England, I wish I was from England, so you’re PRIVILEGED! Your parents sound like more fun than my parents are! STOP IGNORING YOUR PRIVILEGE.” now obviously in some ways this person is more privileged than me and in other, non-privilege-related ways they may also have a more fun life than I do, but like, this isn’t related to what we’re saying! also what if their parents aren’t more fun than mine are or they don’t feel like they are? aren’t I just making them feel upset and playing this weird game with them for no reason?

not only is ted saying all these kind of nasty and insensitive things about how great he thinks other disabled people have it, but he actually seems angry that we either choose not to respond or point out he is being ridiculous? like, he’s personally offended?

this really hurts because I am personally offended by being told I have it great and I very sincerely and unguardedly tried to explain this to him. and he was kind of like “I guess I don’t know as many diverse pwds as I should” or some other half-apology. but I would say it’s not just that he doesn’t know a lot of diverse pwds, but that his understanding of disability is really simple and flat.

his daughter is disabled and has a hard time, so therefore she has it the worst. even though she’s on the unified sports team for the most independent kids. even though she can walk and run. even though she can use AAC and can use some speech. even though she doesn’t look different like a lot of kids with brain formation conditions (like microcephaly and lissencephaly) do and therefore experiences less stigma in that area. keep in mind there’s no way I’d ever want to have this kind of contest with anyone, but there are plenty of ways that ANYONE has it better than someone else. his daughter is really disabled, he knows that because he knows her, so therefore he categorizes her disability as real/severe/significant and the rest of us who he disagrees with, or who have abilities he wishes his daughter had, are in the only other category he knows of, which basically amounts to “not real.”

what if we were all really disabled?

what if we all just looked different from each other, some people looked like conventionally cute kids and other people had different-shaped faces and heads or different facial features; what if some people could talk and some people could talk a little and some people could talk sometimes and some people could only say one word or no words; what if some of us could live on our own and some could but ended up hungry and unwashed and some people would die if they lived on their own; and what if some of us could stand up for ourselves in school and fight back if someone hurt us and some of us could write in a blog and some of us could give a speech and some of us were seen as fucking geniuses/miracles because we “made a full recovery,” but didn’t even have the “self-advocacy” to say no to unwanted sex because we were too scared or well-trained; and what if a lot of us had all these predictions made about us when we were kids, he will never type on a keyboard, she will never drive, she will never go to college, he will use a wheelchair, she will have seizures, he will never live on his own, and to some extent it doesn’t MATTER what we went on to do anyway because we still were kids who were talked about that way and when you make decisions about a kid you don’t know what they will do, if someone tells you that stuff about the kid, you accept it—so we live with that anyway. What if all of these people were disabled?

I worry, precisely because ted’s daughter, still very young, is gaining skills that were not predicted and is very conventionally normal-looking, that someday people will try and tell her she is not really disabled. and he has set himself up to be totally blindsided by that because he used to say that to other people, and he doesn’t understand why it is wrong.

Five

from my favorite story:

Lupin looked down at him with soft eyes. "He's hanging in there. Between the nightmares and the Dementors and the Death Eater attacks-- but Voldemort can't take Harry out. No matter how much he throws at him, Harry always pulls through."

"The Boy Who Lives and Lives," Neville echoed weakly, because that's what the Prophet was calling him now.

Lupin shook his head angrily. "The damn Prophet. Only a Qwik-Quotes Quill would call it living."