Hello class,
As our ASTU class has delved deeper into Marjane Satrapi’s Persepolis and the analysis of Hillary Chute’s essay, it seems that Persepolis is still bringing about new avenues of discussion. I think that in itself speaks to the effectiveness of Satrapi’s powerful work. I enjoyed reading the unique perspectives of my classmates, and a couple of themes particularly stood out for me and raised some important questions.
The portrayal of violence in Persepolis, and particularly the frame on page 52 of a dismembered body, sparked controversy among my peers. Why was it drawn in this unrealistic fashion? Was this a failure of the graphic narrative style itself, in which grotesque images fall flat when put from pen to paper as suggested by Joey? Perhaps it is not due to the medium in which the story was told, but that Marji’s 10-year-old mind had no conception of this degree of violence as Naima claims? Or as Harnoor writes, does “the minimalistic and innocent take on the images [create] a more powerful effect than a realistic one ever could, as it forces readers to reach for the truth in their imagination?” The latter falls in line with the suggestions made by Hilary Chute, in that these simplistic depictions of violence are deliberate and serve as a way to point out how there needs to be a shift in the mentality that violence could ever be ordinary or tolerable.
On this point I’m reminded of U.S. President Obama’s response to the Oregon mass shooting in his recent speech. Obama demanded the same kind of reform in the acceptance of violence as Satrapi, as he called to erase the assumption that gun violence is beyond control and an inevitable part of society. He spoke of how the responses to horrific mass shootings have become routine, just as the violence presented in Persepolis. I mention this example to bring this issue closer to home, because the issue involving gun control in the U.S. can be understood and related to better than the horrific accounts of violence we’ve witnessed through Marji’s eyes.
Memory is a central topic in our ASTU class, but what about forgetting? Naima justified Marji’s personal testimony because, as she points out, forgetting has less to do with time, and more to do with the event itself. Traumatic events are seared into memory and are remembered with clarity and precision. This is especially true for childhood traumas, because it comes as an even greater shock to the system on an innocent mind. Mariana spoke on this tragedy of children being “forced to grow up and toss themselves into the abyss of the real world,“ due to the situations that surround them. The significance of this point can be felt in shockwaves through generations, as the PTSD of an individual can have wide ranging impacts.
The views presented by these classmates led me to look into the deeper relationship between trauma and memory. Memories are so powerful when they hold deep, emotional roots. But when episodes of trauma are unrelenting and become a part of daily life, do these acts of terror have the same devastating impact on an individual as isolated ones do? Does ones tolerance increase? Or is it that hopelessness becomes insurmountable, and individuals become resistant to change? My original assumption would be that something that causes us trauma would strengthen our resolve to fix it in the future, but the inaction of citizens in the U.S. to make their country safer through gun restrictions, and the continuation of violence in Iran, are two examples that lead me to think there must be more to the story. I see violence as a source for trauma, and the repetition of traumas to be an impetus for the continuation of violence. In short, these two forces cause a cycle that is difficult to break free of.
I enjoyed reading through your posts this week, and it’s made me grateful for the chance to have my interpretations challenged and improved upon by my peers in this blogging format. This open exchange of ideas is essential in adopting a broader perspective on global issues.
-Lauren Shykora