EngL1401W - Spring 2007: Introduction to "Third World" Literature

Maybe the emphasis on childhood highlights the dramamtic effect that those years have on how our world-view and outlook is shaped at a young age. Another guess I have is that maybe the "childish" point of view is to sort of neutralize "hot topics" covered in the text. or another guess would be that that point of view is in many ways "universal" in that kids everywhere are just developing human beings and they all share some of these inoccent characteristics of trying to understand and grasping at difficult things. (although her child character seems really intelligent).

I think this ten year old knows more about life and history than I do.

The child's point of view highlights the issues facing Iran. Satrapi's views are relatively simple but logically make sense. I think she has chosen her childhood because she was very envolved at a young age with the problems facing her people and it affected her life in a big way. Satrapi was not a normaly child, she was constantly reading about the issues and listening to anyone who would tell her about the war. A child's mind is free of bias so she could "see outside of the box" at time when her elders could not. By Satrapi coming from the social class she does, I think it appeals to alot of westernized readers since they can understand her point of view alot more than people following the regime in Iran.

I wish the Marjane Satrapi would have kept her book together as one. I did not like the way it ended and wanted to know more. I guess that's why her publicists broke it into two, so people would want to know more and then they could make more money, but I was disappointed.

As for boiling every protest down to a single heading, I think that for this sort of book ti was a great idea. First it is from the point of view of a child and children tend to view events by certain themes or something that sticks out. By breaking the book into different protests or events, the reader can get the feel for what was important to Marjane because that is what she remembered. I also think it helps the reader know what is going on. Without the headings I know I would have been lost.

Does Marjane's mom seem to contradict herself to anyone else? Maybe it is just the difficulty of raising a child and wanting the best for her and also fighting for political issues that makes her seem to contradict herself. I don't really know, but there were parts in the book where I felt she was being hypocritical.

I guess one question we need to ask ourselves as readers is, "Is a child's mind really unbiased, or does it just seem/feel that way?"

Oh, and Dena, don't forget this is being written by a woman in her late 30s... It is "as if" by a child, but Satrapi certainly couldn't have written it, really, when she was eight, or 10, or 14 years old.

Persepolis is such an eye opening book! It's my favorite in this class so far. This is definitely a story from a middle/upper class point of view, but I think that's why I like it. Everything in the news about Iran makes it sound like a such a backwards country, it is almost shocking to know that there are others living there who are not extremists.

Persepolis does seem to differentiate between the good revolution, the coup against the Shah, and the bad revolution, the appearance of right-wing Islamic party. This is evident from the happiness expressed by her parents when the Shah left countering how scared they were of retribution from the revolutionary Islamics later on.

Has anyone ever had that moment with a child where they say something that is so simple that it's poignant? What they say simplifies something that it makes you see it in its truest form. I think that is why Satrapi used a child. Children have this uncanny ability to make things make sense and yet question things adults take for granted. There are a few points in the book where Majri asks her parents something or makes a statement about the social changes and it just makes you step back and look at it in a whole new light. Although this was written by an adult, Satrapi does a great job writing for a child.
Her distinction between the veil and freedom seems far too black and white. There are many women who embrace their veil and all that it symbolizes. The veil is used, in certain sects, to inhibit women. However, those that choose to wear the veil are living their freedom by doing so, just as a woman who chooses not to wear the veil is doing the same. The veil should not be a representation of dominance, the law that requires the veil should.

I think sartrapi uses the perspective of a girl effectively and is a good choice because she is easier to sympathasize with. The ideas and situations that she uses makes me feel bad that she can't experience things that I went through as a child and things that I enjoyed do very much. The fact that she can't wear jeans, a pin of her favorite artists, and the music that she likes. I could honestly feel bad for either side as long as that is the perspective from which it is told.

I also think how closely tied the family is to the revolution to be very intense. The fact that her uncle and her parents' friends are being executed left and right made feel that at any moment she could have been take away. The communist ideas put in here as well make it extremely interesting to flip through. I forgot that this was a time when the USSR was still in existence and that the whole revolution in Iran was very contradictory. I thought when the mother said she doesn't understand how it can be a leftist revolution led by religion fundamentalists was key to the whole story. It really showed the complexity of the situation.

Satrapi utilizes the "graphic novel" perfectly. It seems that this method of writing enables her to get across themes much easier then if she had just written it in text. Not only do the words convey a point, but the context of the pictures also helps (especially when distinguishing between serious and funnny moments). I like that Satrapi pokes fun at some aspects of revolution...like when the girl is reading about "Dialectic Materialism" along with Lenin and Marx. What ten year old reads political theory? The interesting point that this question makes is that revolution does not spare anyone. It's as if as a child, you're forced to understand the revolution, otherwise you might end up dead. It's also interesting to see how such a young child perceives the revolution. She feels like she should paarticipate because everyone else is.

i like that Satrapi uses humor throughout the whole book...especially in regards to stereotypes of people. I definitly agree with her that humor is a very culture general way of communicating. I also think it helps to keep the reader interested and more in tune with the plot of the story. This book would've definitly been a challenge if it had been taken from a more tragic or serious perspective.

As far as the veil and freedom part go, I totally agree with what Eleanor is saying. I also think that their may be other reasons why the women wear the veils. Some women may wear it for it's traditional value, but also want progress in their country. There has got to be a more hazey line then what is shown in persepolis. People want different things and it can't always be explained by two sides. There are probably more variations on the types of veils that are worn. The different veils can reflect the different opinions as well.

Having a story written like this and being told from a childs point of view, is a very different read. Having the narrator being a child allows the reader to gain more information, not through the narrator but through her parents, what she reads, or other adults in her life. Being a child allowd her to be more curious and ask more questions, getting more answers and information when what would have normally been given.

It was interesting to read about her neighbor and their maid being in love, and not being allowed to because they are not in the same class. It is such a different lifestyle and such a differnet way to grow up, especially without a revolution. Having this girl be from a higher class and living a lifestyle similar to ours, it was easier to get a point of view, and understand what was going on in the country at the time.

I really liked the bottom comics on page 121. When I read what Satrapi's aunt said about the hospital director in the last panel, it focalized for me one of the main reasons this book might have been written. The evident corruption within the new government discredited everything that these people seemed to be working for. This was also noted when Satrapi's father was able to bribe the patrolman from coming into their house.

Satrapi introduce fragments of her childhood to emphasize that her roots are still Iranians. It seems like we are almost watching her grow up because she is also in the process of her learning about herself, her family, the world, and so forth. Frankly, I think that reading and learning things from a childn's perspective is much better because they are much more honest. I'm not saying that adults are not honest, but we learn to alter our thoughts.

Honestly, I don't know a lot about social classes, etc. in the Eastern or actually anywhere in the world. So I don't know how her social class affects her life.

Satrapi seems quite ignorant at first and I think it’s supposed to help emphasize the view of the majority of the Iranian population. However, her approach to the ordeal with religion caught me off guard. I know she’s a little girl being portrayed by the adult Satrapi, but didn’t it seem a little odd that Marji wanted to be a prophet and had such huge ideas in her head for the future? I suppose growing up where she did and going to school where she did enforced her religious background. I do like the confusion brought to Marji, though; it makes the story realistic, more believable.

Just a thought I had…I found it interesting that, as we read Satrapi’s story via comic book, she writes about learning communism from a comic book. Should we be making some kind of link here? Is a comic book a better way of telling a story instead of just words? OR…is there bias to Satrapi’s story, missing information?

I liked how seamingly simple Satrapi made this story seem. Looking at the pictures and the fact that is a a graphic novel have this illusion that the story will also be simple, or at least that is how I preceived it. The story was not simple at all, I found it very engaging. It was really easy to follow and I think it being a comic book made it so. Also since the narrorator was a child it has this innocence to it. The story seems very believable through the eyes of a child. Over all I liked this book, I thought that Satrapi did a great job with the style and I love that the narrorator is a child. I think the book would have had less of an affect if it were in not a comic.

By emphasizing her childhood and using her younger self as a narrator, Satrapi builds a stronger, more trusting relationship with the reader. As a reader, personally I feel more inclined to trusting what a child tells me, because it seems that they may be unbiased. Also, due to her being a young, westernized, upper-middle-class girl, it makes it more personable to a reader living in a similar mindset and society.

I think that Satrapi’s choice of beginning the story with religion is because of her innate belief that it is NOT religion in its rawest form that creates fundamentalism, it is more so a societies mythical beliefs which then become rules. Or at least that she believes that religion and modern society can co-exist peacefully and only when she acknowledges both, can she tie the two together.

The reason I like this book is because of Satrapi’s “boiling down” of the whole situation into “The Veil” or “Freedom.” It is valid because in the book it’s the view of a young girl, but obviously in the real world it is a little more complicated than that. Since Satrapi makes such black and white sense of such a dense situation, then only does it make the reader think further because had she chosen to end it with an accurate, to the “T”, real world, politically correct answer, then the debate, would end there.

Satrapi emphasizes her childhood because that’s when a major change in her life occurred. This is when regimes were changing in Iran and when her daily life was being affected the most. The veil is implemented and it is better for her not to associate with Western culture that she loves. If Satrapi had started the story in mid-life the reader would have been confused because they wouldn’t have had the opportunity to understand her past. It also helps Western readers identify with the main character (Satrapi) because her ideals are Western ideals; she comes from an upper-middle-class family that is more Western than Iranian it seems, it feels like she could be my neighbor or classmate and this makes it easy to connect and sympathize with her. This also makes me wonder if her feelings were that of the majority or if they were that of the elite, or the ones making the decisions. Although Satrapi does address some class issues, like that of her maid/sister not being able to date the neighbor because they are from different social classes, the issue of social class wasn’t a major topic in this book, or if it was I certainly missed it.

Satrapi's use of a child narrative for her novel was very effective. I think that the Marji was a child we could all relate to. She was always interested in her parents political conversations, wanted to wear jeans, she had posters on her walls, etc... Because it is written from an upper-middle class perspective I think that Westerners can relate to Marji. Even some of the illustrations such as the boy with the beegee's shirt, or the michael jackson button, or the people that are dancing and the picture shows one man pointing his finger in the air (a very popular disco move)...all of these items of popular culture are familiar to most Westerners. Like Shiyao said, it really is a unique story because it doesn't make Iran seem like a "backwards" country. Satrapi uses these things to connect cultures and show that in many ways she has shared childhood experiences but her experiences are also set apart. She does a great job of allowing the reader to connect to her because sometimes author's experiences are so un-like their audiences that it is hard for the reader to relate.

When I said that I thought the ten year old was smarter than me I mean that she seems to be more aware of Islam’s history and more experienced when it comes to living through a revolution and the emotions that go along with it. She experienced it first hand and because of that she already knows more about it than I will ever unless I also go through it. The conflicts and the tragedies that she lives among is crazy and hard to put myself into. She is very obviously caught right in the middle of making history. I mean we all are but she is to the extent of such a highlight within history (e.g. an event that will dramatically change the course of history for a nation and more subtly for the entire world).

I liked the story and the childlike perspective that she came from. Although taken from a child’s perspective, it portrayed well the complexity of Iran’s problem and how there are many perspectives and takes on events, and more specifically the revolution. If the story had been written from the other side, or the Islamic side, the story would be completely different and make you think in a totally different way. This goes to show how much of an influence culture and more importantly family has on a person.

Satrapi emphasizes her childhood because most things that a person learns is in the early ages of one's life. It's easier to pick on an idea or event if one is consumed by it, and they begin to think that it's the only way. The use of showing the two sides whether upper-class or lower-class was demonstrated within her cartoons. She displayed it through the color of the background or person, and her ability to be descriptive in the way should would dress an individual.

By telling this story through a child’s eyes, the reader can empathize with the story. This is because the child gives a sense of innocence and honesty to what they experience. With this Satrapi tells her story while she is a child because this is what she saw at such a young age. It gives the story a refreshing openness with her innocent thoughts and questions and ever changing beliefs in what she thinks is right. Since this was written in French and English, the fact that it is told by not only a girl but one that is westernized and rebellious to the government and rules gives another sense of empathy. It helps as a middle-class female to relate to her troubles and some of the public hardships she faces.

I think Satrapi begins the novel with religion because when a westerner opens a book on Iran this is what they expect. She feeds their stereotype and then within one page she breaks it. She goes back merely a year and tells us how she used to be in school with boys, and her school was non-religious and bilingual. Then as a foreign reader, which the book is intended for, you begin to rethink everything you know , or thought you knew.
I also think that Persepolis tells the story of a middle-class girl however, it plays true in all classes at the time of the revolution in Iran. I think the veil thing on page 5 is fair because what the novel is trying to do is boil everything down and simplify it. If you simplify the essence of the veil these are the main concepts you get. Especially since it is on page 5 we still have not learned a whole lot about the revolution so it is just an introduction. And later on in the book she does go on to talk about the veil in a wider scale than freedom or the veil.

I think that Satrapi writes the story from a childlike perception for several reasons. First of all it seems to be a recount of her own history and experience growing up in Iran and is best represented from the frame of mind she was in when she expereinced the events. Also, by seeing this expereince through the eyes or perspective of a child, we as readers feel more trusting and comfortable with the narrarator. A child takes on the persona that they are unbiased and innocent and experiencing these things for the first time just as we the readers are. It's easier to connect with the story from this point of view and allows us to see the creative imagination of certain events that take place.
I feel that seeing mainly the middle class point of view may have somewhat limited our accurate understanding to what all groups of people in Iran were experiencing. Also, since Satrapi is recounting only what she experienced, it also limits the true account of events. Since she is a child as the narrator, she is somewhat filtered to the reality and brutality of events that take place. Her parents won't allow her to take part in demonstrations and she only gets to hear the recount of other's story. It's similar to the game telephone, a story is told and passed on and it may change from the original story. We also have to imagine different images that we may not have experienced just like Satrapi and even though we may relate more closely to her based on this, I do feel that it limits our understanding.

I can think of many reasons Satrapi has used her as a child to narrate the story. One important one is that it highlights the innocence she had as a child and this plays out throughout the story. By having a child tell the story, we can get a different perspective of what is happening than if an adult is doing it. The child in the story is learning about the conflicts as the reader them. What she is learning is not corrupted by her or anyone else’s opinions and is not swayed one way or the other. We can learn about the child’s opinions about what she has learned, her opinions on it, as well as her confusions and misconceptions. I think that it being told by a westernized upper-middle class girl also allows for the western audience to relate to her childhood, and many may be able to notice connections to their own childhood and lives.

I think Satrapi's use of a child as the main character somehow seems to make the reader feel as if they are being told the truth about the whole situation in persepolis, for people expect childrem to be blunt and honest and tell things the way they are. Moreover, using a young urban upper middle class girl who worships Iron Maiden and prefers wearing Nike shoes makes it easier for the western audience, particularly the younger generation to identify with her. Its as if she is just like any one of us. If the protagonist is from a foreign country, the stereotypical viewpoints regarding that nation generally hinders a reader from getting the true meaning of the author's words. This seem to narrow down in Satrapi's book and i think she is being able to reach out to a larger group pf audience by painting the conflicts in her country in such an innocent way, just as seen from a child's point of view. There is also the disadvantage of a child blowing a story out of proportion, as seen in the case when she tells about her uncle Anoosh's prison experiences to her friends.

I think Satrapi uses her childhood to introduce the reader to this story in the same way as she was introduced to it. We enter into her life just as she is becoming politically aware, which makes it easy for us to ease into the complicated politics of the time and also experience some of the same frustrations Satrapi had as a young girl. She was very swayed by forces in her life that could be compared to the filtering of the media we experienced in learning as a nation of the situation in Iran. Not only that, but instead of simply informing us, Satrapi kind of pulls us across a canvas so that by the end of the book, we feel like we go through a process of enlightenment much like one goes through growing up.

First, let me say that I am mad at the publisher for breaking this story in half! I am cheap and lazy, meaning that I will probably never bring myself to read the second half!

I really liked Persepolis because I always think it's a good thing when hot button issues and important historical persectives are presented in a higly relatable way. I like the thought of this being taught in middle school classrooms for that very reason. Having a child narrate the story more understandable. I feel like children are missing a certain inhibition factor that most adults have. To me, it seems like they are more likely to say what they feel and what they mean, without any worry as to how it will be perceived, which I think is a strength of Satrapi's writing. It's very frank, very funny, and very moving all at once. I've found it too easy to say that Persepolis is a depiction of "everyday life" when it's pretty obvious Satrapi is middle class. But I think what I mean by that, is that the story is told in a way that relates to human feelings better than most accounts of wars.

I loved the drawings too, as they were reflective of Satrapi's "Get to the point" style of writing. Humerous and witty, yet never overblown or more pretentious than they needed to be. They fit with the threadbare emotional approach to storytelling.

What strategies do the people in the book use in order to cope with what was going on? In other words how did they keep things normal for themselves?

What strategies do the people in the book use in order to cope with what was going on? In other words how did they keep things normal for themselves?

What strategies do the people in the book use in order to cope with what was going on? In other words how did they keep things normal for themselves?