Bimala, Nikhil, and Sandip's Unique Home and the Worlds

 In Rabindranath Tagore’s novel The Home and the World it is interesting to analyze the relationship between Nikhil’s and Sandip's personalities and their political views. Nikhil is against the violence of the movement and is more of a calm and logical person. Whereas, Sandip is motivated by passion and filled with conviction and fervor for the movement. During the time of the novel there existed many campaigns for the sole purpose of challenging British rule, some being violent and some being non-violent. Sandip’s personality compliments his pursuit of the Swadeshi movement, part of the Indian Nationalist Movement. The Swadeshi movement involved the boycotting of British produced goods in order to foster nationalism but it ended up resulting in poverty. Sandip contrasts Nikhil’s passivity in terms this conflict with his statement "My country does not become mine simply because it is the country of my birth. It becomes mine on the day when I am able to win it by force".

The relationship between those supporting the Swadeshi movement and those not, can even be related to the choices Bimala makes in her relationships with Nihkil and Sandip. Supporting the Swadeshi movement is risky and could possible be ultimately unprofitable. While neglecting the support the Swadeshi movement, as Nikhil does, is based in accepting his country as it is without forcing movements and change upon it. Bimala makes a similar choice in her interactions with Sandip and Nikhil and her actions in the curious symbolic love triangle. As Sandip and Nikhil make their decision to love their country actively or passively, so does Bimala choose between following her temptation or staying loyal to the status quo or her husband of 9 years. The connection between Bimala’s freedom in the home and the world and the political temperament not supporting the movement or supporting the Swadeshi movement is definitely drawn. Tagore is renowned for his ability to draw connections and his courage and talent at exploring unexplored topics and providing a unique message as he does in The Home and the World.

Voltaire’s Candide Versus John Stewart Mill’s Concept of Utilitarianism

Voltaire’s exploration of free-will and Pangloss’s voluntary optimism and Martin’s voluntary pessimism is probably birthed from the era of the Enlightenments obsession with civil liberty and democracy in which came the later question, which is the right way to act. Just 28 years after the death of Francois-Marie Arouet de Voltaire, famous French historian, writer, and philosopher was the birth of famous British political economist, politician, and philosopher and proponent of Utilitarianism developed by Jeremy Bentham. Utility as a word means the state of being useful. This concept of Utilitarianism and both Bentham’s and Mill’s role is explained in this video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zn9FuHwX7zw. Utilitarianism is based generally on the belief that an action is right if it tends to promote happiness and wrong if it produces unhappiness. It refutes egoism, the pursuit of complete self-interest regardless of its effect on others. Candide as a novel subtly searches for the right way to live and the right motive. It is interesting that a central question of Utilitarianism is what a man should do and Mill believed that what is right is independent of the motive, it is only joint with the result of good consequences. He believes you should optimize pleasure and reduce pain. Voltaire plays with this theory of Utilitarianism way before it is developed when he explores pain and pleasure and good and bad intentions in his novel through the tragedy, plot, and unique personalities of his characters.

For example, it is interesting to think of Pangloss’s optimism as a form of pessimism. If this really is the best of all possible worlds than there is no way for anything to get better, and no effort made to strive for and achieve more happiness for oneself and others. When Pangloss say’s when they decide to work the garden and everyone is satisfied by their work and Candide replies, “That is very well put . . . but we must cultivate our garden.” Candide almost makes an Utilitarian assertion himself that more happiness can be striven for through work and Voltaire perhaps makes an assertion that what is right for a man to do and what is the right way to act is just to be useful and the most real happiness can be found in that.

One last interesting point to consider is John Stewart Mill’s perhaps most famous quote, “it is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied”. And as Voltaire writes in Candide, “Let’s work without speculating, said Martin, it’s the only way of rendering life bearable.” Martin also is quoted saying that humans live “either in convulsions of misery or in the lethargy of boredom.” Voltaire questions the value of being able to bear life when sacrificing being able to explore and speculate it. Ultimately Martin’s characteristic pessimism and Pangloss’s blind optimism are just as empty. Neither is the right way to live and as money, good-fortune, love, and leisure do not bring Candide happiness, Voltaire concludes the novel with Candide achieving his ultimate semblance of a state of happiness through tending to his garden or as John Stewart Mill or Jeremy Benthem might put it as they define Utilitarianism, the state of being useful.

Irreverence and Defining Value: Marx Vs. Through the Arc of the Rainforest

Yamashita says in an interview, http://www.loggernaut.org/interviews/karenteiyamashita/, when asked if she is an irreverent writer, “I suppose so, since I paid no reverence to those forms (magical realism, film noir, etc.) ripped them off, parodied, and satirized the genres as useful to the narratives. Maybe writing is an irreverent business by necessity. At the same time, thinking about it, I think I'm pretty reverent about much of what I write.” She calls writing a business but calls attention to the fact that though she may be writing to create the best possible product at its base, she is true about the words she writes and her message. She finds it important to draw to attention the difference between her commercialization of her magic realism techniques and the commercialization of natural resources in the novel. One of the central themes of Through the Arc of the Rain Forest is the commercialization, exploitation, and destruction of nature and Yamashita shares a message of the negative effects that it can have. That is why it is so interesting that she comments herself on her ability to change her words and feelings and writing technique to fit the “business” or commercialization of writing novels.

This theme of the exploitation of nature in the novel is so heavily present and it is interesting that the political philosophy behind it can be examined by reading into and drawing connections with Karl Marx’s political and philosophical beliefs. As Marx explains in Das Capital, he believes the criteria for deciding a commodity’s value is simply its usefulness or its value in relation to other commodities. In his description, Marx ignores the concept of intrinsic value; an advantage that the nature in Through the Arc of the Rainforest can claim before many of its characters commercialize it and believe that usefulness defines value. One of the important questions Marx debates and tries to discover in Das Kapital is what this value comes from. He then asserts his labor theory of value. He believes that all commodities have a social dimension and that their exchange value is not intrinsic to them as resources or even commodities. He believes that value is more social than it is material. This is interesting to think about when reading Through the Arc of the Rainforest. What makes a commodity? And what makes a commodity valuable? In Through the Arc of the Rainforest, the characters, the consumers, and the producers decide the value of the feathers. All the real value is stripped of the object and the object becomes purely defined as a commodity, value based completely on usefulness. It looses its essence, which is so central to it when it is originally made use of. For example the feathers or when “Chico Paco would race with the children out to the Matacao to listen to the drops spatter against the smooth surface and to slide with wild abandon across the slippery surface of that tropical skating rink.” Nature is defined by its intrinsic value. The quote featured in the PowerPoint is a good excerpt to complete this thought with, “A commodity appears at first sight an extremely obvious, trivial thing. But its analysis brings out that it is a very strange thing, abounding in metaphysical subtleties and theological niceties…the form of wood, for instance, is altered if a table is made out of it. Nevertheless the table continues to be wood, an ordinary, sensuous thing. But as soon as it emerges as a commodity, it changes into a thing, which transcends sensuousness. It not only stands with its feet on the ground, but, in relation to all other commodities, it stands on its head, and evolves out of its wooden brain grotesque ideas, far more wonderful than if it were to begin dancing of its own free will. (163-4 Capital)” This can be interpreted in terms of Through the Arc of the Rainforest if you think that once something is turned into a commodity, it loses its being. It is no longer itself. It is something else. A comparison can be made with how as commercialization became central in the plot of Through the Arc of the Rainforest, plastic was used to recreate the nature of the feathers. The commodity, the feathers, became purely social value, all based on labor and rate of exchange. There is no personal value to the commodity made by the plastic and industrialization in the second half of the novel took the value out of humanity and made it completely based on it’s social variable.

Achieving a Humanist Perspective: Persepolis and 1980’s Iran

Marjane Satrapi states in her interview Universal Persepolis: A Pro-Iranian Humanist Tale, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aMwfzqEqVLk&feature=relmfu

featured on the PowerPoint, that she means Persepolis to be purely a humanist tail devoid of any political undertones. She states in a new interview with Foreign Policy here, http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/07/08/interview_marjane_satrapi?page=0,2, that she “did Persepolis not as a political act, but because I had enough of all the nonsense that was being said about my country, and I thought I would tell my story as a part of the truth about my country.” She writes the novel hoping that readers will be able to develop empathy for Marji as she speaks about in her interview, Graphic Novels and her Family’s Influence, also featured on the PowerPoint. Her goal is that they will realize that she is relatable and real and that Iranians are just like everyone else despite the political situation they were caught up in and how they were forced to act. She creates this empathy that she talks about through several of her key approaches to the novel.

You would guess the basis of the novel was centrally political because of the setting but she is able to successfully create a beautiful tale that explores and preaches peace and love through these important key approaches. First the youth of Marji allows the reader to see the death and hatred present in the story and the political regime through the eyes of a 10 year old, which makes the situation pure and simplistic. It is not hard to relate to or be drawn to the innocence of a child.

Secondly, Marji’s coming of age story or Bildungsroman is told in the form of the graphic novel. As Satrapi explains in one of the featured interviews, the animation of the movie and the fact that the story is told as a graphic novel makes it tangible and applicable. She says in her interview “violence is possible because it is reduced to abstract notion.” She claims that people are able to commit violence because they cannot relate to the people upon which they are committing it. The fact that Persepolis is a graphic novel makes you focus on the character and the story, you can envision the setting being “any big city anywhere” and gives you the feeling of “that could be me”.

The third technique Satrapi used was Marji’s perspective. Marji can think for herself in a world where that is highly threatened and punished. She can make her own mistakes and she can learn the difference between the truth of the government and the truth of reality. Marji is educated. Satrapi rights on pages 98, I think that the reason we were so rebellious was that our generation had known secular schools. She has at one time attended a secular school and her ability to think for herself and define her own self allows her to fully explore aspects of love, family, and being a human being. Themes that are universally applicable despite culture and highly characterize Satrapi’s work as a humanist novel. You would believe that the setting, plot, and the fact that the novel is graphic would take away from her message but Satrapi successfully implements Marji’s youth and the resulting coming of age story, the technique of the graphic novel, and Marji’s free-will of the mind to create a character you can relate to and love and ultimately gain a humanist message from.

Evil Rainforest of Death?

I'm going to go completely off the tracks with this one so bear with me. What if Through the Arc of the Rainforest were actually an allegory about how dangerous and malevolent the rainforest is? Don't get me wrong, Through the Arc was actually my favorite novel out of all the ones we read in class, but I think it is interesting to read it as an anti-environmentalist novel, even though this is clearly not the case. My main argument for this assertion is all of the death and destruction that happens within the Amazon during the course of the novel. In the end, only a small handful of the cast of main characters are left standing and it is still on very shaky, matacao ground.

There is an episode of South Park that also deals with the existence of the rainforest as a threat to mankind. Throughout the episode the characters have to continually escape from the clutches of animals, insects, and the native people of the Amazon. At the end of the episode, this message is posted: "Each year, the Rainforest is responsible for over three thousand deaths from accidents, attacks or illnesses. There are over seven hundred things in the Rainforest that cause cancer. Join the fight now and help stop the Rainforest before it's too late."

The South Park episode was the first thing i thought of when I began reading this novel and it was in the back of my head the whole time thereafter. Although Yamashita's novel is obviously a satire, what if it was not? The rainforest is an incredibly dangerous place and I think an argument could be made as to Through the Arc at least partially being about the many horrors of the rainforest and warning everyone to stay far away from it. After all, pretty much everyone is dead by the end of the novel and many of those deaths are due to Typhus, which they contracted from feathers of birds found in the rainforest. 

Persepolis – A Story of the Loss of Innocence

            I was listening to music today while finishing a paper for a different class, and I came across this song.  Now, I realize the lyrics don’t all match up, but it kind of reminded me of Marji in Persepolis.  There are several lines that seem to mirror her own life (which I will leave you to find for yourselves), but one in particular caught my attention.  The line “When you’re older, you will understand,” made me think of several scenes in the novel.  Marji led a sheltered life as much as her parents could provide her one.  Several times things were hidden from her because she wasn’t old enough, or she was “old enough to understand certain things” (p. 22).  As she got older, and the situations in her country got worse she was spared less and less.  She had a youthful innocence and ignorance before times changed, but as the novel progressed she began to understand and know more.  Before, Marji thought it was fun and games to play things like torture, and claim she was a rebel.  By the end of the novel, she was older and understood.  “After the death of Neda Baba-Levy, my life took a new turn.  In 1984 I was fourteen and a rebel.  Nothing scared me more.” (p. 145).  For all she did understand, she didn’t know everything.  Her parents explained how her innocence would be taken in the literal sense if she were arrested.  Due to circumstances in Iran, Marji was finally sent to live in Austria to attend a French school.  She was for all intents and purposes alone in a place she didn’t know (^hint hint), and if she didn’t understand why then, she understood as she got older

Persepolis

            I enjoyed reading the novel Persepolis.  I enjoyed the comic book style it was written in, and that it was written from a child’s perspective.  It was a nice way to learn about the Islamic Revolution, an event that was so serious, but yet as a reader I was able to learn about the event in history without seeing or reading too much violence.  I like to learn about history but I do not like the violence that I have to read or see in order to become more educated.  That is hwy this novel was refreshing to read. 

            I thought it was interesting to see how throughout the novel Satrapi wanted to be more American and modern-like even though the people who were in power in her country wanted her to be more Islamic and conservative.  She did not want to wear the long dresses and the veil over her head and face.  She wanted to wear jeans, a t-shirt, sneakers, nail polish, have posters of Michael Jackson, etc. 

            My favorite part of the novel is when she was stopped by the Guardians of the Revolution, the Women’s Branch for wearing American/modern clothing.  I do not like that she was stopped because I am all for wearing what you want and not getting in trouble for it.  But, I like that Satrapi did not get into the trouble that she could have gotten into for wearing what she wanted to wear (Satrapi 132).  Satrapi was wearing all of the ‘bad’ things such as nike sneakers, skinny jeans, a jean jacket, and a Michael Jackson pin.  Her scarf was not even on correctly and she still did not get into much trouble (Satrapi 133)! 

            My ultimate favorite part is when she went straight home right after this incident and put on the song We’re the Kids in America (Satrapi 134).  I like this part because she was a child, innocent, but she knew what she wanted to do.  And she did not conform just because the law wanted her to be a certain way.  She risked getting in trouble by the law, but still did what she wanted to do regardless! 

Disgrace

           

            Disgrace is the title of the novel, but the title reaches far beyond just naming the words that consume the 220 pages, it brands David Lurie’s actions and actions that happen to his daughter Lucy.  David Lurie’s actions and the actions carried out on his daughter are disgraces. 

David Lurie treats women as if they are objects.  He only wants women for sex, and he tends to stalk them.  He has multiple sexual affairs with many different kinds of women.  

With Soraya he seems to not know the boundaries of their relationship.  Soraya is a prostitute and is having sex with him because it is her job.  But David does not seem to know the boundaries between having a personal and professional relationship with her.  David ponders on the idea of making their professional relationship a bit more into a personal one when he ponders on the idea of seeing her outside of their professional encounters.  But he decides against it because as he says, “He knows too much about himself to subject her to a morning after, when he will be cold, surly, impatient to be alone” (Coetzee 2).  This quote shows two things: that he does not understand that their relationship is strictly professional, not personal.  He does not understand that seeing her outside is personal… and that can never happen.  He also contradicts himself when he says in his thoughts, “It surprises him that ninety minutes a week of a woman’s company are enough to make him happy, who used to think he needed a wife, a home, a marriage.  His needs turn out to be quite light, after all, light and fleeting…” (Coetzee 5).  He seems to not know whether he wants strictly sex or more of a relationship beyond the sex.

Then with Soraya and his student Melanie Isaacs he crosses the boundary of becoming a stalker.  He finds out their address(es) and phone numbers and uses them to get into contact with them, but it is very unprofessional!  He obtains Soraya’s personal information from a private detective (9) and he obtains Melanie’s by going into the school on a Sunday when no one is there and by looking into her records that are supposed to be used for professional reasons not personal reasons (Coetzee 18). 

It is astounding that David can treat women like objects just as the example of his prostitute and his student, but get mad when men treat his daughter badly.  When Lucy is raped he wants justice to be served, he wants to call the police and have them arrested.  He wants to stay with her and protect her too.  It is a disgrace that David Lurie can treat women the way he does but not want his daughter to be treated badly by men.  It does not make sense how he can have such a different view on women when it comes to the type of relationship he has with them.

Tackling Tradition in Tehran

In chapter 15 of Reading Lolita in Tehran Azin and Mahshid get into an argument over tradition. Azin is young and talking about her past husbands, her sexual needs, and how she feels her life should be.  While this is a group of women meeting to discuss foreign literature, this topic is something Mahshid feels should not be discussed with others.  She is older and more traditional and feels that such topics should be kept at home.  Mahshid confronts Azin at the meeting on page 55 saying, "Yes, you have your sexual experiences and your admirers. You are not an old maid like me. Yes, old maid-I don't have a rich husband and I don't drive a car, but still you have no right, no right to disrespect me."Azin does not understand how she had disrespected Mahshid and Mahshid refuses to tell her.  I find this exchange interesting because Mahshid feels that Azin has spent so little time actually following tradition that she is ignorant of it, and that lessens the impact of this book club.  To me Mahshid is being more rebellious as she knows what life was like and now she is acting out by reading these western texts, while Azin has always been a "rebel" and for her this is simply another thing to do, not a true mission of self discovery.  

Also there is an interesting criticism of Reading Lolita and the authors response on the wikipedia page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reading_Lolita_in_Tehran

Evil Minds

Azar Nafisi's Reading Lolita in Tehran a Memoir in Books struck a good point on page 47, in which the author discusses her thought process after discussing Lolita with her class. "After our first discussion of Lolity, I went to bed excited, thinking about Mitra's question.  Why did Lolita or Madame Bovary fill us with so much joy?  Was here something wrong with these novels, or with us? war Flaubert and Nabokov unfeeling bruits?..."

This statement got me thinking a little bit, because it was true.  It seems as if everyone has "evil" thoughts, and when we are exposed to things like Lolita it subconsciously makes us feel better about our evil thoughts.  When reading about the author's description of Lolita, a book I was unfamiliar with, I found it awful and was disgusted with what I was reading, and yet I was more focused and interested then I was in the entire part of the book we were assigned.  Just something I observed about myself, and this is all just my speculation.

This enjoyment of evil also comes out in humor.  I have personally heard and made many jokes that are so horrible in the sense that the jokes are insensitive to a person or a group of people.  I am conscious of the fact that the context of the jokes is awful, and so are the people listening, and yet we laugh together with little to no remorse.  There is a darkness in the human mind that we are ashamed of, and so when we enjoy naughty things we tend to hide it.  When someone comes out and writes a book like Lolita, or makes a joke about a racial stereotype or something, it sort of tickles our thoughts and makes us subconsciously feel okay about our darkest secrets.

Simplicity

J.M. Coetzee's Disgrace had a few messages in it that were shadowed by David Lurie's sexual mishaps and of course the rape.  I found his daughter Lucy to have the best view on life and it reminded me not to take things too seriously.  On page 74, she is having a conversation with David talking about "higher life" and she kind of rips him a new one.  

"But it is true.  They (Bev and Bill shaw) are not going to lead me to a higher life, and the reason is, there is no higher life.  This is the only life there is.  Which we share with animals.  That's the example that people like Bev try to set.  That's the example i try to follow.  To share some of our human privilege with the beasts.  I don't want to come back in another existence as a dog or a big and have to live as dogs or pigs live under us."

I'm not talking about the animals really, I just liked the quote because it displayed her simple look on life.  Throughout the novel David Lurie makes things so complicated with his sexual affairs and his over thinking.  He really gets hung up on things and calls himself a disgrace, meanwhile his daughter is working with what she has in order to achieve happiness.  Although it seems a little absurd that she wouldn't go to the authorities after being raped, it sort of ties into her whole outlook on life.  She tries not to dwell on the past and works with what is given to her, so going to the police would be counterproductive and that sort of justifies her lack of action.  I feel her simple outlook on life is the perfect contrast to her dad's complicated one, which makes for a nice balance in the story.  

Bimala: Married for 9 Years And Still Not a Mother?

Hey everyone, I know it feels like we have read the Home and the World a very long time ago, but I have personally been grappling with this question in my head for most of the semester, and would love to hear others opinions on it.  Bimala is married to Nikhil for nine years, and although she begins to view Amulya as her son, they do not have any children of their own in the novel.  I found that very strange considering the time period that it was written in. I feel that Tagore deliberately did not include children in these characters lives for a reason, and there is a particular significance to this but I have not been able to pinpoint why. Does anyone have any thoughts?

Political Currents in Coetzee's Disgrace

While some people contend that the book was not "political enough," many members of the ruling party, the African National Congress, felt the book portrayed South Africa in too pessimistic a light. Disgrace was written after 1995, when the new constitution of South Africa was passed. While it brought equal rights, it was by no means a complete saving grace. Violence increased dramatically. The number of carjackings saw vast increases, and many farmers either emigrated or gave up farming for fear of violence against them. The murder rate even doubled, and rape could be considered commonplace.

(A quick history of Apartheid, explanation of farming's role in it)

So while people may criticize Coetzee for the way he wrote the book, it sounds like a very plausible story which could accurately depict the political movement.

Transgenerational Perceptions of America in Persepolis

Of all the novels we read this semester, I felt that Persepolis had the most intriguing portrayals of America. American thoughts and ideals were strongly admired in Satrapi’s graphic memoir. But what about American thought fascinated the characters in this work? It wasn’t so much the politics of American freedom that blew them away; it was the types of behavior and self-expression that Democracy permitted.

In Persepolis, Marjane is blown away by the popular culture that thrived in America. When her parents travel to Turkey, Marjane receives all of the essential American gear, “I put my posters up in my room… I put my 1983 Nikes on… And my denim jacket with the Michael Jackson Button,” (Satrapi 131). So Marjane's conception of America is quite juvenile; when she thinks of America she thinks of pop music, shoes, and posters. Marjane loves all things American because they are fun and allow for a cathartic means of self expression.  

Perhaps this image of America as a place of fun self expression isn't so juvenile for Iranians since this immense admiration of American popular culture is also shared by her parents who buy her these items in Turkey. Marjane’s father even admits to loving Iron Maiden while in Turkey, Satrapi writes, "Tell me the truth, you really like Iron Maiden?... Absolutely!" (127) So although Marjane is somewhat obsessed with being one of Kim Wilde's ‘Kids in America’, this love of Americana is transgenerational, spanning the generational gap. Maybe everyone wants to be a fun-loving child at heart.

Persepolis: A Masterpiece in Black and White

It's easy to simply gloss over the art style of Persepolis and simple accept it as an aesthetic or creative choice on par with any other. The lack of color simply gives the text a certain personality, but more than that it's important to note that the stark black and white illustrations are meaningful on a level deeper than just artistic merit.

The restrictions set on the illustrations by them being black and white also opens the door for a whole new world of creativity that Satrapi takes advantage of frame after frame. The lack of color availability requires the illustrator to come up with new and creative ways of visually showing ideas that would otherwise be easy to convey with the use of color. This is demonstrated frequently by the almost cartoonish exaggeration of facial expressions and occasional warping of reality in terms of the size or scale of some things. These cartoonish moments also reflect the childlike sense of imagination that Satrapi clearly has about some events of her younger life. She draws the events in the graphic novel as she sees them in her mind's eye, even if that means exaggerating certain aspects to adjust for how she remembers occurrences from her childhood.

The black and white illustrations also serve to set the perspective for the reader. Characters clearly seen as benevolent (God, Anoosh, Grandmother) are typically drawn with more white than black as a way to lend them a certain warmness. Compare to that to say the guards of the theocratic regime with their black uniforms, black beards and black guns, and it's clear how the contrast is meant to separate good from evil. That along with the aforementioned exaggerations in character make the good character seem more good and the evil characters seem even more dark.

Portraying her life in black and white may also be Satrapi's way of commenting on how the western world views her home. Iran is in a lot of ways seen as very black and white: they're extremists, they hate a lot of different peoples, and they may even by downright evil. These stereotypes drive how the US and others look at Iran and Satrapi seems to recognize. I think that by recreating her life in black and white and giving all of these black and white characters such depth and feeling and humanity, Satrapi is combating the stereotypes by attacking them head on.

The Portrayal of the Supernatural in Through the Arc of the Rainforest

In her PowerPoint presentation, Professor Dasgupta asked the question of how Yamashita incorporates the supernatural into her novel Through the Arc of the Rain Forest.  From my reading of the text, Yamashita’s use of magic realism portrays those who possess supernatural characteristics as perfectly normal beings, who are advantageous over those who are considered normal.  The best and earliest example of this technique is seen through Kazumasa’s spinning ball that had become attached to him after his encounter at the beach into his adulthood.  Other people’s reaction to Kazumasa’s oddity slowly “became a thing of general acceptance.  Most people forgot it was there, just inches away from his face…” (6). Another character that has a supernatural appearance is Jonathan B. Tweep, who has a third arm.  Jonathan’s has a relatively positive attitude towards his extra appendage.  Jonathan “was far from ashamed of his extra appendage…” and he “even speculated that he was the result of Nobel prize-winning sperm.  He was a better model, the wave of the future.”  (19).  Although Yamashita structures the abnormal appearance of these characters to be perceived as standard and normal, she also ensures that their abnormalities bring them special advantages.  With the help of his spinning ball, Kazumasa is able to detect track work that needs to be done throughout the Japan’s elaborate railway system, and he becomes well known and respected for his gift.  Similar to Kazamusa, Jonathan Tweep’s abnormalities give him advantages over the majority of people who only have two arms.  The narrator of the story conveys Jonathan’s benefit from his third arm when they state “He could float three consecutive runs on the keyboard or bang out three octaves, all at the same time…was asked to leave the [baseball] team because there were no rules for a two mitt player, and…no one could get a ball past him…he threw his fellow workers down the line, who were unable to keep up with such a pace…” (31).  For Kazumasa and Jonathan’s characters, not only do they as well as others come to accept and accommodate to their abnormalities, Yamashita structures Kazumasa’s and Tweep’s supernatural characteristics to be advantageous for them in their lives and occupations.  

Locked Out of Home

The theme of no longer being able to identify with your homeland is covered in quite a few books we have read this semester.  Reviewing them, I couldn't help but notice common themes shared in between "Persepolis", "Wide Sargasso Sea" and "Disgrace" in this regard.  Though they all covered it to different degrees, all three novels in some way touch upon the concept of being almost "locked out" of ones homeland.

Marji expressing her dissatisfaction

In Persepolis, this lockout is obvious; Marji and her family simply don't fit in with the new Iranian Government's policies.  The Satrapis are vocally against the religious extremism that is overtaking Iran, and the new Iranian government systematically represses and even murders like-minded people to the point where the only options are repressing your beliefs or flee the country as Marji did.  This division between citizens and their nations is quite clear and measurable.

More subtle is the divide found in “Wide Sargasso Sea” and “Disgrace”, because, on paper at least, there’s no reason that characters should feel excluded from their homelands.  In both cases, the governments had just recently transitioned out of racist policies (slavery in WSS, Apartheid in Disgrace) that, in theory, should have made Jamaica and South Africa MORE inclusive.  Yet this is not the case; in Wide Sargasso Sea, Antoinette is scorned by the black population of Jamaica, while Lucy Lurie is equally treated with suspicion and even violence by the black community.  Although not as concrete as the example in Persepolis, it is still clear that there has been a dynamic change that causes these characters to feel like outsiders in their own homes.

But perhaps most important is the fact that these characters continue to treat their homelands as their homes; Marji never renounces Iran itself, while Antoinette and Lucy still very much regard themselves as Jamaican and South African.  In some ways, they’re more tied to memories of what their homes were once, or, in Marji’s case, what they should be in the future.  The need to belong is a powerful one, and it sometimes even trumps the need to fit in.

Hypocrisy: We only obey our own rules when it is convenient.

The main goal of the fundamentalist government in Iran is to protect the purity of women and thereby uphold their scarcity according to the Koran. But in actuality, women are rendered powerless and more vulnerable to danger. To promote chastity and purity, non-related women and men were required to limit contact with each other. However, such deprivation, lead to many female relatives becoming victims of sexual assault of their male relatives. “He used to say that he wanted to keep himself and chaste pure for his future and refused friendship with women on that account” (Nafisi, 48). Nassrin’s uncle a fundamentalist Muslim who sought to uphold to teaching of his faith was in actuality a monster. A monster who hides behind religion to commit crimes against women, the ones whom he ought to be protecting in the first place.

The hypocrisy is exemplified even further after Sanza recounts the suffering and humiliation, she and her friends underwent in the hands of the soldiers of morality. Not only, did they detain them even though the lasses were upholding their ridiculous laws. But the soldiers violate their bodies twice under the pretense of virginity testing. Then inflict pain unto their bodies by giving them lashes. Ironically, the duty of the soldiers to protect the bodies of women and ensure their safety at all cost. But their hidden hypocrisy instead makes them a danger to the lives of the women under their authority. 

The History of the Qajars and Pahlavi Dynasties: Not So Black and White

In her novel Persepolis, Satrapi describes her family history by retelling the story of her grandfather (Ahmad Shah Qajar), her great grandfather, and how Reza Shah Pahlavi, who began the Pahlavi dynasty in Iran, overthrew their family’s dynasty.  Satrapi’s father briefly retells their family history through a biased point of view against Reza Shah Pahlavi.  He describes him as an “illiterate low-ranking officer.” (20), and describes him as becoming king under the help and guidance of the British and gave them oil in return.  It is understandable that Satrapi and her family member’s are relatively sympathetic towards the Qajar dynasty being suddenly overthrown by Reza Shah.  However, the research that I did on the Qajar and Pahlavi dynasty shows a different story.  For example, Mozaffar al-Din Shah, grandfather to Ahmad Shah was a relatively ineffectual ruler, and irresponsibly spent portions of borrowed money from Russia on trips to Europe, and was known for his overly generous payments to his officials and granting concessions to Europeans.  Ahmad Shah Qajar (overthrown by Reza Shah) came to throne at the age of eleven and proved to be unable to rule effectively.  None of this information was communicated through Satrapi’s brief story about her grandfather in the beginning of the novel.  However, events that reflected the actions and protests of the current shah Mohammed Reza Shah in Satrapi’s time seemed pretty accurate in my research.  He overstepped his power with the parliamentary government, which went against the rules set in place by the Constitutional revolution.  His support for reform policies, called the White Revolution angered religious leaders who did not agree.  Mohammed Reza Shah used suppressive tactics to silence people who were opposed to his policies and beliefs, which is seen through the protests throughout the novel and the event of the police locking innocent citizens into the movie theatre on fire.  Although Satrapi’s account of Mohammed Reza Shah’s regime was relatively accurate, her portrayal of Reza Shah Pahlavi and her grandfather was biased in favor of the Qajar dynasty. 

 Mozzafar al-Din Shah

 Ahmad Shah at the age of 11

 Reza Shah Pahlavi

Here are the links for more information: 

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/pahlavi/pahlavi.php

http://persepolis.free.fr/iran/history/pahlavi.html

http://www.iranchamber.com/history/qajar/qajar.php

The villain in the story

“Humbert like most dictators was interested only in his vision of other people. He had created the Lolita, he desired, and would not budge from that image”(Nafisi,48).

Persepolis, tells the story of young lass coming of age in the republic of Iran during the Islamic Revolution and the rule of the fundamentalist Islamic government that followed. On the surface, the role of the villain seems to be attributed to the “narrow-minded” fundamental Islamic government and its harsh treatment of Iranian citizens. Meanwhile, the west is depicted as a safe haven which that grants freedom and equality for all which makes it the “hero” of the story. But in actuality, the complexities of world politics and involvement of various western countries in the affairs of Iran makes the lines blurry. So who therefore is the truly villain?

The main goal of the Islamic government of Iran is to restore the country back to the days of Muhammad. Ore more accurately, create a country whose foundations lay in the teaching of Islam and a government to enforce such ideas. Blinded by these ideologies and mindset of the west being completely evil, the government became a tyrant.  To reach their vision of Iran, they tumbled upon the fundamental human rights of its citizens without much as a blink of an eye. By enforcing that women wear veils and that men wear beard. The consumption of alcohol, western films and music were also strictly banned. To create a better Iran, it was better if the people had no say in their own lives and what they can expose themselves to. Rather, they were to be completely obedient to the law or suffer consequences such as lashing or even death.

 Though the west provides more freedom and equality in their own sector of the world, it involvement in the affairs of Iran brought more harm than good to its citizens at times. The purpose of the Islamic revolution was to get rid of a useless king, whose father rise to power had being obstructed by the British government. In order to have easy asses to oil, an illiterate military officer was made king leading to the devastation to the country for years. After being dethroned, the Iranian king was refused asylum by then United States president forcing him to take refuge in Egypt. Thus, further the rift between Iranian and Egyptians for their betrayal by allying with the nation of Israel. The worst offense was selling of chemical weapons to Iraq and Iran by Germany. Thus endangering the lives of many Iranian war victims who given the structure of the health care system suffered. The involvement of the west was based on their narrow view of Iran as cheap source of oil and market of machinery. Their desire to make profit of this resource and sell their products prevented them from seeing the harsh realities of the people

             The difficult state under which Marji and her parents along with friends and loved one was a result of the influence of two villain. One who hides behind the ideas of purity and scarcity of religion and the other fueled by greed for more oil and profit. At the same time, they both play a “hero” for the nation of Iran. One by offering a safe haven for its citizens and providing the promise of personal freedom. The other for doing its best to repair the damages caused by the other and to make Iran a state independent of the west’s influence.

Wide Sargasso Sea

One thing in the book that I really like is that in the first part Antoinette is the narrator.  Then in most of the second part, with the exception of Antoinette’s small part, her husband is the narrator.  I like that as readers we are able to read their lives from both of their perspectives.  Even though I like hearing the story from Christophine I do not like him because I believe he just married Antoinette for her money and properties.  Antoinette even feels the distance between the two of them.  She tells Christophe “he does not love me, I think he hates me.  He always sleeps in the dressing-room now and the servants know.  If I get angry he is scornful and silent, sometimes he does not speak to me for hours and I cannot endure it any more, I cannot.  What shall I do?  He was not like that at first” (Rhys 65).  So, he took Antoinette’s money and land, and then he starts to treat her badly and becomes distant.  It just does not seem fair that he gets to take everything that was given to her in order for her to survive and then for him to treat her poorly.  I understand marriages have their troubles, but those troubles should be worked out if they are married.  And if he is not happy in the marriage he should let her have her money and properties back and he should leave! 

            He explains later in the novel that he hates Jamaica.  He said he “hated its beauty and its magic […] above all [he] hated her.  For she belonged to the magic and the loveliness” (Rhys 103).  So he left her behind, hired a woman to take care of her, and he left for England.  This act of Christophine leaving Antoinette proves that he was primarily in the marriage for her money.  If he really loved her he would have stayed with her and not left a woman who is a stranger to be paid to look after her.  So, her money and properties that she inherited were taken from her by her husband and then she is left with a strange woman to take care of her…this does not seem fair.   

Iran and the Western World

Throughout both Persepolis and Reading Lolita in Tehran, both women try to escape the Iranian repression that they are feeling.  Marji wants to change her appearance and become a punk rock girl, and Azar choses different books, mostly American authors, for her and the seven students to read.  Both though, remained true to their countries as best that they could, even though they were in disagreement with the regime in power.  In Persepolis, Marji and her father praise Iran and are extremely patriotic towards their country when they go to war and are dropping bombs on Baghdad, Marji says "I was all wrong about Dad, he loved his country as much as I did."  In Reading Lolita in Tehran, Azar says, "I left Iran, but Iran did not leave me."  These woman have pride in their country, they are proud to say where they hail from and how it has shaped them.  Why then is there such a heavy presence on Western society in the worlds that they live?  This Western influence is not one that is pressed on them either, but one that they choose.  Reading through the books, its clear that Marji's want to be a punk rock girl and to be rebellious and listen to different music, and Azar reading Western books and gathering with her students to discuses them, isn't about changing who they are, or not being proud of where they come from.  It is about the prospect of freedom, and having the freedom to be who they want to be, when they want to be that.  I think that one thing that Western society, especially American culture pushes is that we are free.  To read books, and listen to music and wear denim jackets, this isn't something we do out of rebellion.  What we do to rebel, is protest things we don't like that the government is doing, just as they do.  But they protest and face police in riot gear for their rights to be like Western society, not to be Western society.  They simply want the choice that Western society has, to not have to veil themselves, or to do that if they so wish.  The push of Western society in these two books for me is a way to express the freedom that they are searching for, not necessarily the want to be a part of Western society.  Its just something that I noticed and something that was briefly brought up in class, what do you guys think?

An Epiphany of Truth

I feel as though there is a lot going on in this particular book and I am having a difficult time trying to figure it all out in my head. I am one of those people who has to talk about what is going on inside my head out-loud. So the first thing that is going on in my head is the parallel between what these ladies are reading and what is going on around them. The class is created around fictional novels. These fictional novels provided some kind escape from the harsh oppressions that are surrounding them. For example, the main character, Azi had to quit her job. She was forced to quit because her classroom was no longer hers. Her classroom became the government’s classroom; she just had to be the robot that ran it. Azi no longer was able to exhibit agency within her own class. Not to mention the issue of her being a woman in what was a very patriarchal society. Okay, now back to my first point, I thought there was an extreme parallel between the class and what Azi was saying in the first few chapters. She begins by introducing the class and the people in the class. She gives each young woman some aspect that would set them apart from the rest. Even when she describes her own home, she talks about how it is different from the traditional Iranian home. Everything in her world has to deal with separating herself from what is happening around them. Then Azi goes into describing where she sits,

I could not see my favorite mountains from where I sat, but opposite my chair, on the far wall of the dining room, was an antique oval mirror, a gift from my father, and in its reflection, I could see the mountains capped with snow, even in summer, and watch the trees change color. Tat censored view intensified; my impression that the noise came not from the street below nit from some far-off place, a place whose persistent hum was our only link to the world we refused, for those few hours, to acknowledge. The room, for all of us, became a place of transgression. What a wonderland it was!

This quote hit me in the face like a big brick hurled at my face. Azi was not just creating parallels; she was creating her own fictional world to get lost in. I am thinking that Azi needs to escape from the world the surrounds her and create her own reality, even if it only exists in her imagination. Now, I know the class was a real thing, but the world that is around them during the class is one that Azi creates through her oval mirror. By quitting her job she no longer has any grasp on the real world. The college was her link to reality. With her loosing that she was free to create her own landscape, her own noises, and most importantly her own colors.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the matter? Do you think she was starting to lose sense of what was reality and what was fiction? I definitely think that there is a link between the types of books she is reading in her class and what is going on in her life to cope with the outside world. And, if so, we are seeing a relationship between inside and outside once again!

Scary Future

"The great task before our founders was putting into practice the ideal that government could simultaneously serve liberty and advance the common good and Government had an important role to play in advancing our common prosperity." - Barack Obama


Barack Obama's actions as our president have opened my eyes.  I was never very interested in today's  politics until recently, which I realize is a horrible mistake.  However, I have occasionally been captured by politics in history.  The above quote demonstrates his desire to increase the government's involvement in basically everything from healthcare to education, which is completely contradictory to the original basis of the United States.  The founding fathers were initially striving for independence because they believed (and rightfully so) that the British Government had too much power.  This led to the writing of the constitution, which I hope we are all familiar with.  You're probably wondering how this relates to Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, I'll get there later.  


Obama's policies are contradicting The Declaration of Independence in which every American is entitled to their natural rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.  In an economic society, Capitalism is the single way to completely allow for the pursuit of happiness.  The new policies in which Obama is imposing higher taxes on the wealthy while increasing welfare is outrageous and he is beginning to take away our freedom.  Heavily taxing the rich and giving to the poor is an attempt to make everyone the same, which is not what was implied in the phrase "equal opportunity."  It takes away any incentive to succeed financially because the government will take away much of what was earned, while at the same time living off of welfare becomes more appealing.  The Government is supposed to represent the people and protect their freedom.  In regards to freedom, increasing the people's dependency on the Government is counterproductive, not to mention it is steering us towards a government we once promised to destroy, communism.    


"Already, China is graduating eight times as many engineers as we are.  By twelfth grade, our students score lower on math and science tests than most other kids in the world.  And we now have one of the highest high school dropout rates of any industrialized nation in the world." - Barack Obama.


Here, Obama is working his way into the education system.  He is trying to strengthen the educational system while simultaneously decreasing the initiative to succeed by imposing taxes on the wealthy.   Furthermore, the Government should have no involvement in the educational system, meanwhile he is trying to propose where the education system uses the budget he controls, which is demonstrated in the second quote.   


He is also attempting to change the Constitution which, amongst many other things, will impact what is taught in schools in terms of history classes.  Students will be taught about a new Constitution in which some rights are going to be taken away, and they're going to learn to be proud of that new Constitution, which is awful.  In Persepolis, the occurrence of this in revolutionary Iran was referred to as "brainwashing," which is an absolutely perfect term.  Think about Hitler Youth, as an adult one can teach kids anything and they will believe and become it.  


How it relates:  
Creating a government-regulated economy is an attempt to make everyone the same.  This is not much different than forcing women to wear a veil in terms of human rights.  As illustrated in the second drawing of the book and as we discussed in class, those girls were stripped of their individuality.  


Another perfect relation:
Earlier this week House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi proposed an amendment to the First Amendment of the Bill of Rights "...that would allow Congress to regulate political speech when it is engaged by corporations as opposed to individuals" (see link on Nancy Pelosi).  On page 76 in Persepolis, the family had brought Marji to the Oppositional Demonstration for the first time.  It was abruptly ended by government violence. Although Pelosi's proposition is not nearly as brutal, it is a baby step towards censorship.  We should be reacting to this as if we were being beaten with clubs, but the media has delivered her statements as something brilliant and innovative (another form of brainwashing?).  Everyone is entitled to their opinion (except corporations apparently), but I am worrying more and more about where our nation is headed.     


http://cnsnews.com/news/article/pelosi-amend-first-amendment - Nancy Pelosi 




http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/barack-michelles-socialist-marxist-communist-quotes/blog-16354/  - Obama's quotes.  

Politcal Agenda in Persepolis

After reading Persepolis, its hard to believe that Satrapi said that the book isn't a political statement, or have anything to do with women's rights.  Reading through the book, almost every other chapter had some different political agenda.  I think Satrapi saying it wasn't a political statement, was just her trying to make controversy rise over the book.  In the above graphic, Marji is talking to her parents about going to a protest, and her mother says "She is coming too, she should start learning to defend her rights as a woman right now!"  The protest was taking place because of the strict laws requiring the women of Iran to wear head dress.  Throughout the book, it is strictly enforced and a heavily discussed topic, whether it be when Marji is in school and she and her friends make jokes about having to wear the head dress.  Or on the street when Marji is stopped by the guardians on the street, "They were guardians of the revolution, the women's branch.  This group had been added in 1982, to arrest women who were improperly veiled, their job was to put us back on the straight and narrow, by explaining the duties of Muslim women."(p. 133)  Satrapi has made a point, that she doesn't believe that women should be required to veil.  The fact that she writes this isn't the only reason why, this book is based on her life and what actually happened in her life.  Clearly, this is her point of view, the protest the veiling of women, and to help in the revolution to overcome to government that has taken over Iran.  The novel is political, in almost every page you read.  The topic she wrote about, is nearly impossible to write about, without getting political, especially since it was a based on events that actually happened in her life, that clearly included protests and a political agenda.

A Depiction of the Loss of Innocence

Being that Persepolis is a graphic novel one would assume that the comic strips that go along with the story are meant to hold some kind of importance. Comparing the graphics at the beginning of the book to the ones at the end, one can see a difference. In the beginning of the novel the graphics that Satrapi uses are much more light hatred. The graphics lighten up very serious situations. On page twenty-two her father is explaining to her how her great grandfather was a king and her grandfather a prince. He tells her that they were overthrown. As this story goes on the depictions to follow become quite entertaining. Satrapi uses these light hatred depictions to show Manji’s sense of innocence. By the end of the novel the pictures become much more serious. In the chapter about The Shabbat, not only does the topic matter become grimmer but so do the pictures that follow. Manji’s loss of innocence becomes much more apparent. Iran is bombed by Iraq killing people in her neighborhood, her best friend. There is no picture to lighten the mood on that page, the only emotion the reader sees and feels is sadness. Her loss of innocence is in-captured by the pictures that follow the story of this young girl’s life.

Through the Arc of the Rain Forest

It is interesting in this book how pigeons are an important part of the community and how pigeons can show people's greed.  This book has things in it that are bizarre to us as readers because the real world is not like the world in which this novel is taking place in.  In the real world people do not fly pigeons like this and pigeons are not made pets, let go far away from the home, and the travel all the way back to the people's home who made the pigeons a pet.  Pigeons also do not go and get messages to deliver to people.  But maybe there is a point that the author is trying to make by having these pigeons play this role in this novel.  I think the message is centered around money and the greediness that can come along with it.  Many people go to Batista and Tania's home to see if they will get some luck by finding out the pigeons message.  If the pigeon brought some message about wealth, the people would go buy lottery tickets in hopes that they would become wealthy.  But those who receive wealth are greedy with it, except for Kazamasa.  He is not greedy even when he wins the lotteries, everyone is actually greedy trying to get Kazamasa's money!  As it says in the novel, "everyone seem[ed] to have an idea of what he or she would do with sudden wealth, but Kazaumasa was a true exception" (Yamashita 59).  Kazaumasa does not even spend his own money, he gives it away and everyone else spends it for him.  Kaxamasa is so generous with his money, but the people take advantage of him because of his generosity.