Marjane Satrapi’s “Persepolis” is very difficult to read. After reading it, I felt quite perplexed; I spent a great deal of my time staring at a seemingly never-ending reading and didn’t much from it. This is where Hillary Chute comes in. “The Texture of Retracing In Marjane Satrapi’s Prespolis” is essentially a review of the novel. Persepolis was a very daring narrative for a Satrapi to write at that time because graphic novels where only given recognition when written by men. Satrapi combines bleak visual aids, and the prospect of a child in a harrowing time and place. The novel tells of widespread changes and of terrifying experiences she had as a child. Occurrences of mass murdering such as bombings took place all around her. These acts of evil were also brought upon her on a personal level. She writes of her uncle being taken for execution. Before he was killed, he was permitted to see one person; he wished to speak to Marjane. At this point, the novel became personal to me as well. When reading material like this you begin to think about what you would do. How would you conduct yourself if your family were being executed? I try in any way I can to relate and to feel the anguish felt by Satrapi but most of us will never know what something that horrifying would really be like.
2 comments:
I personally found the Persepolis graphic novel very easy to understand and very enlightening, but the Hillary Chute article totally threw me off. I agree with you description of the Persepolis cartoon and find your depiction of the story to be dead on. The tragedy young Marjane Satrapi experienced is left well exhibited through her artwork. She is both a clever and innovative graphic artist and I also find it daring for her to create a graphic novel of he encounters when typically graphic novels had only been recognized when created by men.
In response to your comment on my blog:
I think your comment didn't really address what I said about Chute's arguments. "In a sense, you opened my eyes to the novel as one of feminism." If you read Chute's article, you would've known that already. My point of contention was that Chute was using an ideological slant to support her theory. "You and I, like everyone else, found the article to be a key part of understanding the novel." Actually I didn't find much insight from Chute's article. Thanks for commenting though!
Post a Comment