In my ASTU class, we have been discussing the graphic memoir “Persepolis” written by Marjane Satrapi. I really, really enjoyed reading this book. I am going to use today’s post to explain what exactly I liked about Satrapi’s work, and what I obtained from those positive thoughts towards the work.
The graphic memoir fascinated me in two aspects. First, I want to point out the genius in Satrapi’s style of art. The pictures are all black and white, which, in my opinion, gives the book an authentic yet serious feel to it. Many scenes in the book demonstrate why exactly this book was written in a comic book style. For example, the big, single frame in page 71 of the book shows Marji, the main protagonist, floating in space with nothing around her, with the caption on top, “And so I was lost, without any bearings… What could be worse than that?” and on the bottom written, “It was the beginning of the war.” These words and the picture fit together so well; I am certain that there was no better way in this particular scene in understanding and feeling the emotions of the main protagonist, than imagery. I would like to talk about the connection between imagery and memory on a different date, since it is another fascinating topic worth looking into.
Another intriguing part of the book was how it made me look at history in a different way. Since the story is being told from a young girl’s perspective, the story has a highly subjective narrative to it; and yet, the book is highly informative. I learned a lot about the history of Iran, specifically about the “Islamic revolution” and the “Iran/Iraq war”. But the book does not feel like a history textbook, or any form of history document. This is because it is a memoir, the personal memory of Marjane Satrapi. What we learn in history class is a collective memory of the nation or state. In classrooms, I was always taught the so-called objective views of history, and never subjective views. However, looking back, I can no longer say that those lectures were objective. Why? Because after reading Persepolis, I started to think about objectivism and subjectivism, and came to the conclusion that objective views, when discussing history, is not very realistic. History, in my opinion, is a compilation of personal memories, such as Satrapi’s. The compilation gets generalized at the national or community level, and it becomes the “official” memory, or the history we learn in history class. What that means, is that those subjective memories, once they are compiled and generalized, suddenly become “objective”. I do not see the logic in that. I believe every historical document has subjectivity, or biases, and I do not consider that as a bad thing. What I do not appreciate, though, is that some claim to be objective when they are not. Satrapi does not pretend to be objective; everything in the book seems to have come straight from her heart. And that is something that impressed me and made me like the book even more.
I do have some criticisms for the book; but in total honesty, I do not have the time to write all of that. So for this week, this is all I am going to write about. Thank you so much for reading!
Ken Sakamoto