Week 1-Credibility and Point of View Azar Nafisi’s first person point of view account of the events unfolding in Tehran adds a level of intimacy and personability. Nafisi even relates tips she gave her students: “This is how you read a novel: you inhale the experience. So start breathing. I just want you to remember this” (111). The short simple sentences engage the reader and establish the author’s authority in regards to English literature. These tips directly appeal to those who want to simultaneously hone their writing and reading skills. The conversational language appeals to the “common” reader: “I chose the only way I knew to cope with problems: I went to the refrigerator, scooped up the coffee ice cream, poured some cold coffee over it…” (54). With the litany of activities, Nafisi relies heavily on pathos in order to convey the commonality between Americans and Iranians and how they both want to enjoy the “sunny trifles” of life despite potential tediousness. She balances the conversational language with scholarly diction, appealing to those advanced in English, including “obstinate”, “vagrant”, and “capricious”. The appeals to pathos, the “common reader”, and the first person point of view contribute to the author’s credibility, however, at the same time, the conversational language and the admission of the facts as “true insofar as any memory is ever truthful” limit her credibility.
Week 1-Magic Motif Nafisi develops the magical and mystical motif surrounding America and Western works of literature to depict the intangible and far-out. America eventually becomes “a never-never land” (106) created by the Islamic Revolution, establishing the distant barrier between Iran, the U.S., and the people. The magical elements reflect the desired unknowns like Yassi’s promising uncles: “They were like Peter Pan, descending every once in awhile from never-never land” (62). While these magical elements starkingly contrast with the realities in Iran, the magic echoes the optimism and hope for the future. Select Iranians and others interpret literature as this far-out fantasy of reality, unattainable to their people, typically used as a means to escape from their everyday life. These people have two sides, one in the private and one in the public sector. Even Nafisi showcases different sides of herself based on the setting: “Publicly, I was involved in what I considered to be a defense of myself as a person…” (111). In private she acts with silent defiance. These people revert to different ways of conducting themselves based on the setting and ultimately never feel completely comfortable expressing their views.
The government and the intellectuals are definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nafisi and "her girls" view these literary pieces as "harmless works of fiction" (1) whereas the government views commentary on these pieces as going against God and everything Iran holds dearly. These intellectuals consider the government's efforts monarchic like: "...for that suspended time we abdicated our responsibilities to our parents, relatives and friends, and to the Islamic Republic" (57). They feel completely at odds because either way one of the sides will criticize them. Nafisi articulates their circumstances through several either-or-fallacies and ultimately comes to the conclusion that no one will win but the government. Not only do the intellectuals feel disconnected from the government but also from each other: "The street, the hospital and its visitors were censored out of sight. We felt their presence only through the disembodied voices emanating from below" (8). The imagery of “disembodied voices” conveys the distance between the people and society as a result of the polarized situation. Everything and everyone comes into question and they must decide what to keep and what to let go.
Week 2-Intimate Diction and Imprisonment The intimate diction and the multiple facets of imprisonment contribute to the negative diction and the reflective tone. Mr. Nyazi confidently delivers his opinions on the Westernization of Iran: “What our Iman calls cultural aggression. This I would call a rape of our culture” (126). The sexual diction magnifies the extremity of the circumstances and how Iranians closely experience the fighting, group differences, and the invasion of privacy. Westerners and Iranians remain polarized and unwilling to waver on whether to accept each other’s cultural influences. These aspects keep people up at night while others around the world can not even begin to fathom these circumstances. Nafisi compares Cincinnatus’s experiences to those in Iran: “They invaded all private spaces and tried to shape every gesture, to force us to become one of them, and that in itself was another form of execution” (77). Eventually, the Iranians become so paralyzed by fear of the unknown, the future, and forced assimilation. As Nafisi repeatedly mentions, these radical groups try to work backwards in time whereas the country needs to move forward. The government and radical groups’ authority is far from welcoming and stretches to the point of mental imprisonment. Whereas physical imprisonment has an ending point, mental imprisonment prevails with potentially more side effects than physical imprisonment. This considerable mental imprisonment contributes to the bleak outlook: “This, of course, was not the point: the point was to save the university, which, like Iran, we had all had a hand in destroying” (147). The hand aspect of the body parts motif reinforces the intimacy of the circumstances and how everyone impacts the events in Iran. No one can go unscathed and the blame cannot solely be casted aside to one particular group.
Nafisi definitely emphasizes the hypocritical nature of the leaders of the radical groups and the government. She receives a letter detailing her immoral acts as she transition back into the role of university professor: "My name and address at the university is typed, but on the piece of paper there is only one line, childish, and as obscene as its message: The adulterous Nafisi should be expelled" (189). Not only does this section introduce the juxtaposition of childish and obscene, but also the ridiculousness of spending the time typing out Nafisi's name and address, but detailing the most significant aspect of the note in chicken scratch handwriting. Mr. Nahvi lectures Nafisi on "Western decadence", however, he lies about his involvement in the war and still resents Nafisi for failing him, even though he did not earn a passing grade. Whereas Nafisi tirelessly works to maintain her integrity and reputation, several of the radical group leaders expect free passes along the way. The thirst for knowledge probably comes from the privilege of education for women, whereas several leaders take it for granted and see education as a given.
The majority of the time Nafisi allows her passion to prevail over protestation of the government, which likely comes from the bleak outlook toward the future and the further polarization of people’s beliefs through social activities to the point of no return. Nafisi metaphorically refers to a stride of improvement as "...under the attacks and the desertion, it had shed its vulgar veil to reveal a decent, humane face" (207). The author associates the end of the corruption and chaos with ending the requirement to wear the veil. Nafisi's black and white, right from wrong outlook involves conciseness but also a limited perspective. She further reflects on the limitations of the circumstances with the either-or-fallacy paraphrased in Joe’s comment: “We intellectuals, more than ordinary citizens, either play scrupulously into their hands and call it constructive dialogue, or withdraw from life completely in the name of fighting the regime” (181). This clear-cut answer begs the question if one’s response has to be so polarized to the point of choosing one side or the other or if there can be an inbetween response. For instance, the magician defies social normalities and learns how to conduct himself in the private sector. I also wonder how and if Nafisi would respond differently as a male or from a different social class.
Week 3-Democracy and the Intangible Nafisi refers to freedom as "the tantalizing fruit that had always dangled over the lives of her mother and aunts, beckoning and just out of reach" (285). Freedom and Westernized principles remain the intangible in Iran. The magical motif conveyed through the “tantalizing fruit” appeals to the desire for more and discovery of the mystical outside world. Reaching for the fruit captures the essence of the restrained hope for change, but knowing that day will likely never come or at least not soon. Additionally, Nafisi imagines that lawmakers added “the right to free access to imagination” to the Bill of Rights. Imaginative thinking meshes the real and fictitious worlds together. People live through their stories and at times use their writings as coping mechanisms. The author finishes her thoughts on the addition of open access to imagination with a rhetorical question: “How else do we know that we have existed, felt, desired, hated, feared?” (339). Nafisi’s frequent incorporation of rhetorical questions provokes extensive thought and questioning of the reader’s preconceived notions and dearly held beliefs. People learn from history including cultural elements like literature. Change will only come by acknowledging the past and moving forward. Unknown, far-fetched, and banned items pique people’s interest to the point of constant curiosity because of the associated mystery and potential danger.
The government’s restrictively conservative principles force the people to fulfill their desire for creativity and expression of emotions in secret as Nafisi and “her girls” do so through the book club. Nafisi reflects on her views and interactions with the government: “What I now realize is that, ironically, the more attached I became to my class and to my students, the more detached I became from Iran” (317). Instead of these constrictive rules bringing the people to together under a repressive state, they look elsewhere for creative fulfillment in the private sector. The restrictive nature of the government pushes the people to ultimately despise the mechanism-the government-trying to maintain supreme control over them. Nafisi considers “How does the soul survive?” the essential question answered with “through love and imagination” (315). The people yearn for the past when the “elusive goal at the heart of democracy: the right to choose” (307) allowed people to more openly express their beliefs. Universally, people want what that can’t have, especially when the past fostered more of a liberal and open environment. People want the flexibility to choose what they do, what they believe, and to what extent. Instead of wearing the veil proudly as a part of the minority to reflect their conservative commitment to Islam as in the past, the government forces the women to wear the veil as a way to assert their control in one of the most apparent manners-clothing.
I agree that literature and imagination allow the women to take a step back from their everyday lives. Ultimately, the Iranian government's restrictions lead the women in their quest to find meaning in life through literature and the imaginative mind. Nafisi reveals to the magician her new book idea: "I said to him that I wanted to write a book in which I would thank the Islamic Republic for all the things it had taught me-to love Austen and James and ice cream and freedom" (338). Instead of leading them astray, the government's limitations cause the women to privately delve in and fully appreciate the "sunny trifles" of the previously unknown and mysterious. They get a taste of the "forbidden fruit" of the land and privately unleash their individuality. The government views its people through polarizations including considering women either “pure and virtuous” or “dirty and fun”. This either-or-fallacy captures the limited scope of the government’s view and how this close-mindedness leads to its downfall. The officials try to bring the people together under the repressive state, but many ultimately privately rebel in a search of the mystery and elusiveness of literature and exploring one’s creativity.
Week 1-Credibility and Point of View
ReplyDeleteAzar Nafisi’s first person point of view account of the events unfolding in Tehran adds a level of intimacy and personability. Nafisi even relates tips she gave her students: “This is how you read a novel: you inhale the experience. So start breathing. I just want you to remember this” (111). The short simple sentences engage the reader and establish the author’s authority in regards to English literature. These tips directly appeal to those who want to simultaneously hone their writing and reading skills. The conversational language appeals to the “common” reader: “I chose the only way I knew to cope with problems: I went to the refrigerator, scooped up the coffee ice cream, poured some cold coffee over it…” (54). With the litany of activities, Nafisi relies heavily on pathos in order to convey the commonality between Americans and Iranians and how they both want to enjoy the “sunny trifles” of life despite potential tediousness. She balances the conversational language with scholarly diction, appealing to those advanced in English, including “obstinate”, “vagrant”, and “capricious”. The appeals to pathos, the “common reader”, and the first person point of view contribute to the author’s credibility, however, at the same time, the conversational language and the admission of the facts as “true insofar as any memory is ever truthful” limit her credibility.
Week 1-Magic Motif
ReplyDeleteNafisi develops the magical and mystical motif surrounding America and Western works of literature to depict the intangible and far-out. America eventually becomes “a never-never land” (106) created by the Islamic Revolution, establishing the distant barrier between Iran, the U.S., and the people. The magical elements reflect the desired unknowns like Yassi’s promising uncles: “They were like Peter Pan, descending every once in awhile from never-never land” (62). While these magical elements starkingly contrast with the realities in Iran, the magic echoes the optimism and hope for the future. Select Iranians and others interpret literature as this far-out fantasy of reality, unattainable to their people, typically used as a means to escape from their everyday life. These people have two sides, one in the private and one in the public sector. Even Nafisi showcases different sides of herself based on the setting: “Publicly, I was involved in what I considered to be a defense of myself as a person…” (111). In private she acts with silent defiance. These people revert to different ways of conducting themselves based on the setting and ultimately never feel completely comfortable expressing their views.
The government and the intellectuals are definitely at opposite ends of the spectrum. Nafisi and "her girls" view these literary pieces as "harmless works of fiction" (1) whereas the government views commentary on these pieces as going against God and everything Iran holds dearly. These intellectuals consider the government's efforts monarchic like: "...for that suspended time we abdicated our responsibilities to our parents, relatives and friends, and to the Islamic Republic" (57). They feel completely at odds because either way one of the sides will criticize them. Nafisi articulates their circumstances through several either-or-fallacies and ultimately comes to the conclusion that no one will win but the government. Not only do the intellectuals feel disconnected from the government but also from each other: "The street, the hospital and its visitors were censored out of sight. We felt their presence only through the disembodied voices emanating from below" (8). The imagery of “disembodied voices” conveys the distance between the people and society as a result of the polarized situation. Everything and everyone comes into question and they must decide what to keep and what to let go.
ReplyDeleteWeek 2-Intimate Diction and Imprisonment
ReplyDeleteThe intimate diction and the multiple facets of imprisonment contribute to the negative diction and the reflective tone. Mr. Nyazi confidently delivers his opinions on the Westernization of Iran: “What our Iman calls cultural aggression. This I would call a rape of our culture” (126). The sexual diction magnifies the extremity of the circumstances and how Iranians closely experience the fighting, group differences, and the invasion of privacy. Westerners and Iranians remain polarized and unwilling to waver on whether to accept each other’s cultural influences. These aspects keep people up at night while others around the world can not even begin to fathom these circumstances. Nafisi compares Cincinnatus’s experiences to those in Iran: “They invaded all private spaces and tried to shape every gesture, to force us to become one of them, and that in itself was another form of execution” (77). Eventually, the Iranians become so paralyzed by fear of the unknown, the future, and forced assimilation. As Nafisi repeatedly mentions, these radical groups try to work backwards in time whereas the country needs to move forward. The government and radical groups’ authority is far from welcoming and stretches to the point of mental imprisonment. Whereas physical imprisonment has an ending point, mental imprisonment prevails with potentially more side effects than physical imprisonment. This considerable mental imprisonment contributes to the bleak outlook: “This, of course, was not the point: the point was to save the university, which, like Iran, we had all had a hand in destroying” (147). The hand aspect of the body parts motif reinforces the intimacy of the circumstances and how everyone impacts the events in Iran. No one can go unscathed and the blame cannot solely be casted aside to one particular group.
Nafisi definitely emphasizes the hypocritical nature of the leaders of the radical groups and the government. She receives a letter detailing her immoral acts as she transition back into the role of university professor: "My name and address at the university is typed, but on the piece of paper there is only one line, childish, and as obscene as its message: The adulterous Nafisi should be expelled" (189). Not only does this section introduce the juxtaposition of childish and obscene, but also the ridiculousness of spending the time typing out Nafisi's name and address, but detailing the most significant aspect of the note in chicken scratch handwriting. Mr. Nahvi lectures Nafisi on "Western decadence", however, he lies about his involvement in the war and still resents Nafisi for failing him, even though he did not earn a passing grade. Whereas Nafisi tirelessly works to maintain her integrity and reputation, several of the radical group leaders expect free passes along the way. The thirst for knowledge probably comes from the privilege of education for women, whereas several leaders take it for granted and see education as a given.
ReplyDeleteThe majority of the time Nafisi allows her passion to prevail over protestation of the government, which likely comes from the bleak outlook toward the future and the further polarization of people’s beliefs through social activities to the point of no return. Nafisi metaphorically refers to a stride of improvement as "...under the attacks and the desertion, it had shed its vulgar veil to reveal a decent, humane face" (207). The author associates the end of the corruption and chaos with ending the requirement to wear the veil. Nafisi's black and white, right from wrong outlook involves conciseness but also a limited perspective. She further reflects on the limitations of the circumstances with the either-or-fallacy paraphrased in Joe’s comment: “We intellectuals, more than ordinary citizens, either play scrupulously into their hands and call it constructive dialogue, or withdraw from life completely in the name of fighting the regime” (181). This clear-cut answer begs the question if one’s response has to be so polarized to the point of choosing one side or the other or if there can be an inbetween response. For instance, the magician defies social normalities and learns how to conduct himself in the private sector. I also wonder how and if Nafisi would respond differently as a male or from a different social class.
ReplyDeleteWeek 3-Democracy and the Intangible
ReplyDeleteNafisi refers to freedom as "the tantalizing fruit that had always dangled over the lives of her mother and aunts, beckoning and just out of reach" (285). Freedom and Westernized principles remain the intangible in Iran. The magical motif conveyed through the “tantalizing fruit” appeals to the desire for more and discovery of the mystical outside world. Reaching for the fruit captures the essence of the restrained hope for change, but knowing that day will likely never come or at least not soon. Additionally, Nafisi imagines that lawmakers added “the right to free access to imagination” to the Bill of Rights. Imaginative thinking meshes the real and fictitious worlds together. People live through their stories and at times use their writings as coping mechanisms. The author finishes her thoughts on the addition of open access to imagination with a rhetorical question: “How else do we know that we have existed, felt, desired, hated, feared?” (339). Nafisi’s frequent incorporation of rhetorical questions provokes extensive thought and questioning of the reader’s preconceived notions and dearly held beliefs. People learn from history including cultural elements like literature. Change will only come by acknowledging the past and moving forward. Unknown, far-fetched, and banned items pique people’s interest to the point of constant curiosity because of the associated mystery and potential danger.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe government’s restrictively conservative principles force the people to fulfill their desire for creativity and expression of emotions in secret as Nafisi and “her girls” do so through the book club. Nafisi reflects on her views and interactions with the government: “What I now realize is that, ironically, the more attached I became to my class and to my students, the more detached I became from Iran” (317). Instead of these constrictive rules bringing the people to together under a repressive state, they look elsewhere for creative fulfillment in the private sector. The restrictive nature of the government pushes the people to ultimately despise the mechanism-the government-trying to maintain supreme control over them. Nafisi considers “How does the soul survive?” the essential question answered with “through love and imagination” (315). The people yearn for the past when the “elusive goal at the heart of democracy: the right to choose” (307) allowed people to more openly express their beliefs. Universally, people want what that can’t have, especially when the past fostered more of a liberal and open environment. People want the flexibility to choose what they do, what they believe, and to what extent. Instead of wearing the veil proudly as a part of the minority to reflect their conservative commitment to Islam as in the past, the government forces the women to wear the veil as a way to assert their control in one of the most apparent manners-clothing.
ReplyDeleteI agree that literature and imagination allow the women to take a step back from their everyday lives. Ultimately, the Iranian government's restrictions lead the women in their quest to find meaning in life through literature and the imaginative mind. Nafisi reveals to the magician her new book idea: "I said to him that I wanted to write a book in which I would thank the Islamic Republic for all the things it had taught me-to love Austen and James and ice cream and freedom" (338). Instead of leading them astray, the government's limitations cause the women to privately delve in and fully appreciate the "sunny trifles" of the previously unknown and mysterious. They get a taste of the "forbidden fruit" of the land and privately unleash their individuality. The government views its people through polarizations including considering women either “pure and virtuous” or “dirty and fun”. This either-or-fallacy captures the limited scope of the government’s view and how this close-mindedness leads to its downfall. The officials try to bring the people together under the repressive state, but many ultimately privately rebel in a search of the mystery and elusiveness of literature and exploring one’s creativity.
ReplyDelete