<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8" standalone="yes"?>
<!DOCTYPE article  PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD JATS (Z39.96) Journal Archiving and Interchange DTD v1.1 20151215//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/archiving/1.1/JATS-archivearticle1.dtd">
<article dtd-version="1.1" article-type="book-review"
    xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">
    <front>
        <journal-meta>
            <journal-id>JFRR</journal-id>
            <journal-title-group>
                <journal-title>Journal of Folklore Research Reviews</journal-title>
            </journal-title-group>
            <issn pub-type="epub">2832-8132</issn>
            <publisher>
                <publisher-name>IU ScholarWorks</publisher-name>
            </publisher>
        </journal-meta>
        <article-meta>
            <article-id pub-id-type="publisher-id">38496</article-id>
            <title-group>
                <article-title>David Lewis - Review of Jon D. Lee, An Epidemic of Rumors: How Stories Shape Our Perception of Disease</article-title>
            </title-group>
            <contrib-group>
                <contrib contrib-type="author">
                    <name>
                        <surname>David Lewis</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                    <aff>Bowling Green State University</aff>
                    <address>
                        <email></email>
                    </address>
                </contrib>
            </contrib-group>
            <pub-date publication-format="epub" date-type="pub" iso-8601-date="2021">
                <year>2015</year>
            </pub-date>
            <product product-type="book">
                <person-group>
                    <name>
                        <surname>Jon D. Lee</surname>
                        <given-names/>
                    </name>
                </person-group>
                <source>An Epidemic of Rumors: How Stories Shape Our Perception of Disease
                </source>
                <series></series>
                <year iso-8601-date="2021">2014</year>
                <publisher-loc></publisher-loc>
                <publisher-name>Utah State University Press</publisher-name>
                <page-range>220 pages</page-range>
                <price></price>
                <isbn>978-0874219289 (soft cover)</isbn>
            </product>
            <permissions>
                <copyright-statement>Reviewers retain copyright and grant JFRR the right of first publication with the review simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share or redistribute reviews with an acknowledgment of the review's original authorship and initial publication JFRR.</copyright-statement>
            </permissions>
        </article-meta>
    </front>
    <body>
        <fig id="f0" orientation="portrait" position="anchor">
            <alt-text>Planet Earth wearing a surgical mask.</alt-text>
            <graphic xlink:href="An Epidemic of Rumors.jpg"/>
        </fig>
        <p>As I write this review, much of the national and global media is in an uproar over the
            recent Ebola outbreak. Countries in West Africa are closing borders with neighboring
            countries, international travelers are being quarantined, and US-based news outlets are
            pondering what the extent of Ebola in the United States will be. John Lee, in his book
                <italic>An Epidemic of Rumors</italic>, contends that certain kinds of infectious
            disease engender specific reactions from both the media and the public: “[P]eople use
            certain sets of narratives to discuss the presence of illness, mediate their fears of
            it, come to terms with it, and otherwise incorporate its presence into their daily
            routines” (169). <italic>An Epidemic of Rumors</italic>, through an exhaustive
            exploration of the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) panic of 2003, uses concepts
            from folklore studies to examine some of these narratives and to offer ways to
            ameliorate their negative effects on public health efforts.</p>
        <p>Lee’s introduction notes the similarities between SARS narratives and narratives from
            other epidemic diseases, while also pointing out the contributions ethnographic research
            can make to the fields of medicine and public health. The book’s first chapter lays out
            the differences between the media’s portrayal of SARS and the version presented in
            peer-reviewed scientific journals such as the <italic>British Medical Journal</italic>
            and <italic>Lancet</italic>, making the case that many rumors and legends around SARS
            were bolstered by media coverage. It also grounds the reader in the medical timeline of
            the disease. For each week in the epidemic, Lee gives the reader a synopsis of the
            reporting from both medical journals and media sources, but the chapter does not cohere
            into a compelling narrative. By the time I reached week twenty of the epidemic—more than
            thirty pages into the chapter—it was difficult to adequately process any more
            information.</p>
        <p>In the second chapter Lee begins to examine his corpus of rumor and legend around the
            SARS epidemic. He draws from Internet-based sources, media representations, and
            ethnographic interviews with persons who experienced the SARS epidemic in Toronto. His
            second chapter compares origin stories of SARS and of HIV/AIDS to foreground
            commonalities between the two while noting the ways the particularities of the SARS
            epidemic shaped those common stories. In chapter 3, Lee examines how contemporary
            legends and other folkloric genres that involve public spaces were re-configured in the
            wake of the SARS epidemic. He traces, for example, how fear of public gathering spaces,
            xenophobic legends, and the promulgation of stereotypes by the media helped SARS become
            “inextricably, globally linked with Asians” (103).</p>
        <p>In chapters 4 and 5, Lee’s discussion of globalization and stigma is strongest when he
            discusses their connections to xenophobia during the SARS epidemic. In the chapter
            dealing with globalization Lee makes the case that, in a global pandemic, rather than
            using regional or national borders, “lines are instead drawn around those who are
            unknown or different…so strangers and other ethnicities become the targets of suspicion”
            (97). Rumor and legend around emerging diseases such as SARS, Lee contends, help to fuel
            this climate of suspicion. The fifth chapter extends Erving Goffman’s theory of social
            stigma to include “the infected” and the “potentially discreditable” to fully account
            for stigmatization of persons who have (or are presumed to have) diseases like SARS and
            HIV/AIDS. Lee’s analysis, though, also focuses on the ways that those stigmatized used
            narrative and humor to mediate their own stigmatization.</p>
        <p>The sixth chapter explores preventative and curative strategies that appeared early in
            the SARS epidemic, prefaced by a targeted literature review of writings on folk
            medicine. Lee’s discussion of SARS in a folk medicine context seeks to explain the many
            forms of preventative folk medicine that occurred around SARS such as staying indoors,
            avoiding certain places, and wearing masks. Lee favorably compares the immediacy of folk
            remedies with the slower pace of what he calls “official medicine” and its search for
            pharmaceutical cures; these points, though, are brief, and this reader would have
            appreciated a lengthier discussion, particularly in light of the murkiness in
            distinguishing folk remedies from “official” medicine in the SARS epidemic.</p>
        <p>In the following chapter, Lee uses his analysis of SARS in the preceding chapters to
            briefly analyze myth, legend, and rumor around the 2009 appearance of H1N1 or “bird
            flu,” on the global stage. The H1N1 chapter, like the second chapter that compares
            origin stories of AIDS and SARS, makes a compelling case that the folkloric genres that
            Lee examines throughout the text occur across a range of diseases and are not specific
            to SARS.</p>
        <p>Lee’s conclusion tackles strategies for combating rumor and legend that have proved
            harmful in previous epidemics, most notably using the media to provide accurate
            information rather than discussing rumor and legend, even to disprove or debunk it. His
            discussion of practical, workable solutions for the problems posed by rumor make this
            book quite valuable for public health researchers, who have not approached folkloric
            forms in such a considered, ethnographic manner. One of the great strengths of Lee’s
            work is that it views rumor, legend, and other forms as meaning-laden and indicative of
            larger social and cultural beliefs rather than as stories that simply need to be
            corrected, as is often the case in medical research.</p>
        <p>As I watched the recent Ebola outbreak unfold and had discussions with friends and
            colleagues about air travel, immigration, media coverage, and relative safety of public
            spaces, I couldn’t help but reflect upon Lee’s discussion of these same issues in this
            volume. While the chapters can be uneven and far too brief—I often wished for lengthier
            discussion of issues that Lee mentions only glancingly—many of his larger arguments will
            prove useful to folklorists and ethnographers working at the borders of “folk” and
            “official” medicine as well as to public health experts planning interventions for
            current and emerging global diseases.</p>
        
        <p>--------</p>
        <p>[Review length: 965 words • Review posted on January 14, 2015]</p>
        
        
    </body>
</article>