Persepolis + White

What does religion seem to represent when looking at it's role within Persepolis? I began to question this pretty much as soon as I opened the book. On page six there is a picture of Persepolis as a baby, and it reads "I was born with religion." Then she proceeds to go into great detail about how she wants to be a prophet. This didn't seem like an active choice to me. It seemed more like an effect of environment. So, if it is an effect of the environment she is in (parents, etc.), and not necessarily a driving force in her life, then why would it be important for her to include this part of her childhood? I would like to suppose that really religion in Persepolis works to show her sort of developing her own identity. She is born with religion, but then on page 70 chooses to reject God. It works to develop Persepolis as an individual, and sort of guage where she is on her quest towards finding her identity.

I also wondered when listening to her interview and reading the book: what role does fear play in the development of that identity? Her interview stated the answer to this question explicitly whereas in the book it was based more on implication. In the interview on NPR she said (and I'm paraphrasing) "When you see your 13-year-old friend die you see also that you can die. Then you see also that your death does not matter. The moment your death does not matter you stop being scared." From a young age, Persepolis is confronted with death. On page 3 she is ten years old and girls on the playground are playing with their veils, one girl says, "Execution in the name of freedom," and is pretending to choke a classmate. She hears of the Rex Cinema being burned down with people still inside, and she is the last person to see her uncle before he is executed. She sees her mother try to hide her identity by dying her hair because she is afraid of being recognized. (5) At this point in the book, it seems she is simply absorbing everything around her and trying to make sense of it all. The point when her fear is most obvious is when she runs home because of the bombings. She is afraid her parents have died. She finds that her friend has died. Instead of hiding herself in fear (as she saw her mother do) she begins to speak out. She is no longer afraid. It seems that intense emotion brings about the creation of her newly forming identity. It is the sadness of losing Anoosh that causes her to denounce God, and the loss of fear from the bombing that allow her to build her new fearless, outspoken self. Really, the loss of fear is more important to the novel than the actual emotion of fear itself. It is also important that her fear does not cause her to hide the way her mother did. This is Persepolis coming into her own and responding to her environment in the way that she (not anyone else) sees fit.

Finally, I am curious as to the significance of these emotions and their relation to the history within the story. White writes that narrativization (and therefore moralization) and history are basically impossible to separate. I think that the narrativization of Persepolis happens through the emotions that in turn create Persepolis' identity. The emotions (fear, sadness, rebellion) give readers the ability to relate to Persepolis and also give Persepolis the ability to create herself. Identity, history, and narrative are all braided together to give the story of Persepolis.

Sleepwalk + White

I notice with Sleepwalk, that there is a sort of fixation with objects throughout the novel. White's article writes that authors choose what to put into a narrative, and what to leave out. So why is there a fixation on things outside the actual story within Tomine's Sleepwalk? For example, In "Echo Ave." readers are watching the wife make popcorn instead of focusing on the neighbor's wild sex, in "Lunch Break" the story is fueled by a sack lunch when really it is about Shelly's loneliness without her husband, and in "Pink Frosting" we are fixated on the cake and subsequent birthday rather than the fact that the guy is being brutally beaten in the street. In taking White's theory that the author chooses what is in the story, I assume that all of these tactics are intentional. My theory is that it is natural for people to turn away from the things that bother them and to focus on something else, a cake for instance. Tomine has chosen to employ natural human reaction within his stories. In doing so, he increases the drama and emotional pull in the reader. The events are ordinary, everyday scenarios, and the characters ordinary, everyday people, this allows for the emotional drama to play out powerfully in a relatable manner.

On the same lines, I also noticed in "Dylan and Donovan" that none of the characters make eye contact with each other. There is a sort of averted gaze prevalent through the story. Again, with White in mind, why would Tomine make this choice in his narration? The turned gaze, and distant focus throughout the story seem to alienate the characters from each other. Though they are family, and spending time together, they are not close. The way they don't make eye contact sort of shows how badly they are failing to communicate with each other and also works to heighten the sense of loneliness within the story.

Throughout Sleepwalk Tomine's characters all sort of exemplify loneliness in some form. We are shown characters that are pining away for ex-girlfriends, families that don't communicate, and a man who is alienated by some kids on the bus. The way that Tomine heightens the emotional pull by averting the reader's eyes and utilizing the gutter, and the way that he repeats this sense of perpetual loneliness throughout the stories give the book a very dramatic and sometimes deeply depressing feel. I wonder what the significance of this emotion is, and what Tomine is signifying by creating this book as his art. These questions led me to two conclusions that seem contradictory but not necessarily mutually exclusive. 1) We feel this emotion because we naturally relate to the stories of others and their hardships/frustrations. Especially when they respond in a realistic manner, like Tomine depicts them. 2)The repeated theme of loneliness and the fact that we relate to it shows how common an emotion loneliness is. The characters in the book are unified in their loneliness, as we are in our 21st century urban lives. The lives of the characters are outlandish at times, but always relatable through basic emotions.

White and V for Vendetta

I noticed in the section titled "Behind the Painted Smile" at the end of V for Vendetta, Lloyd writes that they knew there would be three books comprising the story. "The first sets up his world. The second, "This Vicious Cabaret," explores the supporting characters in greater depth and centres for the most part on Evie Hammond. The third book, tentatively titled "The Land of Do-As-You-Please," draws all of these desparate threads into what we hope will be a satisfactory climax." These three sections give readers a beginning, middle, and end and create the narrative arc that White proposes in the article we read for class. The arc is the means by which the authors are then choosing what to include and what to exclude. For example, we are not told why the war was fought but it doesn't really matter because the war does not fall into the three sections (narrative arc chosen by the authors).



I also noticed that the three sections could be loosely described as appearing in the same form that persuasive speeches/essays appear. The introduction of V also works to introduce the problem (the current government). The second section's focus on Evie then works to explain why the current government is bad (cannot live freely) and the last section poses a solution (take control of own freedom of choice). (Notice, that I am not saying the book says anarchy is the solution.) In the last section (page 187), V tells the people that they have three days of freedom. For three days they will not be watched or listened to. He tells the people of London, " 'Do what thou wilt' shall be the whole of the law."

I took these points (three persuasive sections, narrative arc, and V telling the people to Do-As-They-Please) and tried to figure what the artists were getting at. I came up with this sort of theory.... Could it mean that the authors are really just encouraging free thinking? Telling us to think, but not telling us how to think? They choose what to include (White) and that choice involves character traits that make V problematic (like his torture of Evie) and choose not to include things that would clear up the story (like whether anarchy really was the solution or whether it was a means by which to attain a solution). Since when V gives people back their freedom he tells them to simply act (not how to act as in "hey guys you're free, go bomb parliament!"), and since the authors have not made a cleam committment to anarchy as politically viable.... then are they simply providing a means for us to create our own thoughts? Are they giving us a situation full of problems and opinions so that we would try to create our own? Is that why the narrative arc stops when it does? Does this explain why they don't include another section showing whether or not anarchy solves London's problems? (If they did, it would mean they are promoting anarchy not necessarily inspiring ideas.) Is this why they took a character that is already thought of in one manner(Guy Fawkes), and created him into something else? I propose that the answer is yes. The book is created to persuade people to use their ability think freely, not tell them how to think. (This could also explain why everyone recieves different ideas/messages from the book.)

Maus and White

It seems stupid to ask, "What is the significance of history in Maus?" The question seems stupid, because the story is history. But, on the other hand, mice do not (that I know of) discriminate against each other because of race, gender or stereotypes. From what I know, mice do not have varying ideas on morality, and they do not keep track of their own histories. The balance between narration and history in Maus is key to understanding its literary importance.

In Hayden White's article that we read, he seems to go back and forth between whether or not narrating history lends it more or less significance/credibility. On page 3 he states that, "Real events should simply be; they can very well serve as the referents of a discourse, can be spoken about, but they should not pose as the subjects of a narrative." But later on page 5, he paraphrases Kant in saying that "historical analyses without narrative are blind." It is as if there is an either/or situation at stake here. I personally do not believe this is the case. I think the fact that Speigelman's Maus is given its literary importance not because it is simply a narrative, and not only because it is history, but because it is both. The fact that it is a true experience of real events, allows readers and extra layer of sentiment towards the characters. We hurt a little extra as we imagine these events happening in our families, even as we imagine some of the effects of history living on in our family. Maybe our father finds something we wrote that we never wanted him to see, and we are saddened and dismayed. Maybe he constantly judges our appearance or lifestyles but then frustrates us when he asks for our help. We are more deeply affected by the story because it is true.

We are also more affected because it is a narrative. To hear the word "Nazi" stirs up ideas in our minds, of Germany, World War II, concentration camps, swastikas. But to bring these ideas down to a personal level, another human's story, we relate. We learn how to experience history. It does not matter that his characters are mice, pigs, and cats. We get it. We know history well enough to know what happened, and the animals allow for readers to access the story differently. Instead of our already built-up mosaic of thoughts on what it would have been like to be a Jew in Germany at this time, the narration and characterization allow us to let down guards that a textbook wouldn't. History does not stop; the narration does. Therefore, narrating pieces of history does not grant all of history the same significance. Maus offers insight to one experience, in order that that experience can be better understood by a greater audience.