I always enjoyed the first half of Persepolis. Told from Satrapi's perspective, it was a very relatable story about a young child who was swept up by the world events around her, and tried to rebel in very normal, child-like ways. It was very relatable in that abstract sense, even if most of us have not been through a violent revolution. (and even more violent subsequent war with a neighboring state)
The second half of Persepolis was much more difficult for me, and I never know how to feel about it. I think above all else Satrapi deserves a lot of credit for describing herself realistically rather than trying to paint herself as a good person. (not that she was a bad person, but that she didn't shy away from parts of the story that show her in a poor light) I have a lot of respect for her honesty in the second half of the story, however her time in exile in Europe seemed to be one of self-indulgence, meandering, and minor self-destruction. All of which are understandable for someone who has been through such a traumatic turn of events, however it was a bit sad that the young, rebellious child that was so likable did not seem to survive the conflict.
The graphic novel was very good, showing what Iran must have felt like to iranians before the revolution, and the sadness at having lost that way of life. I highly recommend reading it.
> Born Nov. 22, 1969, in Rasht, Iran, and grew up in Tehran. Sent to live in Austria at 14 during the Iran-Iraq war. Returned to Iran after her high school years and attended art school in Tehran.
> Left Iran for Europe again at 24 and continued her art studies in Strasbourg, France.
> Now lives in Paris as a French citizen. Since publishing "Persepolis," has not been back to Iran.
There were two large exile groups subsequent to the Iranian revolution: France and Albania. MEK has a large presence in both. I don't know enough of the history to say whether France was chosen because there was _already_ an affinity or not, but interestingly "merci" is one of the common ways to say "thank you" in Persian.
France was historically very interested in the Near and Middle East, though colonially somewhat less successful than the UK; Napoleon sailed to Egypt in 1799, and later the French Republic protected Lebanese and Syrian Christians, up to some point in history. People from the Levant still like to study in France (incl. Nassim Nicholas Taleb). Hence, France is considered a strong and culturally developed country in the region.
And unlike the UK and US, they had no historic bad blood with Iran (Mossadegh et al.)
Did you ever notice you almost never read anything good about Iran?
This isn't a fringe conspiracy. There's substantial documentation and well-sourced evidence - verifiable institutional actors with control over media outlets, public figures, and politicians -pointing to a systematic, decades-long negative framing of Iran. 70+ years, traceable to the CIA/MI6 coup of 1953 that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests.
The pattern is consistent: nuclear weapons, terrorists, bad regime, and so on. Iran has genuine human rights problems that deserve scrutiny. But so do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt - US allies that receive a tiny fraction of the negative coverage Iran has received.
The asymmetry is the tell.
A quote from Marjane:
"The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you.
And our governments are very much the same."
Marjane opposed the Shah.
Marjane opposed the theocratic regime.
Marjane opposed what the West had done/was doing to Iran. Repeatedly, consistently.
I don't know what she would have said about this current war, I'm safely assuming she would almost certainly have opposed it. However I guess she would have been criticising both the Iranian government's conduct and the Western aggression driving it.
To me, that's a mark of someone who was actually telling the truth.
RIP
EDIT:
Marjane became inconvenient to both sides - this is what happens in our world when you don't uncritically and simplistically stick to one side bad or one side good, instead of using your brain to find the flaws, the hypocrisies, in both sides. This world has more than one "bad guy", and people really don't like hearing that.
Persepolis made her unwelcome in Iran for obvious reasons - she depicted the Islamic Republic honestly, including the repression, the executions, the hypocrisy of the ruling class. But she also became uncomfortable for Western audiences who wanted a clean "Iran bad, West good" narrative, because she didn't deliver that.
And with no apologies to the downvoters, neither will I.
>Did you ever notice you almost never read anything good about Iran?
You can read plenty of good about Iran if you read something other than geopolitical news. It's a very interesting country with an incredibly interesting history and language. The news is a pretty poor source for much of anything except for "events are happening" or "politicians have an agenda in [area]" -- I don't mean to belittle those. Both of those matter, but really no one should consider the news to provide thorough treatment for any large topic.
The Shah's regime? (50's to 70's)installed by the CIA/MI6 regime change, with SAVAK secret police (funded and trained by CIA), an organization that according to Wikipedia "became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents" responsible for well documented systematic and brutal deaths of hundreds, or possibly thousands, of the Shah's opponents over many decades? Is that not aggressive?
See my other comment, people find it difficult to critically think about Iran - it's really not as simple as "Shah good, theocracy bad".
Agreed, and there really is nothing positive to say about the modern-day Iranian government. The Persian culture has not been fully stamped out, though, and I think there is a lot of good there even if proper regime change may not be realistic.
I believe there is a qualitative difference between the governing systems in the west and a place where there are seven official allowed haircuts for men, aside from other things.
I believe there is a qualitative difference between the governing systems in a country that tries to regulate personal appearances, and one that would shift it's military to the other side of the planet to bomb and murder Iranian school children and civilians en-masse for no particular reason.
I also believe that your claim of seven "official allowed" haircuts is bs, as with almost everything I ever read about Iran.
Source: I see that Tehrani men have the same variety of haircuts and facial hair styles as in any other city on the planet.
> and one that would shift it's military to the other side of the planet to bomb and murder Iranian school children and civilians en-masse for no particular reason.
It didn't send its military for that reason, if that helps.
I always enjoyed the first half of Persepolis. Told from Satrapi's perspective, it was a very relatable story about a young child who was swept up by the world events around her, and tried to rebel in very normal, child-like ways. It was very relatable in that abstract sense, even if most of us have not been through a violent revolution. (and even more violent subsequent war with a neighboring state)
The second half of Persepolis was much more difficult for me, and I never know how to feel about it. I think above all else Satrapi deserves a lot of credit for describing herself realistically rather than trying to paint herself as a good person. (not that she was a bad person, but that she didn't shy away from parts of the story that show her in a poor light) I have a lot of respect for her honesty in the second half of the story, however her time in exile in Europe seemed to be one of self-indulgence, meandering, and minor self-destruction. All of which are understandable for someone who has been through such a traumatic turn of events, however it was a bit sad that the young, rebellious child that was so likable did not seem to survive the conflict.
The graphic novel was very good, showing what Iran must have felt like to iranians before the revolution, and the sadness at having lost that way of life. I highly recommend reading it.
The movie was really beautifully done and I've wanted to read the book itself. Rest in peace.
The book is beautiful too, I recommend it.
What's the connection with France?
Even Khomeini was in exile in France until the shah was deposed.
> Born Nov. 22, 1969, in Rasht, Iran, and grew up in Tehran. Sent to live in Austria at 14 during the Iran-Iraq war. Returned to Iran after her high school years and attended art school in Tehran.
> Left Iran for Europe again at 24 and continued her art studies in Strasbourg, France.
> Now lives in Paris as a French citizen. Since publishing "Persepolis," has not been back to Iran.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/0...
There were two large exile groups subsequent to the Iranian revolution: France and Albania. MEK has a large presence in both. I don't know enough of the history to say whether France was chosen because there was _already_ an affinity or not, but interestingly "merci" is one of the common ways to say "thank you" in Persian.
That she's French-Iranian?
It says so right in the title so I may have misunderstood your question.
France was historically very interested in the Near and Middle East, though colonially somewhat less successful than the UK; Napoleon sailed to Egypt in 1799, and later the French Republic protected Lebanese and Syrian Christians, up to some point in history. People from the Levant still like to study in France (incl. Nassim Nicholas Taleb). Hence, France is considered a strong and culturally developed country in the region.
And unlike the UK and US, they had no historic bad blood with Iran (Mossadegh et al.)
A more recent influence came from the Sykes-Picot Agreement [1].
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement
And French is still language of educated class in some places in Levant, esp. Liban.
When I lived in Tehran in the late '70s people said "merci" to express thanks.
They still do.
Did you ever notice you almost never read anything good about Iran?
This isn't a fringe conspiracy. There's substantial documentation and well-sourced evidence - verifiable institutional actors with control over media outlets, public figures, and politicians -pointing to a systematic, decades-long negative framing of Iran. 70+ years, traceable to the CIA/MI6 coup of 1953 that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests.
The pattern is consistent: nuclear weapons, terrorists, bad regime, and so on. Iran has genuine human rights problems that deserve scrutiny. But so do Saudi Arabia, the UAE, and Egypt - US allies that receive a tiny fraction of the negative coverage Iran has received.
The asymmetry is the tell.
A quote from Marjane:
"The world is not divided between East and West. You are American, I am Iranian, we don't know each other, but we talk together and we understand each other perfectly. The difference between you and your government is much bigger than the difference between you and me. And the difference between me and my government is much bigger than the difference between me and you.
And our governments are very much the same."
Marjane opposed the Shah.
Marjane opposed the theocratic regime.
Marjane opposed what the West had done/was doing to Iran. Repeatedly, consistently.
I don't know what she would have said about this current war, I'm safely assuming she would almost certainly have opposed it. However I guess she would have been criticising both the Iranian government's conduct and the Western aggression driving it.
To me, that's a mark of someone who was actually telling the truth.
RIP
EDIT:
Marjane became inconvenient to both sides - this is what happens in our world when you don't uncritically and simplistically stick to one side bad or one side good, instead of using your brain to find the flaws, the hypocrisies, in both sides. This world has more than one "bad guy", and people really don't like hearing that.
Persepolis made her unwelcome in Iran for obvious reasons - she depicted the Islamic Republic honestly, including the repression, the executions, the hypocrisy of the ruling class. But she also became uncomfortable for Western audiences who wanted a clean "Iran bad, West good" narrative, because she didn't deliver that.
And with no apologies to the downvoters, neither will I.
>Did you ever notice you almost never read anything good about Iran?
You can read plenty of good about Iran if you read something other than geopolitical news. It's a very interesting country with an incredibly interesting history and language. The news is a pretty poor source for much of anything except for "events are happening" or "politicians have an agenda in [area]" -- I don't mean to belittle those. Both of those matter, but really no one should consider the news to provide thorough treatment for any large topic.
I think this is talking about the hyper-oppressive, aggressive government of modern-day Iran, and not how it was pre-Islamic rule.
The Shah's regime? (50's to 70's)installed by the CIA/MI6 regime change, with SAVAK secret police (funded and trained by CIA), an organization that according to Wikipedia "became notorious for its extensive surveillance, repression, and torture of political dissidents" responsible for well documented systematic and brutal deaths of hundreds, or possibly thousands, of the Shah's opponents over many decades? Is that not aggressive?
See my other comment, people find it difficult to critically think about Iran - it's really not as simple as "Shah good, theocracy bad".
Agreed, and there really is nothing positive to say about the modern-day Iranian government. The Persian culture has not been fully stamped out, though, and I think there is a lot of good there even if proper regime change may not be realistic.
I have spent half of the last decade or so on the ground in Iran. You're right the "news" is a very poor source for much of anything about Iran.
I'm part of a small forum that has a very world-wide audience.
It's always a joy to talk shop with a guy in England, a guy in Iran, and a guy in Poland in the same thread.
There have been fairly recent descriptions of the kinds of Iranian architecture that provide passive cooling in hot weather.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mirrors_of_the_Unseen
> Mirrors of the Unseen: Journeys in Iran (2006) is a travel book written by British travel writer Jason Elliot.
And a fascinating history of mathematics as well.
I believe there is a qualitative difference between the governing systems in the west and a place where there are seven official allowed haircuts for men, aside from other things.
I believe there is a qualitative difference between the governing systems in a country that tries to regulate personal appearances, and one that would shift it's military to the other side of the planet to bomb and murder Iranian school children and civilians en-masse for no particular reason.
I also believe that your claim of seven "official allowed" haircuts is bs, as with almost everything I ever read about Iran.
Source: I see that Tehrani men have the same variety of haircuts and facial hair styles as in any other city on the planet.
> and one that would shift it's military to the other side of the planet to bomb and murder Iranian school children and civilians en-masse for no particular reason.
It didn't send its military for that reason, if that helps.