Why do we read? This is a very broad, and quite possibly loaded question, but I feel the need to ask it. I'm currently in a clinical placement in which I'm teaching 2nd grade students that it's cool to read, that reading is fun, that you really need to use this someday. This is a message that I will continue to spout as I pursue my teaching career, but I fear that I don't have a firm purpose for reading myself.
This isn't to say that I don't love reading, that I don't treasure each moment that I get to myself in a book. However, when books like Beasts of No Nation come up, I find myself a little nauseated, a lot angry, and a wee bit unsure of why I continue to flip the pages. And why, one may ask? Because this book is gruesome in it's content and child-like in its delivery. I don't want to think of children splitting another human's head open with a machette...I'd rather see them orderly in my classroom, eagerly (or, at least compliantly) opening up their next treasure to read.
Yet, I continue to flip the pages. Why? Not because it's assigned, because I have been in the boat of BS-ing my way through reading assignments successfully before. With this book, I could just resort to the generic "wow, look how violent he is!" ploy. Not because I'm enjoying it. The only setting I can deal with blood in is donating it and I am scared of both weapons and the people who wield them. I'm drawn to this book, to almost every book, even if the content makes me uncomfortable.
Due to the recent personal happenings that are occurring in my life as of late, there is nothing I desire more than to have a REAL conversation with someone and make that kind of connection. However, everyone around me seems to be stuck in "life's good" mode and unwilling to leave that to deal with my need. My books, Beasts of No Nation included, at least allow me to have a conversation, a complex interaction between me and the author with the characters as middle men. While the conversation I"m looking for would probably be best had in person, people don't want to have it. So, I am forced to be content to participate in the thought experiments of authors like Iweala about death, dying, responsiblity, and youth.
Will people ever be able to have a conversation anymore? Though idealist I am, I am starting to lose hope in this. Even now, I who want the conversation have so many distractions at my disposal – music on , computer and AIM ready, cell phone at attention, and a movie waiting for me after this blog (another text I can interact with). So, though my 2nd graders won’t understand my reasoning and even middle and high school students would struggle with the idea, this is why I read. To interact on a deeper level that the world seems afraid to share in.
So, after my movie, I’ll curl up in bed, open up Beasts of No Nation, and find out what Iweala wants to say in response to my confused thoughts next.
Happy Reading…
Thursday, November 20, 2008
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Persepolis...
Author's note: This has been an off-week for me. Like seemingly everything else in my life right now, this blog entry is disorganized and potentially incoherent. My apologies.
Graphic novels are an interesting genre because one not only has to read the text itself, but also the visual images that connect with them. The visuals add another dimension to the text as well as make the reading of the novel more approachable.
Why did Satrapi write this novel? To inform the public of the experience of the marginalized Iranian? To release her story from inside herself? To pay homage to her family and their experiences? I cannot answer this question. But, I'd like the approach the first question of whether Satrapi is able to inform people of the experience of the marginalized Iranian.
Satrapi is different from many in a few ways. For the sake of the thought experiement, I'd like to compare her adolescent experience and some of her decisions to that of my own. Satrapi grew up in a two parent home that had an involved extended family. I grew up in a single parent household with the marginal presence of an extended family. Satrapi's family was able to afford to have a maid come in and clean. A maid would not have been a luxery even thought of for my family. When the situation gets bad, Satrapi's parents are able to have her leave the country to continue her education. In addition, when the situation in Europe gets bad, Satrapi's family can afford to bring her back home. Though adolescents has the potential of sucking for all young people (myself included), leaving the USA was never an option. Grin and bear it was my message. My family took a very Germanic approach...adolescence and its embarassments are character building. Go get some character.
Granted, the political situations in the United States and Iran are really different. I have been fortunate enough to have never had war on my home soil, which Satrapi experienced as a child. However, given my family circumstances versus Satrapi's, if my family had been in Iran, which one of us would have been able to tell our story...Satrapi or myself? Satrapi would have won out.
Satrapi's experience is a memoir. A reflection on her own life. While I don't think she pretends to tell the story of all Iranians during the Islamic Revolution, the real danger can come in when a Western audience like ourselves project Satrapi's story onto every Iranian out there. Satrapi's socioeconomic status allowed her the opportunities to leave and tell her story. I can't help but think about the many young men who recieved plastic keys to heaven if they only fought in the war and died a marytr. This was a reality that, had Satrapi been a boy, would never have had to worry about because her family had the means to look outward. This memoir, while informative and comic, does not and cannot tell the story of the Iranian people as a whole though. We must keep that in mind when reading so we don't pigeonhole the Iranian people.
Graphic novels are an interesting genre because one not only has to read the text itself, but also the visual images that connect with them. The visuals add another dimension to the text as well as make the reading of the novel more approachable.
Why did Satrapi write this novel? To inform the public of the experience of the marginalized Iranian? To release her story from inside herself? To pay homage to her family and their experiences? I cannot answer this question. But, I'd like the approach the first question of whether Satrapi is able to inform people of the experience of the marginalized Iranian.
Satrapi is different from many in a few ways. For the sake of the thought experiement, I'd like to compare her adolescent experience and some of her decisions to that of my own. Satrapi grew up in a two parent home that had an involved extended family. I grew up in a single parent household with the marginal presence of an extended family. Satrapi's family was able to afford to have a maid come in and clean. A maid would not have been a luxery even thought of for my family. When the situation gets bad, Satrapi's parents are able to have her leave the country to continue her education. In addition, when the situation in Europe gets bad, Satrapi's family can afford to bring her back home. Though adolescents has the potential of sucking for all young people (myself included), leaving the USA was never an option. Grin and bear it was my message. My family took a very Germanic approach...adolescence and its embarassments are character building. Go get some character.
Granted, the political situations in the United States and Iran are really different. I have been fortunate enough to have never had war on my home soil, which Satrapi experienced as a child. However, given my family circumstances versus Satrapi's, if my family had been in Iran, which one of us would have been able to tell our story...Satrapi or myself? Satrapi would have won out.
Satrapi's experience is a memoir. A reflection on her own life. While I don't think she pretends to tell the story of all Iranians during the Islamic Revolution, the real danger can come in when a Western audience like ourselves project Satrapi's story onto every Iranian out there. Satrapi's socioeconomic status allowed her the opportunities to leave and tell her story. I can't help but think about the many young men who recieved plastic keys to heaven if they only fought in the war and died a marytr. This was a reality that, had Satrapi been a boy, would never have had to worry about because her family had the means to look outward. This memoir, while informative and comic, does not and cannot tell the story of the Iranian people as a whole though. We must keep that in mind when reading so we don't pigeonhole the Iranian people.
Thursday, November 6, 2008
One Hundred Years: A Closure
Before starting on my blog for the week, I just want to say that the amount of material that this book can give one to think about and discuss could, quite seriously, take an entire semester. I'm not even joking. If this book is to be done in the future, I would spend longer with it, just to be sure that a class attempts to do it justice...both with making sure the plot is understood by all and by going into some of the MANY ideas that Garcia Marquez brings up.
Now, to give the text some consideration. Last time we were given a handout on the theorist Frantz Fanon. Fanon, a Marxist, discusses Nationalism as an essential tool, but potentially dangerous to the identities of downtrodden nations. "While viewing nationalism as a necessayr and important tool, he warns that it threatens to force emerging African nations into molds provided by their European predecessors...[new nations] will be ruled by a postcolonial burgeoisie trained by Europenas to approach problems in characterictically European ways". I see this text as applicable to many things we discussed in class.
Garcia Marquez works to fight against colonizing powers of Colombia. He also works to fight against the structure and corruption of the Roman Catholic church. However, he grew up in an atmosphere and environment in which both colonizing powers and the Roman Catholic church played an undeniable influence on his development. It's funny in how, in trying to fight against these powers, he actually uses their structures in his text. While he fights against Catholicism, Garcia Marquez's structure of One Hundred Years resembles the Bible. While he works against the colonizing ideas in his text, it is not the colonizers that are anhiliated but the people native to the area. Also, I have to wonder about the audience of this text. Was he looking to reach the people native to Colombia, or did he want this text to reach out to the colonizing powers? Either way, there is a difference in how the text is read by taking into consideration the audience.
This Fanon handout also called to the "intellecutals" to be sure to set up an authentic culture for oppressed nations. However, I would have to call into question the ability of these "intellecutals" to set up an authentic culture after having been bred in Western tradition. Just look at Garcia Marquez...though he is denouncing many things, he turns to Western (or authoritiative) structures to organize himself. Perhaps the Spivak handout should be brought up...no one, not even intellecutals, can set up an authentic culture once Western influences have come in.
But maybe something kind of cool can come out of a hybrid culutre...not necessarily authentic to the before Western influence, but cool nonetheless. Just look at One Hundred Years...while not without its Western influences, it still maintains a unique story (not to mention a Nobel Prize Winning Story...) with a power all of its own.
Now, to give the text some consideration. Last time we were given a handout on the theorist Frantz Fanon. Fanon, a Marxist, discusses Nationalism as an essential tool, but potentially dangerous to the identities of downtrodden nations. "While viewing nationalism as a necessayr and important tool, he warns that it threatens to force emerging African nations into molds provided by their European predecessors...[new nations] will be ruled by a postcolonial burgeoisie trained by Europenas to approach problems in characterictically European ways". I see this text as applicable to many things we discussed in class.
Garcia Marquez works to fight against colonizing powers of Colombia. He also works to fight against the structure and corruption of the Roman Catholic church. However, he grew up in an atmosphere and environment in which both colonizing powers and the Roman Catholic church played an undeniable influence on his development. It's funny in how, in trying to fight against these powers, he actually uses their structures in his text. While he fights against Catholicism, Garcia Marquez's structure of One Hundred Years resembles the Bible. While he works against the colonizing ideas in his text, it is not the colonizers that are anhiliated but the people native to the area. Also, I have to wonder about the audience of this text. Was he looking to reach the people native to Colombia, or did he want this text to reach out to the colonizing powers? Either way, there is a difference in how the text is read by taking into consideration the audience.
This Fanon handout also called to the "intellecutals" to be sure to set up an authentic culture for oppressed nations. However, I would have to call into question the ability of these "intellecutals" to set up an authentic culture after having been bred in Western tradition. Just look at Garcia Marquez...though he is denouncing many things, he turns to Western (or authoritiative) structures to organize himself. Perhaps the Spivak handout should be brought up...no one, not even intellecutals, can set up an authentic culture once Western influences have come in.
But maybe something kind of cool can come out of a hybrid culutre...not necessarily authentic to the before Western influence, but cool nonetheless. Just look at One Hundred Years...while not without its Western influences, it still maintains a unique story (not to mention a Nobel Prize Winning Story...) with a power all of its own.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
