Thinking of the book as a memoir, with a focus on memory, truth, and representation, answer one of these questions:
- What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
- American writer William Zinsser has written that “humor is the writer’s armor against the hard emotions.” Is this the way that Satrapi seems to be using humor when she says that “every situation offered an opportunity for laughs” (97) and again that laughter is “the only way to bear the unbearable” (266)? What instances of humor stand out to you? Why?
- How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
Frank Zhang
ReplyDelete3. This would largely derive from the postmodern school of thought in history where individual narratives are prized in their historical value. As each story is told from individual perspectives, although it is obvious that it does not explain totalizing causes or such, it gives a much more human side to the history of the nation and how each action of the nation affected the individual and how it may have differed from expected. For example even in the events where an action may have made a country suffer in terms of economics the impacts on the individual may have been different than expected. This can definitely be seen in Persepolis where Satrapi's individual narrative reflects points of thought that may never have been considered, if at all possible to be considered, in a cohesive manner as to how the individuals within the nation may have responded to any sort of event. Events such as the first revolution to take the power away from the Shah now gains a viewpoint of an idealistic child and how it was viewed. Once again, this cannot be something said for the entirety of a nation, yet it still retains analytical significance in the response of a citizen to an event and thus the general "success" of any event is given a new perspective. If an enormous amount of historical importance is placed upon the words spoken by a leader, what about the individual personal lives of a leader that was disconnected from the nation yet is still a part of the nation? If a leader has such significance as an individual human, why not another individual human that still makes up a part of the country such as a child? With this the history of a nation is transformed into a collection of narratives, each one influencing and being influenced by the events that occur with each time point of history.
Frank, I'm glad you brought up the fact that this is such a personal account of the event and is of course biased, but it provides such a useful window into understanding the Islamic Revolution. In this way I think we should praise Satrapi for this because it gives us such a fresh lens that we otherwise might've never understood. We could understand a leader this way too. With respect to your first question, I think the personal lives of leaders are very significant to nations because it determines how the leader interacts with others and how situations are carried out. For example, if a leader has a troubled upbringing, then that will reflect in the way they treat others because they may have a short temper and crave power.
DeleteSignificant examples of personal parts of history that would likely not have been examined.
Delete"The battle was over for our parents but not for us" (Satrapi 44) on the revolution against the Shah.
"Meanwhile, I got to go to my first party... Punk rock was in" (Satrapi 102) displays an interesting point of viewpoint of somebody who was not in constant fear and a stifled atmosphere due to the war.
I positively admire your use of historical schools of thought in interpreting the novel's significance since this connects different forms of knowledge (language and history). I agree that this novel portrays a more humanistic approach to the conflicts that the nation of Iran has faced. For example, it may be useful to show that Iranian civillians had lost lives fighting for the war, and inflation had made their money worthless. This is more useful than showing graphs and data for understanding the plight of individual people.
DeleteVictor Kalev (Question #2):
ReplyDeleteThe emotions and thoughts that a particular author attempts to convey within their work is often highly dependent upon their writing style, as their syntax and diction play a crucial role in the reader’s response to the writing. In this case, since Persepolis is a graphic novel, the stylistic influence can be observed in both the text portions of the story and the drawings themselves. Despite having a highly melancholic and minimalistic art form, her choice of words is often expressive and has comedic connotations. However, there are two major categories that one can delineate between each of her uses of humor: the act of rebellion and the avoidance of emotional trauma. Specifically, Satrapi uses irony or jokes to either emphasize the development of her rebellious nature over time or tease her youthful, naïve self. One of the most notable scenes that embodies this strategy is when she smokes her very first cigarette, as the solemn and introspective tone of the first panel on the bottom of page 117 is followed by the hilarious image of young Marji coughing violently with the onomatopoeia “KOFFF! KOFFF! KOFFF!!!” (Satrapi, 117) at the top. Even though Satrapi believes that this moment was a period of maturation for her, she still decides to include self-deprecating comedy to lighten the mood slightly. In turn, the scene where all of the students ridicule the rituals of the school on page 97 is another place in the novel where Satrapi utilizes humor to emphasize the growing defiance of both herself and her classmates. The author’s second tactic is to try and shield herself from the reality of the situation she is describing through comedy, hence rationalizing the situation by avoiding serious contemplation of those negative feelings. This concept is summarized in her writing on page 266, as she describes how laughter is the only true remedy during horrible moments. This reminds me of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams, as both novels tend to laugh in the face of the terrible circumstances that surround them, while still conveying the underlying sadness of it all. A specific instance in which this phenomena is experienced in Persepolis is when young Marji hears about how Siamak and his family had “crossed the border hidden in a pack of sheep” (Satrapi, 66). Instead of extrapolating the gravity of the situation through her drawing, she instead depicts the comedy of imagining a family crawling around with a pack of sheep. Therefore, after analyzing Persepolis from such a specific point of view, it is evident that comedy is an inseparable part of Marjane Satrapi’s style of writing, and potentially even displays a profound glimpse into her personality as an individual. However, there are still aspects of her style that cannot be completely contextualized. Was Satrapi truly attempting to criticize her past actions or was she purely displaying them in a more simplistic manner for comedic effect? Why would comedy serve as an effective manner through which to convey the dreadful characteristics of the bloody Iranian Revolution? Wouldn’t it be more compelling if it refrained from utilizing humor, but simply depicted the events as she viewed them? Can Satrapi’s experiences throughout her youth and young adulthood even be separated from her natural inclination to be rebellious and comedic?
Victor, i love that you bring up how laughter and comedy are used by Marji, her friends, and family, as a sort of medicine to get them through what they're living through. This really shows how Marji is growing up. At first, her jokes were contextually incorrect, and she didn't really understand why the people around her were laughing and making light of the current events. However, as she progresses, we can see that her jokes are similar to others and she is more informed about what she is joking about. Eventually on her own, in times of personal battle and turmoil, she uses humor and "at least" phrases as her own personal medicine.
DeleteSana Lalani
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
Persepolis consists of new characters every few chapters. Each of these characters has a role that represents who they are in relation to their historical nation. By this point in the novel we have read about Marji and her family, her teachers, her friends whose dads have passed away, her friends in Austria, and new friends she's made their. All of these characters and their personalities are reflective of their own story. The personal stories of individual citizens in relation to their portray how they got where they are today in a cultural aspect. For example in the U.S. our clothing, taste in music, entertainment, food, etc.. all represent cultural diffusion in parts but also the American tradition. Socially especially, our personal stories are all representations of what that country values. In Persepolis the most evident of these stories is seen especially after Marji moves to Austria. Here her friends values are completely different from her. Her friends in Austria have cultural values that are opposites. While back home her personal stories consist of death, bombs, and fighting for freedom, in Austria all her friends are worrying about trivial things in life like the shade of their lipstick, having earmuffs, and counting the number of men they sleep with. The hidden meaning with this goes back to Austria. The reader can infer that politically this country is rather stable at this moment. Most of the times the stories that are told by individuals that have the most power are related to topics of fear like death and tragedies. At this time for Iran we see all of the stories due to the political conditions in the nations. With this and the portrayal of Austria involving the personal stories of her friends there, the reader can understand the individuals personal values especially in terms of cultural and societal values.
Dheemant Dammanna - Question 1: What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
ReplyDeleteSince this book is based on Marjane Satrapi’s own life it provides a vastly different perspective than a mere work of fiction. The fact that this book is a memoir provides additional meaning to the event and can be used as a way to connect with the people who lived in the revolution at the time. Since people know that the revolution was real and the events Satrapi describes happened not only to her but also to others in Iran, they are able to connect with her experiences and truly feel empathy. The book is filled with a sense of truth which is based on the fact that the events of the book are events that actually occurred. Though this brings up an important knowledge question.
How do we know what is the truth?
When thinking about questions of truth it is important to understand different perspectives that are presented within the text. One of the most important concepts that the book tries to explore it truth. As a child, Marjane, grew up believing in everything that she heard from the government. Marjane “love[s] the king, he was chosen by God” (Satrapi 19) and is confused when her parents reveal to her the contrary. She perceived the government and the king as the truth because it came from the word of God. Later on, she shuts God out of her life, just like the post-World War I Europeans who thought there was no way God could exist because he would never desire the destruction that the way brought. The death of Marjane’s uncle is similar to the deaths of the soldiers in World War I. Does that mean she has given up on truth? If Marjane has not given up on truth then can the truth change, and if it can then is it really the truth?
I agree with what you say about the way the fact that the novel is a memoir allows others to empathize with the story more. Interesting thought about the truth. I guess it's not really truth if it changes but at the same time, it was the truth for her at that time.
DeleteSana Lalani
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3: How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
Persepolis consists of new characters every few chapters. Each of these characters has a role that represents who they are in relation to their historical nation. By this point in the novel we have read about Marji and her family, her teachers, her friends whose dads have passed away, her friends in Austria, and new friends she's made their. All of these characters and their personalities are reflective of their own story. The personal stories of individual citizens in relation to their portray how they got where they are today in a cultural aspect. For example in the U.S. our clothing, taste in music, entertainment, food, etc.. all represent cultural diffusion in parts but also the American tradition. Socially especially, our personal stories are all representations of what that country values. In Persepolis the most evident of these stories is seen especially after Marji moves to Austria. Here her friends values are completely different from her. Her friends in Austria have cultural values that are opposites. While back home her personal stories consist of death, bombs, and fighting for freedom, in Austria all her friends are worrying about trivial things in life like the shade of their lipstick, having earmuffs, and counting the number of men they sleep with. The hidden meaning with this goes back to Austria. The reader can infer that politically this country is rather stable at this moment. Most of the times the stories that are told by individuals that have the most power are related to topics of fear like death and tragedies. At this time for Iran we see all of the stories due to the political conditions in the nations. With this and the portrayal of Austria involving the personal stories of her friends there, the reader can understand the individuals personal values especially in terms of cultural and societal values.
I think the reason why most of the times stories told by individuals who have gone through tragedy are the most powerful is because of the way we place importance on sadness. This is not because we want to be sad but because since we avoid it so much, when we do feel it, it sticks out to us and we consider it a powerful emotion.
DeleteLili Lomas #1.
ReplyDeleteThe fact that this book is a memoir rather than a fictional story makes me amazed at the strength of the characters and all that they went through. Because of this knowledge, the book becomes more emotional as when I read it, I remember that the things Satrapi describes and the images she displays were real and had dramatic effects on people. Typically, comic books are fictional so even if they do include gory images, they do not have as much of a dramatic emotional effect on the reader. However, knowing that the events portrayed in the story are real makes me have to stop and realize the effect of the revolution on people. Every time there are images of the dead, I have to remember that this event actually happened and it makes me sorry for the people who had to go through this. What specifically amazes me is the strength of Marji’s parents during this time of hardship. Her mom is the one who has repeatedly had to comfort people affected by the political conflict and tell them “It’ll be ok, calm down” (Satrapi 90). Her dad maintains a level head and guides Marji to do the same in a time when that is difficult to do. Reading about these characters and knowing that they are real is more inspiring than it would be if the story was fiction. Additionally, it amazes me how much detail Satrapi is able to remember about events from her childhood and I think these details tell a lot about how traumatizing these events really were. Typically, people remember moments filled with lots of emotion or a feeling of shock- something which in psychology is called a “flashbulb memory”- and the fact that Satrapi has so many of these and includes them in the novel shows how emotion filled her child was as a result of the revolution in Iran. This leads me to wonder, could Satrapi have conveyed similar emotions and themes if she had written the book as a fictional story?
Jade Njo #1- Enhanced reading
ReplyDeleteKnowing that this book is Marjane Satrapi's memoir makes the reading experience incomparable to any other required reading I've read. It enhances my reading so much-- knowing that these events actually happened in someone's life and that this is an accurate account of what life was like during the Iranian Revolution and Post-Revolution provides a greater historical understanding that I may not have been able to acquire had I not read this book. Not only that, but if I had read a fictional book about the same topic, I would not have as accurate information to develop thoughts on. There are so many aspects of Iranian culture I was not very knowledgable in going into this book. For example, in "The Key," Marji reveals that kids her age were going off to fight in the revolution. They were doing this because they were promised "a better life, exploded on the minefields with their keys around their necks," (Satrapi 102). However, Marji was not part of this as "meanwhile, [she] got to go to [her] first party," (Satrapi 102). This is an aspect of the revolution I had no idea about; I didn't know that kids would go off to fight and die, while other kids would stay home and party. This is something I think Marji explicated effectively in a way that fictional stories might not be able to, since she was actually a person partying while her friends died. Satrapi's ability to communicate her personal experiences so masterfully is similar to that of The Imitation Game, which captures a huge government secret of WWII. Both The Imitation Game and Persepolis give insight into the lives of people during historical crisis. I wonder why you think Satrapi wanted to tell her story this way? It might have been a lot easier to write it historical fiction, so why did she choose this? How about her decision to write it in the form of a graphic novel; how does this enhance the memoir?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLisette Hotz
DeleteI like how you recognized that there is an invaluable substance found in personal memoirs compared to fictional stories. I agree that it must have been hard to recount all of the tragic events that took place in Satrapi's life, but I think that she did it because she felt a responsibility to voice how the Iranian Revolution personally effected her. I think that for someone who lived through the revolution, it would be frustrating to read or hear about generalizations of the events and effects of the Iranian Revolution because the experience was so different for each individual person. On a side note, I don't know a lot about The Imitation Crisis so some elaboration on that event could be helpful in understanding how the two events relate to each other.
Stephen Liang
DeleteI agree with your beliefs about the advantages of Realistic Historical Fiction, which can be much more relatable than purely Fantasy books, as well as your idea that these books can provide insight to readers' historical understandings. However, I disagree with your use of Marjane's partying as opposed to the other kids being sent off to war. I think that this example is better suited to show the vast inequalities in society between poorer, male children who are taught to fight for their country, while the wealthier women can live as civilians more.
With regards to question 3, How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation? The personal stories of each individual citizen reflects what, when, and where they were at the time if that makes sense. The story of any random person will reflect the policies in place by the government and the environment in which they grew up in. If someone has a story about breaking the law by going out after a curfew, we can tell that they must've grown up in a time where the country they lived in must've been in a very restrictive mode. As curfew is seen as a restrictive policy. Bringing this into the realm of the knower, we can make a knowledge question out of this situation. To what extent does memory affect reason? Through the use of memory, we make rational decisions. Such as the example of the hot stove, if we touch the hot stove when we are younger, when we are older, we will recall that memory and make the decision to not touch the hot stove. Memory heavily impacts our way of making decisions. Leading back to the initial question, this relates as the personal experiences (memory) can affect the way we interpret and process what the time was like when they experienced that story (reason). Furthermore we see our interpretation of what time must've been like through a representation of the story teller. With our sights on the story teller and most likely we have knowledge of who the storyteller is, we can use additional information acquired before to make comprehensive thoughts that properly reflect where and what they came from.
ReplyDeleteThere's something exquisite about reading this book as a non-fictional work rather than a fictional story. How does reading it as a memoir affect how I read this book? Well, it's strange thinking about it as a real life story. The events are so extreme that it sounds out of this world. It's so different from what my life is personally. There are some similarities that I shared though. I grew up as restricted as Marji, except for the fact I didn't have to wear a head scarf. However, the aspects of war is completely inexperienced in my spectrum. I could not fathom how it is to have dozens of my neighbors and family members murdered by the government. Death to me is more of a natural cause, but for Marji, it is something that is malevolent. It's hard to fathom that her emotions were real. It is different reading it as a memoir because I feel sympathy for her. If I were to read it as a fictional novel, I'll probably feel pity for the character, but not sympathy for the author. Reading as a memoir allows me to connect to the author personally, rather than just her characters.
ReplyDeleteI agree, some moments in this book seem like they could only be out of some cliche chick flick, but they actually happened! It is crazy to think that these events actually took place, and someone was able to write about it in an entertaining way to say the least. Getting to see her emotions throughout the book is an eye opening experience to what times were like for the citizenry in the country at the time.
DeleteI agree that because this is a memoir it is a lot easier to connect with the characters and the author. Although, I have been very fortunate in life to not have witnessed the effects of war and cannot really connect with the grand scale of this novel, I can connect with the little things. For example, when Marji felt sad because she had a Cadillac and others could not even afford a car, I to have had that exact feeling in my life. Another part of the book that I connected to would be when Marji lashed out at her father for no reason because he wanted her to stop watching the television. These little things that Satrapi included is the essence of this novel, and this would not have been possible if it were not a memoir.
DeleteSharon Shaji.
ReplyDelete1. What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
When we hear stuff in the news, we only hear general information concerning what happened: who did it, where did it happen, why did they do it, etc. The news, because it’s primary goal is to deliver the truth about world events, tends to focus more on the side of those who committed an action against others, rather than looking to the victims. Occasionally, we will see videos of the mourning families of lost loved ones, and that leaves us heartbroken. And because the news seems increasingly worse each day, we have developed two reactions to it: (1) we are so heartbroken that we stop watching it, or (2) we continue to watch it, yet distance ourselves from it. We view the events that occur as events having simply happened. These events have not impacted us in our protective bubble of comfort. We become resilient, and by not seeing the personal sides to stories in the news, we lose empathy.
Reading Marjane’s story shows us how the events of her time influenced her personal life, and that gives us a way of empathizing with her. We understand the significance level of an event not because the event is merely presented to us, but because it’s existence has a certain impact of a certain scope on people’s lives. Had Marjane’s story been fictional, we would dismiss it as being inaccurate to the truth of living in Iran, and we would be left without any reliable knowledge concerning so. We would also dismiss the events occurring in Iran as insignificant things that just happened and do not affect us.
However, because this is Marjane’s story we can (1) empathize with her, (2) understand the significance of the events of the book because of its impact on the lives of Marjane’s and those around her, and (3) know that we cannot be comfortable about what happened.
Is there action readers would take to address the problems Marjane faced in this book?
This is an interesting perspective. I agree that the fact that the story is made by a person who was in the Iranian revolution, and the characters have truth to them, augments our capacity of empathize with her and the people in her story. In an attempt to answer your last question, I do agree that there are people who took action to address the problems that Marjane had faced. Mr. Orlopp has read the book and wanted to present it to our class because it shows how a life is changed dramatically, and it teaches us a new perspective that customs that we are use to could change in an instant. However, I do wonder that now we acknowledge that we do emphasize further with the story because Marjane herself wrote it, does it really make reader to address the problems or just pity the people in the problems more?
Deleteszq2304 = Zawad Quazi
DeleteI believe that your claim essentially holds water, because something actually happened and we experience it in detail we care about it. What I disagree with however, is the implicit suggestion that the book was written with the intent to persuade the reader about the Iran Iraq war or the revolution. I think the intent of the book is to show what it is like to develop and grow in these situations, not the events themselves. In general however, I don't see any real flaws in the reasoning, and analysis of the human response to a memoir like this.
DeleteGrace Hao Reply:
DeleteHi Sharon! I really enjoy reading your comments/posts because they always provide a creative and insightful interpretation and perspective on the reading. I agree that this memoir of Satrapi's life made the book more emotional overall. I did not realize the extent to which I could feel empathy for Marjane until I finished the book. I think that you make great points about empathy. I think that actions can definitely be done to help resolve some of the issues in Iran that Marjane writes about. I think the main question, however, is how many people will actually take initiative to help Iran? I think that this book was a good way of spreading awareness.
I really liked that you brought up that we could empathize with not only her, but the whole sitution of events given from the perspective of someone who experienced it. As for your question, I personally don't know of any actions they could take now. Unless the reader has some sort power, I don't think they can make an impactful difference even after knowing these events. For example, some of the problems Marjane faced were growing issues that everyone faces to develop. The other problems related to war, to my knowledge, are a bit too passed for readers to make an impactful change now.
DeleteSaige C Reply
DeleteI also really enjoyed reading your perspective on empathy and how we perceive the book over time. I understood what you meant regarding the distance from the situation. Because we as readers were not directly attached to Marjane's experience, we often feel like outsiders looking in. It can be difficult at times to grasp the idea that what she was going through was real and very serious. I occasionally had to set the book down and research the revolution to remind myself of this. Similarly to Grace, I was unaware of my growing compassion with the character. By the end of the book, I felt that I had this coming of age experience alongside her. However, I didn't really see the book as persuasive. I saw it more in an informal and entertaining light, rather a telling of events rather than persuasion.
I really like your connection to the news and how Marjane's story provides that personal aspect that we tend to lose when we see so much 'bad stuff' happening around the world. However, I think, even if the story was fictional, it would still provide insight into what the war-torn country was like during that time. Additionally, since it focuses more on her journey, we still have the factor of following someone on their way to accepting themselves. I think that her biography is more than what Iran was like during the war, it was about her journey of 'becoming a true Iranian.' The war was definitely a big part of it, but it was still one part. There were multiple other factors that shaped her into who she is.
DeletePrajna Vootukuri (Question 2)
ReplyDeleteI feel that the quote perfectly describes Satrapi’s use of humor throughout the novel. Due to the novel including concepts of war, death, and injuries, there are quite a few grieving scenes. But sometimes when it comes to feeling sad about a situation, displaying your sorrow or pity for the other is not very appropriate or just comes out in the form of laughter since the individual is filled with too many emotions to adequately know how to deal with them. As the nation was taking over more control on the people’s lives, Marjane and her classmates had to wear veils and other violent customs of the nation such as “torture sessions” (Satrapi 96) in which “people flagellated themselves brutally” (Satrapi 96) were practiced. Marjane and her classmates in the next few panels just joked around about the customs and played pranks in the school. With the war still going on strong, the concept of war and all the pains that came from it seemed to be a bit much for the kids to handle. Hence why they tried to shake off the gravity of how the war was affecting their lives by laughing it off. A personal connection I have to use humor as a blanket over my pains is that typically when I get injured, as tears trickle down my face, I tend to laugh. A minor or major injury, I tend to just laugh at an immediate reaction and I feel perhaps it could be a way of me distracting myself from the pain. In the novel, other instances of humor that stood out to me were the frequent parties. Although the nation kept a watch on terminating alcohol, making women wear veils, and getting rid of radios, during these parties everyone danced and drank their hearts off. They felt that without the parties “it wouldn’t be psychologically bearable” (Satrapi 106) to get through everything that was going on. Although it was highly risky, it brought together the people in keeping them sane and united.
Why do humans prefer avoiding painful situations using laughter? Laughter can temporarily lighten the mood, but how long can you mask your problems with laughter?
This comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteLisette Hotz
DeleteI love the specific examples of Marjane and her friends making fun of tragic events and the frequent parties and drinking that took place during the revolution that you pointed out. I think that if I were in Marjane's situation I would also try to lighten the mood by using humor and simplifying the severity of the things happening around me. To answer your question about laughter being a temporary fix or a band aid, I think that when you're not in control of your circumstances like Marjane is, humor is a natural defense mechanism to stop psychological trauma which I think will help you come out the other side of the events with some sanity left.
I agree with you analysis; I think that Marjane used humor as a method to cope with her confusion of how to feel in certain events. As an audience, we never really saw Marjane genuinely grieving over a death of a loved one, even when it was her neighbors. instead, we get a burst of a combination of many emotions thrown at us all at once, such as anger, fear, happiness, joy, confusion, etc. This exemplifies how Marjane felt at just 10 years old thrown into a world of turmoil and sadness.
DeletePrajna, I completely agree with your comment. Marjane does use humor to lessen the gravity of a situation throughout the book, I also agree with your personal connection; when I get injured I just tend to laugh it off to take my mind off from the pain. For example, I remember one time I fractured my knee and I had to be in a wheelchair for a few months because I couldn't move my leg at all. I remember making fun of myself for being in a wheelchair and I asked my friends to race me.
DeleteI believe your perspective is verythoughful as well as your questions about the use of humour during painful situations. I believe that humans prefer avoiding painful situations using laughter because they don't want it to affect their ability to concentrate on other things. For example, I once watched an interview with a track star from a high school in Grapevine. In the interview he says that if he felt something hurt while in competition he try to make jokes about it in his head to keep his mind off the pain and focus his attention to the race. Furthermore I believe that laughter is not a long term solution because at one point the reality of the situations hits and humour is not enough to cover it.
Delete1: Understanding that the book is a memoir enables us to better see the writer's tone. The story takes on a more personal feel, one in which Marjane Satrapi is sharing her inner thoughts and feelings, providing an authentic perspective that would not be present in a fictionalized story. Even in the early stages of the book, Satrapi reveals her inner conflict, accentuating her struggle with her parents/society and her personal dreams as she notes that "I felt guilty towards God. I will be a prophet but they mustn't know" (Satrapi 7). The knowledge that this is a memoir makes her struggle more real and allows us to both empathize with her and understand the magnitude of the situation. This makes me think back to middle school, when we had a Holocaust survivor come and speak to us. As opposed to the books we had read, his personal anecdotes provided details and conveyed strong emotion that enabled us to truly understand his plight. Hearing his story helped make his predicament seem less distant, as we could connect with someone who had actually experienced the horrors firsthand and somehow escaped. This leads us to the question: if we are able to better empathize with people who actually experienced different struggles than with fictionalized characters, do fictional stories about struggles such as the Holocaust or the Iranian Revolution have any real value?
ReplyDeleteContinuation of above comment (I accidentally hit publish):
DeleteAnother question that arises is how an author's biases may affect the memoir. It has been proven that sometimes our emotions or other factors can influence our memories, and cause us to remember things that didn't actually occur, or possibly stretch the truth. Keeping this in mind, to what extent can we trust that the emotions portrayed in the book are authentic and not exaggerated? Can we judge the reality faced by the author solely by their memoir?
Andrew Clarke - I liked that you mentioned the fact that the more an experience of an event is personalized maybe in anecdotal form, the stronger of an impact the shared experience will have on us. As I mentioned in one of my other answers to a Graphic Text question, having the visual connection to the violence and the struggle has more of an effect on us than just words alone, and that goes along with experiencing incidents firsthand rather than secondhand. Now whether fictional stories about real struggles hold true value is mainly up to the author and can be interpreted by the tone. If an author today wants to write a historical fiction about a family that lived through the hardships of the Holocaust, they might do so under a serious tone and with genuine intent behind their message. However, if an author were to write about that topic but add humor to it, the book might not have any real meaning because the tone and topic do not compliment one another (plus it might not be too well received).
DeleteAbhishek, I really thought your question was extremely insightful and had a very strong connection to the original question. Regarding the question, I don't necessarily believe that one's ability to empathize with fictional characters will ultimately result in increased value with the book. One of the most engaging things about this book that I found was that the research I did on Marjane was so similar to the book and if there was no information on her out there, I don't think this book would have been of real value to me. However, the 'real-life' aspect of the book really interested me.
DeleteSimran Sethi
ReplyDeleteQuestion #2
American writer William Zinsser has written that “humor is the writer’s armor against the hard emotions.” Is this the way that Satrapi seems to be using humor when she says that “every situation offered an opportunity for laughs” (97) and again that laughter is “the only way to bear the unbearable” (266)? What instances of humor stand out to you? Why?
- I believe that many people, not just Marjane use humor as a way of dealing with trauma and hard times. Some things are just too horrific to face head on and many use humor to deal with real life issues. Humor serves as a shield to some from the harsh realities of violence, death and torture Marjane encounters throughout the novel. Where many individuals are powerless and humor is the most common way to cope with the wartime terrors and political turmoil. to me one of the most interesting instances of humor that Satrapi used in the novel was when Marjane " began to draw caricatures of the teachers. [She] had gotten into this habit with [her] teachers in Iran. The difference being that they were all veiled, therefore much easier to draw. These portraits…brought [her] some goodwill.” (Satrapi, 165). This was very very peculiar to me. Mostly for the reason that she describes her drawings as caricatures. Which I consider funny looking drawings of people. Now she is having to draw her teachers covered in veils as the new laws during the revolution. I found this interesting as she was not even very taken aback by the fact that she is now having to portray all her teachers in a different light, which is also against their will. Is it wrong that people are now so used to dealing with their problems and horrors with humor? Is it psychologically right to be using humor as a way to cope or does it bury/ delay the problem further for people that may have PTSD or like in Marjane's situation in the position of wartime terror?
Simran, I completely agree with your statement because I have also done this personally. Individuals do tend to use humor to cover their emotions, that could be either sadness or even anger. In my case, I can recall making fun of time periods during my life when I was really sad. I still do this till this date, I make fun of situations where what I did was wrong or what I did could have been better. For example, in swimming when I do bad in a race I tend to say to myself that I am bad, but I also tend to laugh it off by joking about my technique..
DeleteSimran,
DeleteI really like your connection to the current world as people do often use humor to suppress their emotions instead of dealing with their problems head-on. I agree with you that Marjane's use of humor was important to the tone of the book as it provided a different perspective than the one we are usually given about Iran.
Simran, I agree with you in that humor is often utilized in situations of despair and sadness as a coping mechanism. I'm unsure of the psychological changes and implications of such a situation, however I can understand how it can lead to trauma as you lack connection with your true feelings. As for your example of Marjane drawing caricatures of her teachers, I think this is really interesting and her depictions and artistic abilities are mentioned a few times during her memoir, which almost serve as an explanation of why and how she decided to depict her life as a cartoon.
DeleteSimran, I really enjoyed thinking and analyzing the question that you presented regarding humor being an inappropriate form to cope with distress. I think that there isn't necessarily a problem with those who use humor to detract themselves from the problems in their lives. After all, they are the ones that should be making the decisions for themselves and although I may not think that laughing after a terrible event is something that is 'good' to do, someone else may find that as the best mechanism to fight through rough times.
DeleteTanmay Karandikar #2: Humor as a coping mechanism
ReplyDeletePersepolis deals with a number of dark topics as it presents Marjane’s story during her childhood and life. The times in life that are hardest to get through are often made easier with the presence of humor. The thought of torture is enough to make most people squirm, and the true reality is often too much for anyone who hasn’t faced it to fully comprehend. However, because of the oppressive government seeking to remove dissenters from operating in public, torture is often referenced. If one’s parents have faced something like torture or overcome a difficult obstacle, the children brag about it, and Marjane was so desperate to show off that she lied to her friends, stating “they cut my dad’s le off, but he didn’t confess” (Satrapi 54)! This humorous statement due to its use in the book truly represents the violent context of the world of Iran during the tumultuous time period. When “no one took the torture sessions seriously anymore”, Marjane decided to mock them, taking the concept of grieving and suffering for the martyrs past the point that the teachers expected (Satrapi 97). Humor works to develop the view that Marjane had on the world around her when she was young and didn’t feel the need to simply fit into society’s norms. Humor took her mind off of actually thinking about the continuing casualties of the time period, and allowed her instead to cope with life as a regular pre-teen.
Personally, I believe humor is one of the strongest tools that one can have in their arsenal. It works to diffuse situations and overcome boundaries that exist between people as well as a way to profess a viewpoint without putting much of a burden on another. An example of the importance of humor in the modern world is the extreme popularity of memes on the internet. These are relatable pieces of media that seek to connect with the point of view of the general public and helps individuals understand that a number of others share their feelings about any given subject.
Under what context is the use of humor as a coping mechanism considered inappropriate and does humor ever get in the way of addressing problems?
Tanmay, I agree with your thinking that hard times in life are often brightened up with humor which is an essential concept within this book. However, I think that there is something more to the use of humor within dark topics. It may simply just be how Satrapi felt during the Revolution. She grew up in a revolution. Growing up is a process that is very unique in itself. Kids and teens have very different perspectives of things that are happening around them, and it may be humorous to the reader. I feel that the use of humor within dark topics serves as Satrapi's innocence. It admits to the reader that even those inside Iran had no clue what was going on majority of the time, showing the reader the thoughts of the Iranian revolution as well. I question if there is any other uses of contrasting ideals to convey a certain message.
DeleteI completey see where you are coming from Tanmay. I just recently commented on another post about her drpictions in the book and how they may also be some type of coping mechanism for her because they way she illustrates the cartoons is so free and child like. Because of this, I believe that she is trying to make this dark situation a more light hearted one. I think beacuse she lived through this time of the revolution, it is okay for her to use humor as a coping mechanism. Who are we to judge how she wants to deal with her past? I think the audience can still see the real stuggles even though they may be masked over by humorous depictions.
DeleteAndrew Clarke - To answer your questions Tanmay, humor might be perceived as inappropriate when a majority of the people in a situation might not be ready to use humor as a mechanism to cope with the present situation. For example, not everyone would be willing to joke about 9/11 on the day each year, and if someone was to do so, their efforts to lighten the mood might be wasted and they just might be viewed as having poor taste. Humor may get in the way of addressing problems because of how it might make a problem less important than it actually is maybe by keeping the mind off of that problem. In my opinion, humor does get in the way of addressing a problem and accepting that problem because it delays closure and if you joke about a problem, you're more likely to continue to joke about it, never really putting it behind you. This might come into effect when someone jokes about a flaw that they might have or a mistake that they made, where they never really put the problem behind themselves and move on with their lives.
DeleteI completely agree with your statement. Her humor definitely made, in some was, Persepolis a little bit easier to read because of how much talk of death and destruction was included. However, I wanted to explore the Graphic Novel concept in terms of humor. Graphic Novels, though not humorous, are comical in a way, and I say this because the cartoons that we watched growing up and the picture books that we read when we were younger had overall lighthearted and frivolous tones. Though the actual content within Persepolis may have been dark, I think that because it was a graphic novel, it eased up the overall message.
DeleteSahana
ReplyDeleteQuestion 3
This question can be answered through using the concept of personal knowledge versus shared knowledge. Personal knowledge in itself is very powerful, the ways of knowing that are used to derive this knowledge and the limited perspective that it has can be very easily compared to the personal stories of individual citizens. Each story is made of different circumstances that have a perspective that is restricted to that individual citizens, but through Persepolis we understand the power of a personal story. Shared knowledge can be proved as being more powerful than personal knowledge as all of these different perspectives and circumstances are puzzle pieces in creating history that the nation develops. History encompasses the story of the past not just from one point of view but from many. Through the combination of these viewpoints, past events can be explained with the impact that it had on just the upper class or the uneducated, but on everyone. It is important to question if a true form of a personal story even exists. As seen in Persepolis, Satrapi’ story had a lot of elements that involved the personal stories of others. Society is perhaps built in a way that individuals are connected and rely on each other that personal stories are defined differently. An broad example of these concepts in the book can be seen in the panel with the caption “The next day I filled a Jar with soil from our garden. Iranian soil.” to the panel with the caption “And I understood how important they were to me.” (Satrapi 149) The context of these panels is when a lot of her friends and acquaintances have already moved and she is about to move to Vienna. At this point in the novel, everyone has started out with the same circumstances but is now going to being a new and unique chapter. The divergence in personal stories creates so much space for richer history of this nation. It is also important to note that the history of the nation are not only what happens within the borders of Iran, but what happens with the Iranian people and culture.
Hi Sahana,
DeleteI really liked your comparison of personal and shared knowledge to the beliefs of citizens and nations. Your point about the history of nations and how the diversity of individuals affect the richness present in a nation was befitting in the context of the Persepolis. Your commentary has made me question: does the individual, in turn, get shaped by the culture and history of the nation? I personally think so. Since I moved from India, I consider everything Indian to be "home". My biases, my beliefs, and my morals have all been shaped by the culture I was brought up upon. So I have reason to believe that the nation one lives in affects the individual's perception of reality, similar to how the individual's perception of reality affects the nation's values and culture. Let me know what you think about this.
~ Harsha Jagannathan
Amish Dara Reply:
DeleteSahana, your elucidation of personal knowledge and shared knowledge's correlation to individual stories and history is unequivocally something I agree with. The history of a nation is comprised of the individual stories and perspectives of all the citizens in the nation. It is what is shared among the people. However I was confused at how you stated that Persepolis is a powerful personal story. How is the story of one individual more powerful than other individuals stories? Shouldn’t all the stories of individuals be taken with an equal weight in creating the shared knowledge known as history?
2 - How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
ReplyDeleteHistory is, in its most basic terms, a story. It is a collective academic recollection of the past with respect to people and places. The personal stories of each individual in the nation usually contribute to description of nation seen through the lens of an outsider. In the graphic novel, the experiences of Satrapi may not have been extremely extraordinary, considering the fact that others were going through similar experiences at the the time. However, collectively organizing all their experiences into one big experience helped paint a picture of Iran during the Islamic/Iranian Revolution. Especially on page 16 where many people were protesting and yelling “down with the king”, it shows that although each person has had experiences of their own, all their stories converge as one and become an important part of the nation’s history.
Furthermore, I feel like personal stories also add an interesting perspective to a nation’s history. Since everyone has their own story, naturally, everyone is going to view what’s happening around them differently. This can be seen in Persepolis on page 17-18 where Satrapi views the Shah a certain way (appointed by god) versus how her dad view the Shah. Those who are very much involved in their nation are likely to view the occurings around them differently compared to those who aren’t very involved/informed. So when the stories of the informed and uninformed merge into one, the situation reaches an equilibrium where, although the situation is serious, it may not look like it since it has been “toned down”. This changes an outsider’s outlook on the nation’s history
If our stories affect our nation’s history, to what extent does our interpretation of the things around us contribute to the importance/severity of the events in our history as perceived by an outsider?
^^Aishwarya Adiki
DeleteHi Ash, this is Sneha. I enjoyed reading your thoughts on the relationship between national histories and personal stories. I find that a personal account of a small part of a larger history makes for an interesting insight into the perspective of the nation's ordinary citizens during a period of national turmoil. Though an individual's interpretation of a significant event may never become even a sidenote in a history book, the collective interpretation becomes the basis for how that event is remembered by future generations.
DeleteMercedes Hoyos, Question 1, Memoir vs. Fiction
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, in my lifetime, the media has depicted the Middle East as a culturally homogeneous, sometimes violent region. But by reading Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis, which just so happens to be a memoir, I found those ideas to be entirely false. Iran’s culture during the ‘70s, for example, seems to be as equally eclectic and chic as mine. Marjane would regularly wear a torn denim jacket, listen to funky American pop music, et cetera. If this were a fictional piece, I think I might have easily dismissed this image as silly or far-fetched. Overall, Persepolis bridged the gap between the stereotypes about Iran that I had, rather obliviously, assumed to be true (e.g., it is highly conservative) and its reality. I, like Marjane, learned that someone could simultaneously be “very religious” and “very modern and avant-garde” (Satrapi, 10). The fact that Persepolis is a memoir also made Marjane’s fierce independence and curiosity seem all the more incredible while reading it. It is hard to fathom having to mature so quickly and for reasons so gruesome. This novel also reminded me of my parents’ anecdote about deciding to move our family from Mexico to the U.S. in 2005. They had endured years of poor economic policies, government corruption, and violence, not unlike those in Iran. Since I was only five years old at the time, I did not adequately understand this, but over time I have come to do so. Since it is my family’s story, I consider it valid and very personal. I wonder, are memoirs every modified for the sake of the readers’ comprehension or to convey a specific idea to them? How “true” or based on fact should historical fiction pieces be?
Fawaz Syed
DeleteHey Mercedes. I found your first questions especially interesting, because it really makes sense for Persepolis. The purpose for Satrapi to write this book was to give a greater global audience an understanding of Iran's history and society. However, if we logically think about it, since Satrapi was trying to connect with such a large, diverse audience, she must have had to alter parts of her memoir in order to be able to do so. The extent to which she might have done this is unclear however. As a result of the possibility that Satrapi might have modified her memoir also must bring us to the conclusion that the graphic novel is not entirely true, but we do not which parts that could be. This means we cannot assume any of the novel to be true in terms of specifics, but we can still interpret the novel as a general idea of the truth of the situations. Even as a Muslim, I personally had a stereotyped view of Iran like you, and this book really helped open my eyes to the individuality of others in different places like Iran. I am sure this must have been felt by most other people too, because we are mostly only exposed to information from news media, which only show very limited information. Reading this personal story really helped me realize that there is more to people and a society than what the news shows.
Andrew Clarke question #3 Personal Stories and National Histories ======================
ReplyDeleteThe personal stories that individual citizens have can be related to the histories of their countries by associating themselves and their personal struggles with those of their nation. For Marjane, her personal story is told with mention of the world around her in her country and how they affected her, such as the riots, the executions, and the element of the unknown. Do you think that people are more likely to associate or disassociate with their nation’s history if it is remembered under a positive light but is not necessarily a good (moral and ethical) history? Also, what factors might go into the process of considering whether a history was good or not, including memory, truth, and representation? In the book, Marjane writes about the history of Iran and her own life in a similar way, where the theme of rebellion is present throughout. As though it seems like the present day Marjane has accepted the history of her country and her life as a part of that, she still depicts her younger self to not fully be accepting of that, as she would feel sad or depressed about the topic of the revolution whenever it would be discussed. As the text states, “My father was not a hero, my mother wanted to kill people… so I went out to play in the street.” (Satrapi, 52). In this book, Marjane relates her personal story to that of the history of her nation, much like many people do today to the histories of their own nations. Some people might relate their own personal struggles and attribute their accomplishments to national crisis, such as someone that lived through the Great Depression saying that the way they dealt with the hardship shaped them as a person.
Your position that people seek to relate their personal stories to the collective history of their nation is very interesting, and I would love to see it explored with wider lens. To what extent is the culture of a society built around a desire to mirror one's own story to the collective national history? To what extent can the stories of emigrants and expats relate to their national histories, and how does this affect their national pride and cultural identity?
DeleteUnderstanding that the events of the story were true events adds a whole new aspect of emotion into the novel that would not be there if it was simply fiction. The concept that real people lived through deaths, violence, political turmoil, and war such as those described in Marjane Satrapi’s memoir, creates stronger feelings of sympathy. Furthermore, as Marjane portrays the development of her life a connection is built to the reader, who begins to build feelings of care and compassion for the character whose story they have followed since she was a child. Therefore feelings of stress and sadness may arise when the story becomes more intense. I certainly was worried when Marjane “woke up in hospital” after coughing up blood (Satrapi 240). These feelings would probably not exist if the story was mere fiction. This made me wonder: why do we connect more with real stories about people that we don’t know than fictional stories about characters that we don’t know?
ReplyDeleteA made up story about a life in Iran would not have the same quality of detail as the memoir, as it is not an account of a first-hand experience. This makes me think of a piece of artwork called “The Blindfolded Man”, when I first saw this piece I was confused yet interested to find out the truth behind it. I learnt that it was a depiction of a young boy who was blindfolded and kidnapped during the Palestinian Intifada, which created a much deeper feelings about the artwork and also helped me to understand it better. This exemplifies that we often find the context of a real life situation more emotionally connecting than a fictional story, which forces the question: to what extent do our emotions tie into our understanding?
#1
DeleteHey Jenna, I think you bring up a very good point about how we tend to feel more emotional for the people that we know to be real rather than a fictional character someone may have just made up. I personally felt really proud of Marjane when she talked back to the nuns on page 177 and crude comments such as this one really make the story come to life. This note that real-life stories are more interesting makes me think of how at the beginning of movies like Apollo 13 and Hotel Rwanda, the directors will often add a note that the movie is 'based on a true story' so that the events apply directly to events that took place in the past and the audience pays closer attention to the details.
Delete- Rudransh Dikshit
Jenna,
DeleteI appreciate your in-depth explanation of how the story as a first-person narrative connects more to its readers, as well as your TOK-esque questions. I also agree that the reality of the tragedies in the story is more strongly and emotionally instilled in the reader because of the more personal approach Satrapi took to writing it. I think we connect more with real stories rather than fictional ones because as people, we have this sort of innate tendency to build relationships and interact with one another. Satrapi accomplishes this by illustrating her life, not some made up tale, and through that she is able to break the barrier between the protagonist and the audience. I wonder which, if any, of the elements of the plot are made up or fabricated.
- Courtney Chen
DeleteLisette Hotz, Answering Question #!: What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
ReplyDeleteIf you could write your own memoir, what would you write it about?
What other components do you think that a memoir offers that a fictional story does not?
I think that this book being written as a memoir makes it infinitely more valuable than a fictional story. A story written as realistic fiction is usually constructed out of generalizations about the experiences of a group of people, but this book gives a microscopic, zoomed in, crystal clear experience of an individual girl. A fictional story would give us an impersonal overview of what it was like to experience the Iranian revolution, like viewing waves roll across a beach full of sand. But thanks to the fact that Marjane Satrapi was willing to share her simultaneously tragic and beautiful story we are able to understand what its like for one grain of sand to be caught in a wave. Little events and stories throughout Marji's life give us a puzzle pieces that eventually become a complete understanding of the social, political, and personal context of the revolution. One story from Marji's childhood is especially valuable in understanding Iranian social structure. One night Marji's maid Mehri gets found out for pretending that she was Marji's sister when in fact she the family's lowly maid. Marji's dad tried to explain the situation the best that he could: "You must understand that their love was impossible...because in this country you must stay within your own social class," (Satrapi 37). Although this is just one seemingly minute experience, it is very applicable to what the majority of people in Iran were experiencing at the time. This is similar to how on the cover of a magazine you may see a random person, like the victim of a natural disaster or a political refugee, who's personal story allows you to understand the essence of what is being experienced by people in the event being covered.
Dhannya John
DeleteHi Lisette,
i agree with your statement of how the book "Perespolis" is more valuable due to being written as a memoir compared to a fictional story. Not only can we see through the lense of someone who lived through the revolution but we also get the perspective of someone who was influenced in the western culture and went through the Iranian Revolution. The words and book itself is valuable in the aspects of personal criticism, however, it isn't reliable in the content itself since the book and drawings were done by one person. As we talked in ToK, the Mandela Effect can play into effect and can lead to false memories. However something that can be trusted is how she felt during the Revolution which is prevelant throughout the book.
You say that a memoir is infinitely more valuable than a fictional story, but have you considered that some aspects of a society can better be expressed of characters of symbolize rather than a realistic character that has attributes past ceterus paribus that might affect the message of the story? For example, let's say there is a society like Iran and you want to write a book about how the women of Iran are like, how the butchers in Iran are like and how the authors of Iran are. It would be difficult for you to find a legitimate human being who is a woman, butcher and author living in Iran. But through fictional story, you may create a fictional character based on real characters which could allow you to actually portray the message you want.
DeleteRudransh Dikshit
ReplyDeleteQuestion 1: While reading, it was fascinating to note that the novel was a memoir rather than a fictional story about the Islamic revolution in Iran because Satrapi retells the story as it played out in real life with all of the intricacies. Some of the details found in page 150, such as the note that Marjane’s grandmother had round breasts which she took care of with ice-water, as well as the monologue from her grandmother about ‘jerks,’ would most likely not be found in the writing of a fictional account of the revolutionary period. Small details that only Marjane Satrapi herself could remember really characterize the graphic novel as a memoir rather than just another fictional story. The memoir-aspect of the novel also intrigues me because we get to see Marjane’s transformation from a stubborn teenage girl under the protection of her family to a drug dealer that would go on to get kicked out of the many places she stays at while in Vienna for her undergraduate studies. The second panel of page 151 shows Marjane telling her mirror-self that “[she] will always be true to [herself]. ” Moments of self-reflection like this one allow the audience to get a better idea of how Marjane views the world around her and gives the audience clues to her state of mind. Another instance like this one appears on page 245, where Marjane looks at herself in the mirror yet another time, but now she is a completely different person as she prepares to go back to Iran. At this point in the book, Marjane has been struggling with addiction, homelessness, and loneliness and her expression in the mirror shows this stress. Furthermore, the woman looking at herself is speechless as well. This might be a signal towards her guilt for not staying true to herself as she had promised earlier in the novel in a similar position. This flashback to a prior time reminds me of the scene where Sally gives us backstory for the city of Radiator Springs in the movie Cars, as Lightning McQueen looks at the modern day interstate in the distance and compares it to the currently-empty road that once cut through the town. The modern highway is devoid of the ‘life’ of the past and the hustle and bustle associated with the old Route 66, much like how Marjane is devoid of ‘life’ in her second time looking at herself in the mirror. After reading the novel for the first time, I didn’t stop to think about the use of a mirror nor the fact that it repeated itself before Marji left for Vienna and as she was just about to come back. This being said, what were some details of the story that you may have overlooked during your first read-through?
Hi Rudransh, this is Sneha. I appreciated your mentioning of the details that may have been lost in a traditional textbook-esque retelling of Satrapi's story. In a fictional story, the little vignettes regarding Satrapi's grandmother may have been forgone in favour of an anecdote of a heroic act by a prominent figure of the Irani Revolution. Do you find that simply Marjane's perspective of the revolution is sufficient for this book, or would you have preferred that a greater diversity of perspectives had been included in the memoir?
DeleteAs you mentioned, there were many small details that I did not pay much heed to initially. The most prominent of these in my view were the ways in which Marjane interacted with other children and how she spent her time. These details allowed us as the readers to truly observe the coming of age of Marjane, not just by enduring tragedy, but even by common, relatable experiences such as learning how to interact with others socially. These unique details make the book that much more human, allowing Marjane to communicate her message much more effectively. Do you think that this credibility and humanity came at the cost of more advanced or intricate literary devices? If so, do you believe that Marjane made the correct decision by including these intricacies by leaving out other intricacies?
DeleteHeba Ahmed- Question 2
ReplyDeleteSatrapi does seem to use it this way because she faces a lot of hardship in her biography (for example, losing her uncle, leaving her parents, witnessing her friend who is paralyzed from the waist down, surviving by herself in a foreign country where she was scorned for being Iranian and not knowing the language to name a few.) In the situation on pg 97, Marjane and her mother are using humor to distract Marjane’s mom’s friend and her two sons from the horrors they have faced and how low they have fallen from their original position. In this situation, despite only having beans to eat, they use childish humor ( ‘Well...Farts!” (Satrapi, 96)) to dissociate themselves from the fact that they might run out of food rations very soon. In order to cope, she tries to coat the situation in a better light and tries to see the silver lining of the situation. The biggest instance of humor that stood out to me was the story of the man who was patched together by a surgeon who clearly did not know anatomy, since it is not humor that is common to people. I myself read the joke twice and still found it a little morbid, but for people who have understood war and experienced it, this is something that becomes part of their daily lives and affects them directly, and in order to cope with this, they simply try to laugh it off. This leads me to the question, To what extent is it acceptable to laugh at a situation that would otherwise elicit a response of horror? To what extent is dark humor of a situation only funny to a person who has witnessed or has similar past experiences as the person making the joke?
Dhannya John
DeleteHi Heba!
To answer your first question and possibly your second question, I believe that intution and reason plays a role in knowing when to laugh or even telling a joke in an acceptable situation. An interesting fact that i'll use to prove my point is that the word "triggered" was orginally used by survivors. They use the word to express the feeling of some outside stimuli forcing the survivor to re-experience their traumatic experience. I'm pretty sure you heard this word in context many times at school, with your friends, etc when they use the word that expresses their emotion about an event that upseted them or the amount of homework is too much and it's frustrating. As more people started to use the word to describe minior incidents, it led to the effect of people making a joke out of the word.
Using this word in different audiences, for an example your friends may be acceptable and they know you mean no harm with your comment but in front of people who were sexually or physically abused may not find your joke amusing. Which is why I believe that reasoning and intution comes to play to know when to joke about a certain situation or to be real with the person you're having a joke with. Knowing who you are talking to helps with keeping the converstation afloat and potentially avoiding making fun of someone's else experience that was traumatic to them.
Yue Taira, Question 1: “Based on a true story”
ReplyDeleteAs a result of this book being written as a memoir, there is a sense of reality that makes the story more vivid and close to the reader. This can be seen in a more general sense as well, as, at least personally, when a movie or book is “based on a true story,” it has the effect of making the story more real, and applicable to the real world and my life. When reading or watching these texts, I often catch myself being amazed at the fact that the events in the story occurred in real life, and pondering whether or not it could have happened to me as well. This automatic application that occurs of a story onto the reader’s life is, in other words, enhanced, when the story is based on the rendering of the author’s own life, rather than a fictional story. More specific to Persepolis, the fact that she wrote her book on events in her own life contributes to this. Satrapi has a unique experience with the revolution, as does everyone else, and by conveying messages from her own experience, she is able to do it with meticulous detail and extreme genuinity, which she probably would not have been able to if she were to be making up a fictional story of someone else during the time. For example, she is able to quote people directly from her life, which adds to the vividness and realness of the story. She recalls when a classmate recited a letter to her father, who had died in the revolution, and when Marji tried to console her, said, “I wish he were alive and in jail rather than dead and a hero” (Satrapi 86). Satrapi says that those were her “exact words” to her. This, to me, is part of the memoir that Satrapi is trying to convey, and the degree to which it is real and occurred in her life makes it even more real to me. Therefore, to what extent do other’s experience resonate with us and to what extent does this help to understand the story of others? How does this have an effect on the world in general? Does it create a more harmonious and less ignorant world?
Dhannya John Question 1
ReplyDelete“Persepolis” is written and drawn by one person (Satrapi), therefore the portrayal of events are not filtered and not verified by another person, which creates the issue of accuracy of the events that took place. As a reader, I already knew that the book “Persepolis” is an autobiography and from the first time I skimmed through the pages, I couldn’t take the book seriously due to how it’s a comic book. However the events that place during the Iranian Revolution is unmistakably real in the sense that it affected many people. Marjane was also affected just like the common Iranian people, wrote how the events took place in her own eyes and based off of that she wrote a book that was dependent on her memories, which can be seen in the book as she discussed the events of what went down, for an example her statement of “..and so went the revolution in my country..” (pg 10), uses personal pronouns to claim what went down in her memory. As we discussed in Tok, memory is not reliable way of knowing. This can be justified by the Mandela effect, which is the phenomenon of collective false memory in that what was claimed to be true in one’s eyes is actually false in what actually happened. This brings up the question of “to what extent is Persepolis true for the common Irian people?’ Although Marjane used memory to write her book, her emotions in what she felt was what was important to me as I was reading. Through her personal feelings and opinions that was input in the book I was able to connect and believed her story to be true than fictional. Her strong feelings about keeping one’s identity is very prevalent throughout the book.
Teja Devanaboyina, #1, The Significance of Persepolis as a Memoir
ReplyDeleteThe biggest difference for me is that the story events and instances in the novel became a lot more real to me knowing that the book was a memoir/ rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life instead of a fictional story about life in Iran. By more real I mean that I am better able to imagine it happening in real life because all of the depictions in the story have actually happened to Marjane Satrapi. The fact that this book is a memoir helped me understand more abstract concepts such as Marji’s relationship with god. For example when Marji tells god “I want to be a prophet, but they mustn't know.” (Satrapi 9) It would be a lot harder for me to understand this relationship with a fictional character, but knowing that a real person felt that she could speak to god as a child, it helps me understand the extent of her relationship with god. Does our perception of reality versus illusion change the way we understand what is happening to another person? Furthermore when Moshen was found dead with “his head under water” (Satrapi 65), the entire situation seemed to make my feel more sympathetic toward Marji knowing that this truly happened to her. Are readers more likely to feel more emotional knowing that the occurances in a novel affected a real person instead of fictional character. Contrary to the way I felt about Moshen’s death in the novel the Handmaid’s tale when June lost her family i didn’t feel the same level of sadness knowing that the loss of her family was completely fictional.
I like your response. I agree with you. The book was also more interesting to me because I knew it was based on an actual story. To what extent do you think the story needs to be realistic to retain that same level of "interest". So for example, let's say Marjane was a real person but her story was fake. Or maybe Marjane and her story was true, but the actual characters and their personalities were fake. Would you still consider this interesting? Does a story need to be 100% realistic and factual, and is this always better than a story that has any degree of fiction?
Delete1. Ruben Mikaelyan
ReplyDelete1. What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
Knowing that the book is a memoir grasps more of my attention than if the book would to be a fictional story. The reason being is that the representation is correlated directly to the actual history of mankind. In the lens of analyzing how life was in Iran during the time of when the book was written, it is better to read a real memoir rather than a fictional story. This is because, since the setting in reference of time was not that long ago, we have the access to literature that is real and not fictional. Similarly, since the book is a memoir and not a fictional story, Marjane is writing it from memory. If the story was imaginary, it would have less credibility because in general, people value knowledge from memory higher than knowledge from imagination. Her memoir gives the reader a realistic interpretation of life in Iran. The fact that everything she talks about it actually happened, it makes the reader more open to emotion as the story holds more weight. Also, since it is memory and not imagination, the reader is not left to guess how accurate the representation is (to some extent). There is something special about a true story memoir as the events that occur in the novel make the reader more interested and in awe as these things could have actually existed in the world. For example, when Marjane almost dies on the street, “My cough became continues, until I spit out blood” (Satrapi 240), it really made me feel emotion for her as she was on her last string of life.
Question: If this novel by someone else about Marjane Satrapi's life in a biography, would it change the credibility of the novel?
DeleteIn response to Ruben, I think that a biography written by someone else wouldn't necessarily make the novel any less credible. Given the amount of editing that author's do with their own lives to create a well flowing narrative, less emphasis placed on events that the authors themselves view as unimportant to the story structure. I feel a biography would be most credible given a collective writing about someone else's life, rather than just one author with a provincial viewpoint.
ReplyDelete3. Amish Dara
ReplyDeleteHow are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
The personal stories of individual citizens and the history of the nation are deeply intertwined. The individual stories of all these citizens are what the history of the nation is comprised of. History relies on the personal stories of individual citizens to show the impacts that certain events had on humans. While the history of a nation predominantly encompasses major events over time and the causes and effects of these, the individual stories of citizens show a unique human perspective of these events and how it has affected their life. When all these stories of citizens are aggregated, the large scale picture which is history unfolds.. In essence, the history of a nation displays the large picture which is reliant on the individual stories of all the citizens of the nation. This can be seen in numerous examples in Persepolis in that Satrapi's unique perspective is just one viewpoint of the Iranian revolution and its effects on people. When taken into account with all the other people's perspectives then it will be history. For example when Satrapi says "I believe the leader was chosen by god" (Satrapi 25), it's just one perspective but its common among the Iranian people in that numerous people thought this so it will be a part of history. This causes me to wonder about the relationship between human viewpoints and history . How many people have to share a thought on something for it to be considered an effect in history? What is the mechanism for utilizing human viewpoints for history?
Sudeep Reddy
ReplyDelete3. How are the personal stories of individual citizens related to the history of their nation?
The events that happen during a nation’s history directly affect the lives of the individual citizens since they are the ones that form their nation. We can see that after big events happen in a nation’s history, individual citizens’ lives change dramatically change as well. This is best seen through the islamic revolution during 1979. This is a monumental moment for the nation of Iran as many of their policies and even their form of government change. As a moment in the country’s history, this moment is probably one of the biggest in modern times for Iran. Shortly after the revolution and change of the government we see that the people’s lives dramatically change. Every citizen’s stories provide a unique perspective how the nation’s changes affect the people. Many people can expect to see the people of Iran to adopt more traditional values after the revolution, which many do. This, however, is only one perspective as some people resisted the changes like Marjane Satrapi. In Marjane’s situation she is one of the people that resists the changes that the rest of the country is experiencing. She has to see the norms of her country change and must decide whether she should follow in those changes or keep her western ideals. Using our understanding of personal knowledge versus shared knowledge can help us to see why different perspectives make a nation’s history. The combined thinking of the people, like the revolution of 1979, allows for them to change the nation’s history. In this example most of the people felt like western culture was taking over traditional Iranian ideals and this shared knowledge made the people revolt creating a monumental event in the nation’s history.
I agree with your point on shared and personal knowledge. Personal knowledge indeed does present different perspectives which people can consider. A group of people who share the same personal knowledge can come to know more through shared knowledge. Most of Marjane's personal knowledge has been influenced by the shared knowledge between her and her parents. This influences her beliefs and this is seen even the book, as she undermines Iranian conservatism and promotes her belief of liberalism. This liberalism was not present in young Marjane but many of her peers as well, and this shared knowledge was what led to Marjane's own little history book, her graphic novel.
DeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
DeleteRithvik Gunda- Reply #2
DeleteI strongly agree with what you said as it goes to show the impact that an individual can have on an entire society. Time and time again revolutions and movements have been ignited by the thoughts and personal knowledge of a single citizen. And these movements have gone on to affect history and the way that we view societal norms today. However, I do also feel compelled to say that I believe much of the shared knowledge is based off of several perspectives of individuals and personal knowledge of many. I believe that both of the history of a nation and what an individual may feel or know are interdependent on each other and are constantly having an impact on the other.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteSneha Korlakunta
ReplyDelete1. What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
Knowing that the events in this novel truly took place makes it far more realistic for me. As I didn’t have much knowledge of the particulars of the Iranian Revolution before reading the novel, I was learning about the major events through the lens of a girl who had lived through that time. In the same way that Anne Frank’s perspective of the persecution of the Jews was invaluable to understanding how the common person felt while experiencing those horrors, Satrapi’s novel brings light to the people who lived through that time. Most memoirs focus on soldiers or active participants in the war, but this book allowed for the young child’s thoughts to surface from the depths of history. On a related note, the novel itself would have been different if it had been a fictional story. Satrapi doesn’t paint herself in a particularly flattering light. At a certain point in her life, she "wanted to forget everything, to make [her] past disappear […]", and she avoided any news and contact with her friends and family back in Iran (Satrapi 196). Overall, the novel details the path of a coward who eventually faced her fears and returned to the place she had once tried to banish from her thoughts. Had it been a work of fiction, it is more likely to have covered the life of an impassioned Irani revolutionary whose devotion to their country never wavered in face of opposition. In this way, the emotional value of the story of a woman who succumbed to fear, whose humanity makes her take ill-advised courses of action several times over, makes this novel more compelling to me than any heroic tale of fiction. Would you prefer to read this story if it had been about a hero of the revolution, rather than a regular girl who hid from her past until she could no longer avoid it?
1) Alec Xu - What difference does it make to your reading that this book is a memoir, a rendering of Marjane Satrapi’s own life, rather than a fictional story about life in Iran?
ReplyDeleteUnderstanding that Persepolis is in fact a memoir rather than merely a fictional story enhances the reader's experience adding a layer of connection a fictional book can only hope for. Rather than learning about the events of Iran through a fictional character or even worse, a history textbook, the events that occurred within the book all have depth and emotion to them. Detailing the intricate details and the decisions she had to make, Marji's story ultimately allows the audience to connect and sympathize with the women of Iran. Also, when considering the events of the book alone, we are invited to someone else's live that we, teenagers in the United States, would never have experienced. As I considered and researched her actual life and how these events related made the book so much more engaging. Each individual has their own story to tell the world and understanding the background of the author made the book that much more relatable to me. Specifically, when I look at her relationship with her parents, I can look back at her real life events to see what influenced her to write such event. There is significance to everything she depicts in the book. There is intention which is important to me as a reader. Though everything may not be 100% accurate in the book, the events shown have meaning to her. Not only is she trying to tell a story about the upbringing of a young women in a repressive society, but more importantly, she is trying to tell a story, she is trying to start a movement in a time period in which women's rights were still being questioned. There is so much more to tell in this graphic novel than a fictional story could ever. If this book was fictional with the same plot, story line, characters, everything., would it still be a book worth reading or would it be monotonous in nature?
I agree with you. Teenagers in American have a much less chaotic life than Marijane in Iran and this really helps us to start considering new perspectives. What we once considered as something only related to Iran, something we didn't need to deal with was brought to as a memoir and opened our eyes. I think this book would be worth reading even if it was fictional, however, the events would not be as accurate and the book would not be given much depth. However, just like Things Fall Apart, a fictional story which is based off Nigerian history, the graphic novel could be dissected and studied in depth, but the same emotions wouldn't reach us the same way it would if it was a memoir.
DeleteSolomon Mathew #1
ReplyDeleteI would not take the book as seriously if it was fictional because it would mean that some details would be flawed and the overall intention of the book was to undermine Islamic extremism and present why liberation creates opportunity for the main character. However, since the book was a memoir for Satrapi’s own life, the book must be taken into much more consideration because the book heavily relies on context of the author’s life and this context heavily influences the viewpoint presented in the graphic novel. In a fiction, there would a small influence of context and a greater influence of imagination. However, Satrapi seeks not for the reader to imagine, but to for the reader to consider and dissect her emotions and how they were produced as a result of major events in her life. Also, since this was a memoir, it evoked much emotion in me. I was depressed when Uncle Anoosh was executed and horrified when little boys were given keys so that they would naively go fight in the Iraq-Iran War. “They told the boys that if they went to war and were lucky enough to die, this key would get them into heaven” (Satrapi 97). This was very frightening to me, if I was in the same situation, I know that I would have been naive enough to accept the key to enter into heaven. This also reminds me that in the Crusades, the Pope promised forgiveness of sins to all soldiers who fought and died in the war (I believe this to be true since I am a Catholic. It seems everything depends on how we were raised). Knowing that this book is a memoir helps to consider more deeply the context surrounding the events and emotions presented in the book and thus helps the reader gain more from reading the book. It also leads me to ask: How is Things Fall Apart different from this book? While it was fictional and a little inaccurate, did it affect me as much as Persepolis did? Was I able to take into consideration more the context of TFA or Persepolis?
Karvi (1)
ReplyDeletePerhaps the main difference between a memoir and a historical fiction novel is that a historical fiction story is born out of ones imagination whereas a memoir is born out of ones memory and reason. A historical fiction novel usually contains some time of a streamlined story line. A memoir, since it is often based upon the author's memories, and often times memories can get mixed up in ones brain, which often leads to memoirs have much less structure, much like north peoples' lives. As a result, in some ways, Perspepolis became a little difficult to follow. I think that it's interesting how perhaps this memoir style of writing is also used in Handmaid's Tale. I think that it's interesting how both stories gave an extremly personified view of our main characters in otherwise extremely harsh conditions. I believe that a lot of times, historical fiction authors fail to give some sort of personal reflection or personality growth to their because the overall novel has to follow some sort of a streamlined story. Both Handmaid's Tale and Persepolis, since they were both written in the "memoir" style, they followed the life of an individual with no real direction as to why they were doing what they were doing. As a result, both protagonists were self-analytical and a majority of both novels was dedicated towards the main characters reflecting on themselves. For example, during Satrapi's time in Europe, Satrapi mentions that "before learning to urinate like a man, [she] needed to learn to become a liberated and emancipated woman" (Satrapi 175). In the overall scheme of things, this particular section of the novel was not highly significant in an objective sense, like it would normally be in a historical novel. It was more so Satrapi herself recollecting otherwise insignificant details of her life and reflecting upon. I guess a question that we can ask ourselves is to what extent could historical fiction novels and memoirs be considered the same.
Saige C (1)
ReplyDeleteAs Marjane Satrapi stated, "If people are given the chance to experience life in more than one country, they will hate it a little less." I believe this response summarizes her authorial intent in creating a memoir rather than a fictional novel. Many readers of Persepolis, such as myself, have not had the opportunity to live outside their current country, more or less be exposed to a revolution By accounting her own memories and sharing this knowledge with readers, she is allowing them the opportunity to follow and grow through foreign experiences that are not even their own. I was not only entertained throughout the duration of the book but also better informed about Iran and its revolution once I had completed it. I found this to be true for many others as well seeing as the book received great reviews by people around the world. I recall when reading the novel that my memories of the plot and characters alone were much more vibrant and dramatic. This is likely because I perceived the memories as realistic rather than fictional, causing me to emotionally attach to the events that took place in the same ways Marji did. It is an entirely different to read a novel filled with real content because it forces you to anticipate what the narrator will do and question what you would do in the same situation. Moreover you understand that the actions of the narrator are followed by real consequences. For example, when Uncle Anoosh dies many readers felt a strong sensation of sadness, hopelessness, and frustration much as Marji did. This displays the effectiveness of her writing and complementing illustrations. Along with some of my fellow students I compared the dystopian/themes and writing in Persepolis to that of The Handmaid's Tale. While both novels conveyed a somewhat similar message I found Persepolis to be much more engaging. Because I knew every detail of Marji's experience was truthful and significant, I focused much more whereas with The Handmaid's Tale, some details felt subconsciously unbelievable or unimportant seeing as the book was fiction. Although both novels discussed foreign places, the writing of Persepolis felt more genuine and inclusive especially when Satrapi uses personal pronouns like, "We found ourselves veiled and separated from our friends" (Satrapi 7). Rather than just describing the event, the author includes us in the event, really making us feel a part of the revolution rather than just outsiders looking in. I wonder had there been no illustrations to enhance the memoir writing, if it would have been any less effective for the audience.
#3The personal stories of individual citizens relate to the history of the nation as those individuals contribute to the history. Most of history is told by the majority of the people- the people in charge. The stories of the common people are never usually heard. In this novel, we can get a glimpse into how Marjane lived her life, and how it had affected her. The history of a country is always going to be part of someone, especially the revolution in Iran. The surroundings around us shape us into who we are. Reading this book, we do not only get factual information about Iran, but also how it impacted the lives of those that lived there.
ReplyDeleteI do agree with what you said because at the end of the day the only way to make history is for a group of people to make it. No matter how big or how small that group may be. There are a plethora of examples in US history alone to back up this claim. Rosa Parks and Martin Luther King Jr are only a few of the most influential figures in the Civil Rights movement. In the case of Rosa Parks, President Obama, among many others, credit her’ “singular act of disobedience” with launching a civil rights movement that lasts to this day. “Rosa Parks tells us there’s always something we can do,” he said during a 2013 ceremony. “She tells us that we all have responsibilities, to ourselves and to one another.” This goes to show that a single person's emotion and reason play a large impact in the way history plays out in any nation.
DeleteRithvik Gunda- Question Number 3
ReplyDeletePerhaps one of the most defining characteristics about each nation is the people that reside in it. And however cheesy or cliche that might be, it is true. To add on to this I think it is also fair to say that these two “separate’ components: the individual citizens and the history of a nation are codependent on each other especially in cases where there is radical change occuring. Many times it only takes a small flame to fuel a revolution, and that flame usually only starts with a couple hundred people, and maybe even smaller. These couple hundred people all have their own individual lives with their own individual experiences, and memories which all have an impact on their mark in their nation. For example, let’s take one of the ways of knowing in ToK: Emotion- perhaps one of the most influential tools when determining the fate of a revolution. Emotion is the key to the start and end of every war. You can have all the reason in the world to start a war, but if the individuals partaking in that war don’t have the emotions necessary to fight that war then there isn’t going to be one. It is as plain and simple as that. Besides the start or end of a country, a war or revolution are pretty much some of the most prominent aspects of a country’s history and that goes to show that the individual citizens of each nation have everything to do with how the history of their country plays out.
Evan Dobbs Q3: A nation is a people. Technically, a nation is simply a group of people, and when these people organize into a sovereign state, or country, that is largely exclusive to their nation then they create a nation-state. Since a nation is comprised only of a group of people with a common cultural identity, the stories of individual citizens are therefore not only related to the national history, but are in fact the most important part of the national history. However, this statement assumes a completely homogeneous culture; that is to say, that there are no dissidents or outcasts in this particular society, something that is necessarily impossible. This raises the question: to what extent are the personal stories of individuals that significantly differ from the rest of their nation related to the history of their nation? To what extent are people that do not identify or agree with their nation’s cultural values still a part of that nation? Marjane presents her own life as an example of this situation, stating “I was distancing myself from my culture, betraying my parents and my origins.” (Satrapi 196) However, she then goes on to proclaim “I am Iranian and I am proud of it!” (Satrapi 200) This presents a possible answer to the previous question, or at least Marjane’s answer: even if she does not fit her culture exactly, even if she feels oppressed by her people, she still feels a sense of national pride, for both what her people have done in their history and for what she knows them to be capable of doing, and so she still seeks to be and truly believes herself to be Iranian. Marjane’s story, when considered in its entirety, is exceptional, but far from unique. There are always outcasts in any nation, and it can be assumed that many share Marjane’s opinion or some other opinion that they are still a part of their nation. Thus, their stories and unique opinions are indispensable to the development of their nations’ cultures and histories.
ReplyDeleteFawaz Syed | Question 3 | A Person to a Nation is like a Window to a Home.
ReplyDeleteSince a nation's history is made of up of the history of many, many people, examining the history of a single person is in a way like understanding a part of a nation's history. One metaphor I would use to describe the history of a nation is that is like a house. This house has many rooms and in every room it has many windows. The rooms could represent time periods or different locations of the nation. Every window into this house would symbolize the personal stories of an individual in the nation. If a person on the outside were to peak into a window, they will get some idea of what is inside a certain room, and each room gives some idea of what is inside the house. At the same time, the window does not show everything inside the room, and the room does not indicate everything that is in the house. Also, the more windows that we look through, the greater understanding we get of the house overall. This metaphor perfectly applies to the question. When looking at an individual's personal stories, we understand that those personal stories are influenced by. and at the same time influence, a nation's history. However, that does not mean that the personal stories make up the entire nation's history, but rather give a glimpse as to what is going on. In one popular movie in Hollywood and Bollywood called Slumdog Millionaire, a poor Indian man is excused of cheating because he is able to answer many historical questions about India correctly, but the movie explains the journey the man has gone through to learn the answers over time through personal experiences. While the man has not experienced all of India's history, nor is India's history made up of this man's personal stories, the man is still able to know the parts of India's history that he has experienced and that he has been a part of. Marjane Satrapi's "Persepolis" also uses the personal stories of herself, named Marji, to show a window into the history of Iran. Satrapi explained that her dad "took photos every day. It was forbidden," in order to explain the government's strict control of after the Iran Revolution (Satrapi 25). This statement and the graphics explain give the audience a picture of the nation's history from Marji's perspective, but again, it is not the entire history of the country, just a glimpse of it. In another chapter, Satrapi explains one of her experiences during the Iran-Iraq War, when Iraq was bombing Tehran, "[they] turned the basement into a shelter. Every time the siren rang out, everyone would run downstairs..." (Satrapi 403), as another peak into the nation's history. This makes me question, how much can we rely on Satrapi's account of her life as a means to explain the history of Iran? Is her experience enough for use to understand what happened in Iran? Why would it be helpful to us to explore more about Iran's history, and not just rely on the book?