Hey ASTU 100,

Persepolis was an enormously popular topic this week, with 14 out of the 20 blogs writing directly about the graphic narrative. The connections with the book ranged from artistic style, memory, testimony, politics, and of course, global citizenship.

Let’s get cracking!

Both Jennifer and Ina chose to write about the meshing of modern politics and religion, specifically where the Niqab can fit into Canadian life. They brought up Harper, disagreeing with his anti-Niqab statements: “We do not allow people to cover their faces during citizenship ceremonies. Why would Canadians, contrary to our own values, embrace a practice at that time that is not transparent, that is not open and frankly is rooted in a culture that is anti-women. That is unacceptable to Canadians, unacceptable to Canadian women.” Both bloggers spoke about the role of the veil in modern day Canada, compared to its role in Persepolis-era Iran. Jennifer argued that banning the Niqab in Canada, was just as bad as forcing women to wear them in Iran. I, like them, share the same opinion: women should have the choice of whether or not they want to wear the Niqab. What do you think? Should women be banned from wearing the Niqab during oath-swearing ceremonies? Is this truly “anti-women” or is Harper just trying to garner a public response?

The blogs written by Rachel and Taylor referred to the impact due to the artistic choices, the style of Persepolis, and how trauma/violence is represented. In case you’ve magically forgotten, the art in Persepolis is quite plain: monochromatic, flat, and doesn’t have many details. As a class, we were under the consensus that the choices Satrapi made were on purpose, and the dense style was not a lack of drawing talent. The article The Texture of Retracing in Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis” by Hillary Chute expressed that the decision to simplify the illustrations actually created a more impactful effect on the reader.  Diego sums up that idea with the pleasant-sounding catchphrase: “Amplification through simplification.” (Thanks for the shout out, by the way!) Continuing on the topic of Persepolis’ style and trauma, Kihan’s blog took a slightly different route; she wrote about Satrapis’ abstract illustrations representing the “unspeakableness” of trauma. Kihan writes: “…Satrapi uses the graphic narrative to deconstruct the taboos surrounding the representation of the 1979 Iranian Revolution and ensuing Iran-Iraq war…” I completely agree with her. The convention of illustrations in graphic narrative is an incredibly accessible form of sharing your story. By having a genre where you can bring trauma/violence to the forefront, I think it becomes more relevant to more people’s lives. With this in mind, do you think graphic narratives are going to become more popular? How does it’s representation of history and memory compare to a novel’s representation?

Priya critiqued the eyewitness testimony vs. reality in Persepolis, in her blog. She questioned if Persepolis was truly an accurate, precise representation of what had happened in Iran during the Islamic Revolution. She wrote about “doubtful accuracy” regarding personal perspective in storywriting. She went on to say how personal memory can be changed, and therefore stories can as well. I absolutely concur: in my last blog, I wrote about this topic! (Yes, shameless self-promotion.) Cognitive psychologist Elizabeth Loftus, in her Ted Talk likened human memory to Wikipedia: “… You can go in there and change it. But so can other people.” Memory is incredibly malleable, and in no way 100% credible. Her blog and Raphael’s blog go hand-in-hand: he too doubted the complete truthfulness of the story. Raphael’s doubtfulness came from omission and the fact that we see the story solely through Satrapi’s eyes. He quotes: “History is written by the victors”, implying that authors have complete control of what goes into their stories and what is swept under the carpet. I agree with Raphael and Priya on this one… however, Satrapi does earn herself some credibility points by refusing to write a third graphic narrative. (She says: “The reason the book stops in 1994 is that I don’t live there anymore. I read an Iranian newspaper every day on the internet and my parents still live there, but that is second-hand information, you know?”) Considering the arguments these two blogs make, I think we should all take everything we read with caution. Whether it’s newspapers, watching the news, reading biographies, etc. we need to be aware that everything we read will be true only to some extent.

I am so impressed, you guys had tons of things to say. Sorry if I didn’t mention you in this recap, but I swear I read them all!

Thanks for reading + see you guys on Tuesday

-Carolina Judkowicz