Hello everyone!

I hope everyone is energized from winter break and is ready to jump into the second term. Last week, we read and discussed Jonathan Safran Foer’s novel, “Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close”, which explores the narrative of a young boy named Oskar who loses his father to the 9/11 attack on the World Trade Centre. The blogs this week picked up on a variety of aspects in Foer’s narrative ranging from the raw emotions you feel when reading Oskar’s story, to the complicated layered format of the novel.

In Mariana’s blog post, “9/11: When the world stood watching”, she wrote about the emotions that I believe many of us feel when thinking about 9/11. Mariana’s imagery of the world “freezing” at the moment of the attack accurately represents the helplessness and shock that results from any horrific trauma. I think Mariana’s blog title perfectly embodies Oskar’s reaction to his father’s voicemails, as in that moment Oskar represented the paralyzing nature of fear. What can you do in a situation like that where you have absolutely no control? Well, like Oskar, and I’m sure like many real life victims and families affected by 9/11, you have no choice but to stop and watch the chaos ensue around you.

In Benny’s blog post, “Why Me?”, she compared and contrasted Oskar’s narrative with Marji’s narrative in Persepolis. Benny notices that although both protagonists are young children in the midst of confusing and horrific personal trauma, they differ in their outlooks on why they find themselves in that position. Benny says on one hand, Oskar questions “why me”, while Marji questions “why are people are acting this way?”. This difference in perspective really struck me as it reminded me of something I learned in my psychology course, where societies of different cultural contexts have different views on their roles in society. For instance, Western cultures typically strive towards the actions and progress of the individual, while Eastern cultures are more concerned with group cooperation and harmony. I agree with Benny when she points out these differences, in that in Foer’s novel, the reader is explicitly aware of who is good and bad through the lense of the narrator, while Persepolis documents the shaping and growth of Marji’s opinion through her questioning and group experiences. Similar to Benny, in Ben’s post, “The Necessity of Trauma”, he notes that Marji, Oskar, and also Naomi in “Obasan”, were all innocent children, who as a result of tragedy, are quickly forced to attain “an elevated sense of maturity”. I think this idea of a ‘forced’ coming of age is an important theme in all of our ASTU texts, and highlights the reality of the horrific damage to children around the world as a result of adult driven phenomena such as wars and terrorist attacks.

In A.J’s blog post, “New Year New Blogs”, he talked about the differences in Foer’s novel and its movie adaptation starring Tom Hanks and Sandra Bullock. Like A.J., I watched the movie and quite enjoyed it; however, thought it lacked the same dynamic and complex nature found in the novel, since it only focused on Oskar’s story. Although, I already got teary eyed with just Oskar’s story so depicting the other characters might have be too much to handle. I agree with A.J. that the intertwining and layering of narratives in the novel provides a much more interesting view as it allows you to connect different personal traumas with each other, and discover Foer’s intended deeper meaning in the novel. For instance, in Rowan’s blog, she highlighted that through the connections that Oskar makes during his search, in addition to the narratives of Oskar’s grandparents, Foer deliberately displays how “people are reunited by their shared experiences and losses”. And even though Oskar suffers numerous ‘missed connections’, his journey towards finding the significance of the key proves to be a much more important to Oskar’s narrative.

Thanks for reading and I look forward to reading your future blogs!

-Harnoor Sidhu

I encourage everyone to read Michael’s last blog post “Obasan’s future in Canada”. Michael talked about our visit to the Joy Kogawa fonds and specifically about a letter from, then Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau. Michael highlighted the surprisingly brief nature of Trudeau’s letter and expanded it to Canada’s general lack of discussion surrounding Japanese Interment. What really resonated with me was when he says the short letter misses the entire point and premise of Obasan. I agree with Michael on this, as Naomi’s transition in the novel occurs because of her willingness to break the silence after receiving the truth about her mother’s fate. Trudeau’s letters and actions did not necessarily strive to ‘break the silence’. Although the Canadian government issued a public apology and provided reparation, I believe there is room for more improvement in the acknowledgment of the atrocities that thousands of Japanese Canadians suffered through, especially in Canada’s education system. 

This blog post post reminded me of a field trip I went on in high school to a symposium, where we learned about several horrific issues that were occurring around the world during World War II, such as the use of ‘comfort women’, who were hundreds of thousands of women and girls forced into military brothels for sexual slavery in Asia. I remember explaining my shock to my social studies teacher that I had never heard of these events, emphasizing the often one-sided nature of the history that we learn at school. I agree with Michael when he says Canada should do more to include Japanese internment in an open conversation in order to “implement Joy Kogawa’s message”.

-Harnoor Sidhu

Hi everyone,

I encourage everyone to check out Jen’s blog post, “Unveling the Veil”. In her post, Jen connected Marjane Satrapi’s portrayal of the veil, or the hijab, in Persepolis, with the contemporary issues and stigma around religious head coverings in Canada. I learned a lot from Jen’s post, as she included quotes from hijab and niqab wearing Canadian citizens, as well as Stephen Harper’s claim that the veil is “rooted in a culture that is anti-woman”. She also included a comic that I think really effectively illustrated the differences in what ‘male-dominated’ culture can be interpreted as. I agree with Jen when she says that there are much bigger issues that the country should be focusing on. I think this ‘issue’ with wearing a veil has been highly dramatized. As Professor Erickson said, only one muslim woman, named Zunera Ishaq, has taken Canada’s citizenship oath with a niqab on thus far. This recent controversy is similar to tactics that we have seen in the past where political leaders try to focus the public’s attention towards a single concept or ‘enemy’, causing more important issues to be ignored and further increasing the stigma that targeted populations face. Vladimir Putin’s public discrimination of LGBTQ propaganda during the Sochi Olympics in 2014 is an example of this dramatization tactic, where the acknowledgment of this non-issue led to a spike in the nation’s homophobic violence. I think as a society we need to be aware and informed of the motivation behind the actions of our government, and then identify what our real priorities should really be.

Thanks for reading!

Harnoor

Hello readers,

First of all, I will start out by saying how much I enjoyed reading everyone’s blog this week! Each classmate’s perspective offered new and unique insight on the material we have been introduced to in the past couple of weeks. The overarching themes of the blogs this week were the analysis of Joe Sacco’s perspective in “Safe Area Gorazde”, the differences between Sacco’s visual style and Marjane Satrapi’s visual style, thoughts on Joy Kogawa’s “Obasan”, and the key terms that we explored in our group presentations.

Andrea brought up some great points on Sacco’s role as a journalist in “Safe Area Gorazde”. She says that the role of journalist is “one of high power”, as our world is becoming more and more exposed to media coverage of international events. Andrea emphasizes the difference between Sacco and other journalists in that Sacco treats the people in Gorazde as human beings, rather than faceless victims that are simply there to serve as a source of saleable material. Similarly, Mariana brings forward Sacco’s “Silly Girls” chapter to show the representation of a  more human side to the characters, therefore giving them more relatability to the audience. Mariana says Sacco portrays Gorazde’s inhabitants in their “innermost human way”, distinguishing the pain and frustration in their expressions, but also acknowledging their innate humanness and ‘silliness’. I agree with Amy’s argument when she says it is “very easy to stereotype the average person in a war”, and Sacco’s use of ‘silly’ helps accentuate the humanness of the characters, rather than simply label them as “heroes, bystanders, or the enemy”. I think Naima sums up this conversation really nicely when she says that Sacco’s portrayal of the characters in “Safe Area Gorazde” shows that they are “capable of being silly, being relatable, and being human”.

Jackson compares and contrasts Sacco’s and Satrapi’s narrative styles. He says that although there are similarities in both texts, such as the use of black and white, and the author’s own presence in the narratives, Sacco’s realism and details of horrific events has a different effect than Satrapi’s minimalism. Also, he states that by not drawing his own eyes in “Safe Area Gorazde”, Sacco “eliminates revealing his own interpretation on subjects”. Instead, it allows his interviewees tell their own story, emphasizing the fact that everyone has their own ‘truth’. In Robert’s blog, he critiques Sacco’s vivid interpretations as being “misplaced”, as much of his representations are based on what he has heard, not witnessed. Both of these analyses raises some thought-provoking question on the varying degrees of authority between Satrapi and Sacco. It also makes me ponder the quotes we were shown in class about Sacco expressing his discomfort of having his take on Gorazde serve as the public’s final and ultimate impression.

Moving on to Obasan, Devon expressed her shocking realization of the horrific events that Japanese Canadians had to face following the bombing of Pearl Harbour in 1941. Like Devon, I also found it difficult to come to terms with some of the events in the book, as I grew up in Vancouver and am familiar with so many of the landmarks present in the novel. Devon draws on the failure of the British Columbia school system to educate students about these shameful events. Ben also discusses his shock with “Obasan”‘s sensitive content and ties this discussion with Marita Sturken’s article, and how cultural memory has the ability to be “selectively used”. I agree with Ben when he states that although “Obasan” is tough to read at times, it is important to remember Canada’s historical failures to ensure that they don’t happen again.

Lauren also talked about key terms that  we explored in class such as Farhat Shahad’s “interperetive community”, and Marita Sturken’s “technologies of memory” and connects them with her own experience of commemorating Remembrance Day. For instance, Lauren states that war memorials and poppies are technologies of memories that “facilitate the process of shared memory in a public realm”. Lauren highlights the evolution of memory from an individual’s remembering to a more collective scale. I think that all of the factors and key terms we explored contribute to one’s memory which is why, like Sacco alluded to, there is no such thing as “The Real Truth”.

Overall, I really appreciate our class’ ability to synthesize the knowledge we have gained throughout out ASTU classes in order to effectively analyze the text that we read. For instance, using the various terms we have learned and applying them to “Safe Area Gorazde” and “Obasan” helps us gain a deeper understanding behind the perspectives and motives of each narrative.

Thanks for reading!

Harnoor

Robert’s blog post, “Second ASTU Post”, was a really interesting read as he compared the narratives of two individuals who both shared the experience of living through a revolution. Robert compared and contrasted Marjane Satrapi’s experience in Persepolis, with his friend’s experience of the Ukrainian revolution in 2013. I think paralleling both stories is an effective way to apply and expand the knowledge that we have attained about the Iranian revolution by relating it to a more familiar source (in this case, a friend). Although Robert explained that the two narratives differ drastically in terms of each individual’s attitudes and encounters with both revolutions, I can imagine it allowed him to more easily relate to this concept of national uprising and turmoil that may be foreign to most young Canadians. Robert also addressed a thought provoking question asking whether the fundamental core of revolutions remain the same even though individuals experiences vary. I agree with Robert when he referred to the Iranian and Ukrainian revolutions and said that, “its motives were similar but its effects are far different”. I believe that even though every revolution reaches different outcomes due to endless sociological, political, geographic, economic, and of course historic contributing factors, the similar aspects tend to be the desire and occurrence of a massive change due to a large amount of social discontentment and the extensive impact that it then has on thousands of people.

Our focus on memory and storytelling this year in ASTU applies perfectly with this concept of exposing ourselves to various different narratives and trying to make connections between them. Doing so can allow us to develop a more globalized and unbiased outlook on differing individual and collective experiences that we may come across in both our academic and personal lives. I hope you all get a chance to read Robert’s post!

-Harnoor Sidhu