Adri and I were talking the other day and she mentioned some confusion as to the history of Iran. I realized as we continued our conversation that I was a bit confused myself. However, remembering that I have a resident Middle East scholar in my household, I asked Matt to give us a brief history of Iran. Now, because he hasn't had a chance to write it down, I am going to try to summarize what he told me. I will let him post a more complete history (and correct the mistakes I make) with his response.
The people of Persia, or Iran are of unique ancestry to their neighboring countries. They are not ethnically considered Arabs, nor Europeans, nor Russians, but Persians and they speak Farsi, instead of Arabic. The history of this ancient people is, of course, long and complicated. As in all countries, there are competing political strategies, philosophies, and ideas. "The Revolution" that Azar Nafisi speaks of is one that occured in 1979 when Ayotollah Khomeni took power after Reza Mohammud Shah's (son of Reza Shah, a conquering king of a generation before) abdication of the throne. There were many that desired the overthrow of this King, for as many reasons. It seems to me that the main competing factions were communists, Islamicists, and more liberal-minded revolutionaries. (By liberal, I mean secular thinkers that were mindful of democratic and representative governments). In response to my question as to how Khomeni created a consensus for power, Matt mentioned that the alliances formed between the groups were based on immediate need for power and not a few false promises. It seemed that Khomeni played lipservice to the more liberal and secular factions while creating a frenzy amongst his religious followers with more dogmatic doctrine. Of course, during his and succeeding reigns, the religious faction absolutely overpowered any other voices (by force, as we sadly learned). Most religious Iranians are Shi'ite Muslims and this frames some of the differences between Iran and Iraq (then run by Saddam Hussein, a secular Sunni Muslim).
Obviously, the revolution had drastic consequences for women. Nafisi says, "Does she (Sanaz, as she envisioned her walking the streets of Tehran) compare her own situation with her mother's when she was the same age? Is she angry that women of her mother's generatin could walk the street freely, enjoy the company of the opposite sex, join the police force, become pilots, live under laws that were among the most progressive in the world regarding women? Does she feel humiliated by the new laws, by the fact that after the revolution, the age of marriage was lowered from eighteen to nine, that stoning became once more the punishment for adultery and prostitution?"
Muslim nations have historically been able to foster a respectable amount of "progress." During the Middle Ages, muslim countries were able to advance mathematics, navigation, medicine, and much more while the West was muddled in religious domination and ignorance. Of the many tragedies of the revolution, one of saddest is to see the reversal of freedoms and rights that the persian people had previously attained. Thus, the Revolution of 1979 is a microcosm in which to study the devastating effects of fundamentalism on its religious followers and those that face the followers' consequences.
1. According to Dr. Nafisi, why is literature important?
2. Is there a connection between banality and brutality?
3. Dr. Nafisi says, "We lived in a culture that denied any merit to literary works, considering them important only when they were handmaidens to something seemingly more urgent--namely ideology." Are literary works important enough to stand on their own? Or are they important only when they suport our world view?
4. Why did she compare living in the Islamic Republic of Iran to Nabakov's "Lolita." Page 1.
5. Give us your thoughts on the following quotes:
"Every great work of aert, I would declare pompously, is a celebration, an act of insubordination against the betrayals, horrors, and infidelities of life." Page 47, Paperback
"'Whoever fights monsters,' Nietzsche had said, 'should see to it that in the process he does not become a monster. And when you look long into an abyss, the abyss also looks into you.'"
"Thus, Dr. Sloper commits the most unforgivable crime in fiction--blindness. Pity is the password, says the poet John Shade in Nabokov's 'Pale Fire.' This respect for others, empathy, lies at the heart of the novel. It is the quality that links Austen to Flaubert and James to Nabokov and Bellow. This, I believe, is how the villain in modern fiction is born: a creature without compassion, without empathy. The personalized version of good and evil usurps and individualizes the more archetypal concepts, such as courage or heroism, that shaped the epic or romance. A hero becomes one who safeguards his or her individual integrity at almost any cost." Page 224, Paperback
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
P.S. I will try to summarize comments after everyone has responded.
Thanks, Mara, for picking this book. I've been wanting to read it for a long time, and this was the perfect excuse, albeit I'm almost a month late in finishing it! :) Thanks to Matt, too, for the Iran history lesson. Once again, I'm reminded of how lucky I am to have been born in the U.S. This book has opened my eyes to so many things I've never had to worry about in my personal sphere. What a blessing!
1. I think literature was important to Dr. Nafisi for many reasons. It was her great escape. Fiction allowed her to live in another time and place (remember how she often mentioned holing herself up in her home and just reading for days on end?) Also, fiction allows you to evaluate your life, relationships, world view, etc., in comparison with other perspectives. I thought it was interesting how tightly the girls in Dr. Nafisi's class held on to the characters, personalities and circumstances in the English literature they read, because I don't think, myself, I get that attached or relate so well to fictional people and places. But, I think, again, it was their only real way of escaping, so maybe for them, literature was even more important (as it would be to someone on a deserted island or in prison....their only connection to the world outside). For me, I think literature is important because it allows you to learn from others mistakes and triumphs, allows you to travel to unknown places and experience things you never could do otherwise. It is a door to unknown worlds and literature allows us to expand our knowledge and world view. Nonfiction, of course, can accomplish this task, but fiction as well (thank goodness, since it is so much more fun to read) can really expand views, open eyes, and invite us into places and situations we wouldn’t be privy to in our regular lives.
3. I think all literature, by and large, is a handmaiden to SOMEONE'S ideology----whether or not it is controversial or political. I don't think any great author writes a piece of literature with no end in mind; no message to tell. And, even if they claim that is the case, it is really impossible to write something without communicating your own perspectives and views to the reader. I think, of course, it is wrong for a government to decide what is considered worthy to read, based on their own ideology, but all of us, in the end, have to make those decisions for ourselves and our families as we choose what literature will be invited into our homes. In other words, I don't think something should be deemed worthy or important simply because it is a work of literature (art), but because it has merit in its message or lesson.
Post a Comment