...
Show More
I think this is will be more response than review. Satrapi's Persepolis fulfills its purpose as a memoir, but I will tell you right from the start, that it is indeed overhyped, particularly if you have read the rave critical reviews. Perhaps, since the field of graphic novels as memoirs is relatively new, a work like this could be called ground-breaking. Persepolis as a memoir is an interesting read. I say this only as a result of having read Part Two of this book, n The Story of a Returnn. If I had read n The Story of a Childhoodn alone, I probably would not have liked this book at all.
As a memoir, her account of her childhood is biased politically. I'm speaking of Iranian politics and social affairs -even history- rather than any foreign policy. Satrapi would like to paint herself as an educated, superior specimen of progressive thought, but to be frank, one can embody all of her views in two words: westernism and nationalism. She worships "punk" and calls her family "avant-garde." She considers herself the very spirit of Iranian society, the last bastion of reason in her country, but she goes to a French school and adopts Western, dress and idols. She does not seem very avant-garde to me. She seems to be the typical Eastern child who envies the Western one. I questioned at times whether she could truly be proud of her heritage-- or simply what she thought to be her heritage. I didn't see that adopting European principles or dress was any more or less admirable than adopting Arab ones. Even when she reads, she reads only foreign philosophers. Her patriotism seems a shell.
This is precisely why I was skeptical-- because any book praised by a mass of American critics generally affirms American values, American superiority (the rest of the world is backwards) and/or American-approved values. Such a work will generally portray a one-sided view of the culture in question, i.e. the approved view, as this one does. In fact, I'm finding there is a slew of Iranian authors jumping on the bandwagon of vilifying Iran (to an all too receptive audience) and glorifying everything Western.
In the introduction, she writes "...this old and great civilization," and I have to wonder which civilization she means since she laments that so much culture has been imposed on Iranians. What is essentially Iranian? Zoroastrianism? She doesn't strike me as Zoroastrian. Satrapi fails to consider the dynamics and nature of culture, to adopt, borrow, and grow. That is progress. Satrapi writes of Iran, it "...has been discussed mostly in connection with fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism. As an Iranian who has lived more than half my life in Iran, I know that this image is far from the truth."
In fact, Satrapi does nothing to negate this view. She simply replaces it with a new paradigm, all religious Iranians are fanatics. The rest adopt Western customs; they're civilized. This is not debunking misperceptions, it's only espousing the latest Western policy: non-religious Easterners are acceptable. She does nothing to help her people here. The book speaks only in the briefest way (a line or two) about American relations, so do not be concerned about any bias in that regard.
So if we call the first part Politics, the second part -the book is really not complete without it- is more honest. In The Story of a Return, she speaks of her experiences as an immigrant in Europe, and these strike me as less politicized and more genuine. As for her return, we know that Satrapi returned only to say goodbye. She is an expatriate in Paris, living the culture that she so worshiped as a child.
That said, as a memoir, this book is pretty interesting and does indeed describe the forces that shaped this woman. The iconic, stylized, almost childlike art cushions the narrative, so that the political content is less threatening. It's cute. And it suits the tone of the book, which is fanciful and ostensibly a protest against a black and white world (though Satrapi is a little rigid herself).
It's worth a read if you have some spare time. It was better than I expected after reading the first half, but it won't be on my Best Of list anytime soon.
As a memoir, her account of her childhood is biased politically. I'm speaking of Iranian politics and social affairs -even history- rather than any foreign policy. Satrapi would like to paint herself as an educated, superior specimen of progressive thought, but to be frank, one can embody all of her views in two words: westernism and nationalism. She worships "punk" and calls her family "avant-garde." She considers herself the very spirit of Iranian society, the last bastion of reason in her country, but she goes to a French school and adopts Western, dress and idols. She does not seem very avant-garde to me. She seems to be the typical Eastern child who envies the Western one. I questioned at times whether she could truly be proud of her heritage-- or simply what she thought to be her heritage. I didn't see that adopting European principles or dress was any more or less admirable than adopting Arab ones. Even when she reads, she reads only foreign philosophers. Her patriotism seems a shell.
This is precisely why I was skeptical-- because any book praised by a mass of American critics generally affirms American values, American superiority (the rest of the world is backwards) and/or American-approved values. Such a work will generally portray a one-sided view of the culture in question, i.e. the approved view, as this one does. In fact, I'm finding there is a slew of Iranian authors jumping on the bandwagon of vilifying Iran (to an all too receptive audience) and glorifying everything Western.
In the introduction, she writes "...this old and great civilization," and I have to wonder which civilization she means since she laments that so much culture has been imposed on Iranians. What is essentially Iranian? Zoroastrianism? She doesn't strike me as Zoroastrian. Satrapi fails to consider the dynamics and nature of culture, to adopt, borrow, and grow. That is progress. Satrapi writes of Iran, it "...has been discussed mostly in connection with fundamentalism, fanaticism, and terrorism. As an Iranian who has lived more than half my life in Iran, I know that this image is far from the truth."
In fact, Satrapi does nothing to negate this view. She simply replaces it with a new paradigm, all religious Iranians are fanatics. The rest adopt Western customs; they're civilized. This is not debunking misperceptions, it's only espousing the latest Western policy: non-religious Easterners are acceptable. She does nothing to help her people here. The book speaks only in the briefest way (a line or two) about American relations, so do not be concerned about any bias in that regard.
So if we call the first part Politics, the second part -the book is really not complete without it- is more honest. In The Story of a Return, she speaks of her experiences as an immigrant in Europe, and these strike me as less politicized and more genuine. As for her return, we know that Satrapi returned only to say goodbye. She is an expatriate in Paris, living the culture that she so worshiped as a child.
That said, as a memoir, this book is pretty interesting and does indeed describe the forces that shaped this woman. The iconic, stylized, almost childlike art cushions the narrative, so that the political content is less threatening. It's cute. And it suits the tone of the book, which is fanciful and ostensibly a protest against a black and white world (though Satrapi is a little rigid herself).
It's worth a read if you have some spare time. It was better than I expected after reading the first half, but it won't be on my Best Of list anytime soon.
