identity in persepolis

Unlike other books we've read throughout the semester Persepolis focuses on the clash between beliefs, not race.  Satrapi brings her childhood perspective to life as she is shaped by war, politics, and loss.  Marji believes herself to be against the government because her parents are against the government.  Because Ramin's father was in the Savak (police of the Shah), Marji and her two friends ran at him with "nails between their fingers like American brass knuckles" (p.45).  Unfortunately, guilt by association was common in times of strife, not only during the Islamic Revolution but during the Holocaust as well.  People were identified by who they affiliated themselves with publicly.  However, the difference between public and private life could be everything or nothing.  Marji's family was relatively westernized (they did know what brass knuckles were) in the home with clothing, music, and alcohol, but outside they would follow most rules, women would cover themselves, etc.  

Unlike Ex-Colored Man or Mary Jemison, Marji is not caught between two separate identities, the forces in her life simply restrain or aid her in building her own, unique identity.  I think the cartoon/graphic aspect of the novel brings out even more of Marji's emotion and identity, while still leaving some to the reader's interpretation and imagination.  Who or what do you think had a significant influence on Marji's identity?

Sid Vicous, Punk, and Marji

Wobble, who was a close friend with Sid Vicious, said in an interview that they bonded because of their lively personalities, lower-class backgrounds, keen intelligence, and nose for trouble. They all loved music and getting drunk. More significantly, perhaps, they were outsiders.

"At school, Sid was an incorrigible attention-seeker and general nuisance [...]" said Wobble.

'"Today he's one of the chosen few who enjoy a symbolic relationship with his age: nihilistic, senseless, empty, vain, talentless, iconic. He's a gift for students of postmodern theory, who find his myriad identities, instant celebrity, self-inflicted wounds, and fascination with Nazis endlessly meaningful, but the man behind them elusive and one-dimensional."

Punk, to Marji, represents cultural freedom as well as a temporary sanctuary from the repressive environment in Iran, and loneliness in Austria. Like Sid Vicious, Marji was an outsider in Europe, troublesome and rebellious at school, and struggled for her identity. Whenever she felt repressed, lonely, or confused, Marji turns to punk rock, but she never finds the solution.

The rebellious, nihilistic, and elusive nature of punk rock, exemplified by Vicious's life, entices troubled youths like Marji. Sadly, this liberation is only temporary.

Persepolis and Lost Culture

In the other books we have read, we have discussed how a person can feel like an "other" within the culture they live in. Usually, this sense of isolation is due to differences in ethnicities and race and the attempts made to assimulate to the mainstream culture. Though race is not as much of an issue in this text, there is still a sense of being an "other." Even in her own country, amidst her neighbors and the people she grew up with, Marjane and her family never accept the culture forced upon them by the government. Thus, while the women wear the veils and the father stops wearing western clothes, the notion that they are part of the new Iranian culture is only for appearances.
This idea of being an "other" is further evident in Marjane. In her adolescence, Marjane loves wearing the western punk clothes that she feels represents her identity. Yet, this is not accepted. Like the other protagonists we have read about, Marjane's true expressions of identity are repressed because they are not accepted by the dominant culture.

Through the eyes of a child

One of the most complicated aspects of writing is the ability of the author to portray his/her emotions and views on a particular moment or situation in a manner that will allow readers to understand the author without discrediting their presentation. When writing about sensitive topics, the author must also take into account the emotions of those involved, as well as how the readers may react to the material presented. Satrapi takes a risk by choosing to tell her story in a quite unconventional form - a graphic novel. Although quite unordinary, this decision allows Satrapi to tell her story in a way that would not be possible through the use of words alone. It is the stark presence of pictures and visuals that allows Satrapi to educate the audience on both her life and history through the eyes of a child.

One can claim that it is a child’s innocence that allows him or her to believe everything and to take everything for fact; what is seen and what is heard is truth. The use of black and white and the lack of lengthy text that is found in a graphic novel add to this factor. Not only through appearance alone is Satrapi telling her story through the eyes of a child, but also in the depth of what is written. Satrapi chooses to focus on what a child would find important and outstanding during those tragic times, such as her reactions to having to wear a veil. Although the story is presented with this “child-vision”, it is successful in the sense that this format enables the reader to more easily digest such troublesome material without even realizing it. Satrapi does not lie, she merely tells history the way she experienced it, and in a way that readers will allow themselves to understand her story through the unbiased, innocent eyes of a child.

Images

In the last few books we read race was one of the main issues. The difference in skin color was the main topic in Ex-Colored Man, Brown Buffalo, Our Nig. They all explored the connection between race, identity and perception. In Persepolis, because of the black and white images, all the people seem to have the same skin color. We don't get the concept of race directly from the author, only from the people surrounding her (when Marji said she was French and the other girls laughed at her because she didn't look French). The world Marji presents to us is surreal - all the differences in appearances she mentions are beard, moustache, clothes - things we can change and choose based on our personality. She doesn't draw images, she draws personalities. I find it somewhat starnge and fascinating that the only gaphic book we've read this semester is one of the least concerened with the way people look on the outside.

Thoughts So Far

Although I enjoy both the book and the movie, there seem to be noticeable differences between the book and the movie. For me, the defining difference has been the speed of movie to that of the book. While reading the book, I was able to look and analyze (most of the for about two seconds) the frames of each page. While doing so, I was able to appreciate the techniques Satrapi uses to better leverage her book: the use of black and white to expand on certain themes of the book, the use of picture to better reflect the dispositions/moods of the character, and her use of height/dimension to communicate particular messages within each scene.

With the movie, I find myself more preoccupied by the plot and the characters than by the art of Satrapi. Of the parts of the movie that I have seen so far, I feel like some of that subtlety has been lost. Instead, had I not read the book, I would wonder 'why make the movie in the form of a cartoon in the first place?' The most distinct of the animation has to be the use of black and white, but couldn't that dichotomy between white (good?) and (black?) have been recreated fairly easily (something along the lines of Sin City I guess)? Wouldn't the use of real characters create more empathy for Satrapi from the audience? Although I haven't finished the movie, so far, I would say that Persepolis definitely lends itself to the graphic novel as opposed to the movie.

To digress, at what point in this book am I supposed to sympathize with Satrapi? Certain aspects of her personality (the obsession with becoming God and finding a "hero") was really offputting, and her life as opposed to the lives of others around her, has seemed to greatly benefit from luck.

An Image I Particularly Liked

I could not figure out a good way to post this, so please bear with me.

p. 91
The bottom left hand panel.

This is really interesting, because up until this frame you see no more than the stars, and then in this frame alone to the stars and stripes appear together. It's an interesting image in that implies American influence, even American presence, but it lacks any substantial role. In addition, the blankets are put together in such a way that it looks a bit like the flag is being ripped...or that Satrapi is pulling them back together. The flag could be seen as being disrespected (children standing on it), or as holding the highest honor (sheltering children). In short, it is a powerful image that is up for interpretation.

Any thoughts? I am all out.

Forced Transition

Late adolescent years are part of an important liminal stage in life between youth and adult. Varying factors affect the timing of this transition, including war. Instead of playing outside and hearing bedtime fantasy stories, Marjane's childhood is filled with tragic images of war and bedtime war stories. She spends her free time talking about the war and must keep her identity hidden under a veil. On page 117, Marjane declares "With this first cigarette, I kissed childhood goodbye." While this instant symbolizes her intended break from childhood, Marjane was forced at an early age to give up her youth. For the young men in this book, the forced transition is clearer as they are expected to go to war before they are technically "men".
This could explain Marji's identification with an older crowd when she arrives in Vienna. She struggles to find herself when she has missed an important stage of her life. She retreats back to her childhood home, and hopefully, she will be able to find herself amongst the familiar surroundings.

The Iranian Revolution to the Present

Perhaps the most tragic impression I have from the book is that conditions in Iran have improved only marginally since the time period of the novel (1979-1984).  Tthe country is still governed by the Shari'ah law that the revolution was founded on; the veil, among other things, is still required, dissent is still repressed.  Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Iranian president, insists on a nuclear program and the dissolution of Israel, as well as all the fundamentalist policies currently in place.

The story of Marjane Satrapi is tragic in part because the growth of Satrapi herself is paralleled by the growth of a truly independent Iranian state.  However, what becomes clear in retrospect is that while Satrapi has developed a great deal, her homeland has not.  And the Islamic fundamentalist regime looks to remain in power well into the foreseeable future.

Not your typical Sunday morning cartoon

Satrapi’s commentary on Iran’s revolutions and wars through the means of a cartoon is an interesting, but rather unnerving, mix. The cartoon form immediately makes you think of Sunday morning cartoons in the paper and lighthearted, funny skits. These feel-good thoughts, however, are not those invoked by Satrapi’s cartoons. It took me by surprise the intensity of such descriptions of tortures, deaths, and rapes that could be relayed by a cartoon. Satrapi is not overly graphic, but graphic enough; she narrates in the voice of a child listening to her parents and repeating what they say. Her childhood innocence and corresponding blunt descriptions in cartoon form leave the reader with an eerie, unsettled feeling. This mixing of childhood innocence with the horror of life in Iran at the time has a greater impact than just words alone written by an adult. We have become desensitized to news reports concerning violence in the Middle East, but the voice and pictures of a child-like narrator demand attention and open our eyes to a different emotional side of the conflict. I am a very visual person, and while the pictures were not gory or overly graphic, they gave me enough of a visual to make the situation feel real.

The section at the end of the novel on pages 145-46 concerning the fate and virginity of the young, 18-year old revolutionary thoroughly disturbed me. To be honest, Acosta was gross but didn’t bother me; this segment actually made me feel sick to my stomach. And all from a “cartoon”?

It would be remiss not to mention the moments of humanity revealed through the cartoon that Marjane has with her family. It is obvious the love her family has for each other, and their ability to still live and laugh despite everything else going on. However, this is, for example, juxtaposed immediately to a scene of bombing and seeing her friend's arm lying out of the wreckage. What do you guys think about this mix of child-like cartoons with very adult issues? Am I the only one who found it rather unsettling?

Self-Portrait, Marjane Satrapi

Acosta and Franklin

We already talked about this in class a couple of weeks ago but I think the contrast between Acosta and Franklin is worth mentioning again. As I finished the book, I found it interesting that both Franklin and Acosta were searching for their identity but in completely different ways. Franklin knew who he wanted to be and tried to impose this ideal on himself. His search was systematic and involved ignoring his bodily needs. Acosta, on the other hand, was just wandering around the country trying to find others like him. His body was the leading mechanism in his search. Franklin was leading a nation that was unified and organized as his own life. Acosta was in the bottom of a nation of different, mixed and conflicting mass of people just as the food he consumed. Franklin's autobiography was like a manual on how to liveour lives and achieve the American Dream. Acosta's autobiography was still a manual on how to achieve the American Dream but it presented a life few people would choose to live. So I was wondering - why such a huge difference? Is it because they lived in different times, or because of the difference in their social status? I think they both saw the same but decided to present it differently. Franklin wrote his 'manual' on how to be accomplished because this is what purpose he thought an autobiography should serve. Acosta wrote about what happens if Franklin's methods fail. In the end he still felt accomplished and found his identity. So I almost see the two books serving the same purpose - finding our identity and our place in society, but one is the extension of the other.

Acosta's Moment of Clarity

I wanted to jump off of what Virginia discussed about Acosta’ identity. He talk about how his life’s “single mistake has been to seek an identity with any one person or nation and with any part of history” (199). These three identities—individual, country and history—are symbolic of Acosta’s pervading struggles throughout the novel.

Individually, Acosta is insecure and stalling in life. Physically, he is a fat brown man with health problems in a skinny, white world where the prejudices are obviously stacked up against him. Internally, his quest to find out who he really is has left him restless. Acosta states how “I can make any kind of face you ask. After all, I’ve been a football player, a drunk, a preacher, a mathematician, a musician, a lawyer… and a brown buffalo” (197). His insecurities (and the vanities that accompany them) have accompanied his jumping around from job to job in life with no real purpose. Culturally, Acosta is a man split between his Mexican and American heritage. While born American, he has always been on the outside as a “wetback” or “spic.” He is “neither a Mexican or an American. I am neither a Catholic or a Protestant. I am a Chicano by ancestry and a brown buffalo by choice” (199). Instead, he classifies everyone else into their ethnicities to disassociate himself from them to attempt to find pinpoint his own identity. Historically, Acosta’s discontent with his cultural (mis)identity was resonating with other Mexican-Americans. He had tried to fit in with different jobs, by turning to drugs, and by taking a road trip to get away, but the times had not changed. While he could relate to Dylan’s music, Acosta is frustrated with the era in which he lives.

The exact moment when all of Acosta’s internal struggles collide and intertwine is the sole moment of clarity (and arguably, the climax) in the novel. By actively taking control of the Chicano revolution in L.A., Acosta finds the life-long answer to his multi-faceted identity problem. For him, it is as if a “bomb explodes in my head. Flashes of lightening. Stars in my eyes. I see it all before me” (196). He alludes to the future and to an inspiration for changing the times. His ultimate decision of identification of a brown buffalo finds a balance between his internal individual, cultural, and time crises. By fully endorsing and accepting the brown buffalo and the movement it symbolizes, Acosta finally finds himself. For the first time in the entire novel, he is not longer listless, but afire with purpose.

He's the Man

The opening lines in chapter nine struck me as being exceptionally rattling in comparison to the rest of the autobiography, despite the fact that throughout the entirety of the book Acosta constantly refers to the grotesque and scatological aspects of his life. The incredulous and unsettling fact that Acosta felt himself to be an adult at the early age of fourteen shows the reader that he certainly does believe himself to be a “Brown Buffalo”, in fact Acosta seems to be proud of this fact. Acosta seems to understand the connotations behind the label, and he also needs to the reader to understand the fact that he is a victim of American society and culture; Acosta is a victim of display, his being is placed behind a glass case for the rest of society to look down upon.
At the same time one has to realize the fact that Acosta has been exposed to what people in our society would label as a “bad” childhood filled with resentment and loneliness that consequently led to his exposure to alcohol and everything that “makes a man a man”.
The reader realizes the fact that at an early age Acosta’s emotions had been forced to become numb; his mother hits him until she finally breaks down and cries while Acosta simply looks at her smiling. As I was reading I actually could not believe the words, and pictured an extremely eerie and creepy scene involving Acosta and his mother.
I think it is important that it is in fact the patriarchal influence in his young life that pushes Acosta to become a man at such an early age. His father’s inability to guide him through life, as well as his inability to serve as a respectable figure shown through Acosta’s life as an actual adult. On a smaller note, I found it very interesting to learn about how even Acosta’s football coach taught him how to be cruel and unfair onto others. Everything in Acosta’s youth led to his uncaring and disgusting lifestyle in his adulthood.

An Interesting Article

So a couple weeks ago, I found an interesting article on the Atlantic posted here: http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200811/multiple-personalities/3. Based purely on the title, I thought that the article would be vindication of Dylan's use of multiple selves in both I'm Not There and Chronicles.

However, the more I read of the article, the more is realized that the article was about Acosta. While reading the book, I have had trouble reconciling the character in the book with the information I had know about Acosta in real life. One on hand, here is a man that a famous civil rights lawyer for the rising Mexican movement with the U.S. On the other hand, here is a man who binges drinks, does drugs, and has sex with prostitutes on an incredibly dangerous basis. Based on the article, these two personalities are not only constructs but two individuals inhabiting the same body. Throughout the book, the side of Acosta that gives in to short term impulses has simple superceded all of his other selves. Then, as soon as the side of him finds a cause that seems to be greater than himself and worth fighting for,the "moral" side of Acosta seems to come to the forefront.

Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues

"When you're lost in the rain in Juarez/ And it's Easter time too/ When your negativity fails and gravity won't pull you through/ Don't put on any airs when you're down on Rue Morgue Avenue/ They got some hungry women there/ And they'll really make a mess out of you."

That's the first verse to a Bob Dylan song called "Just Like Tom Thumb's Blues."  I thought it was particularly appropriate, given Acosta's references to Dylan, and his appreciation of Dylan, throughout the book.  That he ends up in the same situation (or at least a similar one) as Dylan's protagonist in the song warns of, I think, is highly ironic.  It actually makes me doubt the validity of Acosta's fervent claim that "the fucking book is true."  It seems as though his time in Juarez could be apocryphal; simply a representation of Acosta on his last legs, before finding a measure of salvation in the Brown Power movement.

Thoughts?

Comment on the End

In class, we have spent time analyzing the significance in the fact that Acosta calls himself "the brown buffalo." I was surprised that Acosta addressed the issue so directly in the final paragraphs of the book. It becomes clear that like the buffalo, Acosta is "the animal everyone slaughtered" (198) and "both the cowboys and the Indians are out to get him" (198).
The idea that he uses the buffalo to symbolize predation was not surprising; however, the fact that he indicates both the "cowboys" and "the Indians" are responsible was interesting. In this moment, he addresses the idea that it was not just mainstream white culture that rejected him, but also his Mexican/Indian heritage. Like Mary Jemison and others we have read about, Acosta is somewhere in between two cultures and unfortunately is not able to entirely fit into either one. His identity is "neither a Mexican nor an American...neither a catholic nor a protestant" (199). His ties to both cultures, yet neither one in particular, is ultimately what tears him apart.
It makes me wonder then who he is calling out to when he says that "brown buffalos must ban together" (199). Is he calling only for Mexican-Americans, considering that he seems against labeling himself that way? Or is he calling out to anyone who feels they have been cheated out of their identity?

How brown are we?

Now I'd better confess that I sympathize with Acosta quite a lot. Annoyingly insecure, a bit too aware of body image, trying (and often failing) to assimilate, indecisive (especially career-wise), brown (or rather, yellow-brown), compulsive thoughts (and sometimes actions), and sturdier-than-average build. (I do not throw up though, no worries.)

In class, we talk much about how Brown Buffalo is pathetic and disgusting. From these traits we make connections to contemporary American culture and think about how he embodies the unrepresented part of America. But I just want to point out that, since we're all Americans, each of us is more or less a brown buffalo as well. The book is disgusting not because we hate what Acosta says and does, but because we see parts of ourselves that we do not want to see...?

I just thought that Acosta would appreciate it if we not only expand what we get from the book into a wider social/cultural view, but also look into ourselves as an individual and see things in us that we normally avoid recognizing.

Under the Sea

If I were a buffalo, I would probably be seen most commonly roaming the plains of North America, contently munching on a bit of grass. However, The Brown Buffalo is much different from the average buffalo, never being content even after pounds of sugar and fat. However, there is another thing that seems to be untouchable to Oscar, and that is the sea: buffalo can't swim, and he seems to lack a lot of contact with the sea himself. Regardless, it seems to be the source of power in his book, and it seems to be set apart as another unattainable blessing.

Acosta's father served in the military, and thus necessarily went overseas (106). He squanders his GI loans on a bar, and thus wastes what he gained from his association with the sea (106). Similarly, Ted Casey is a seaman who gets rich dealing drugs. Even Trader JJ's has associations with the sea. Yet somehow, when Acosta goes into the airforce, he manages to return to very little with very little to show for his work. In short, he gets very little of the ever promising sea.

In short, the sea is a mirage of unattainable potential for a grounded buffalo.

Acosta On The Run

Chapter 10 of Acosta's "The Autobiography of a Brown Buffalo" starts with "I'm still on the run" (121). This idea invokes the image of the buffalo, but it is important to figure out what he is running from and to. We see when Acosta began to disassociate himself with other hispanics when he was elected as Jr. Class President and "had forgotten about being a brown buffalo". The various careers he tries can all be identified with American culture, especially the Air Force and being a lawyer. His attempt at being a lawyer is his final attempt to integrate into the American way of life, but he feels ill-suited for the job. The blood in Acosta's vomit could signify the crisis point where Acosta must decide whether to continue to assimilate (and potentially get worse) or reject the American way and find a personal link to his ancestry. Acosta is running from the American institution and trying to find his place as a Mexican by returning West.