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.
I’ve always wondered how much of the second part is truth and how much is fiction. That a teenage girl from Iran, living by herself in Central Europe with essentially no local connections, would become a drug dealer to her classmates, and on top of that somehow be let off the hook for it by the headmaster, stretches credibility a little bit.
It seems like you're disappointed it wasn't a modern "noble savage" myth, that it was realistic instead of a fairy tale about a person coming from a bad place to a good place and being happy, wholesome, and free.
This kind of mythology is a pretty big problem in the western world right now as is the kneejerk reaction to it.
That’s a rather uncharitable take on what the poster you’re responding to wrote.
I read Persepolis a few years ago, and it’s hard not to come away with a similar impression. The first part often does resemble a fairy tale of sorts, while the second part is a pretty dark story of teenage alienation. The contrast is jarring, and it goes well beyond “duh nobody’s perfect”.
Both parts are excellent in their own right, and quite unlike any other book I’ve read, but there is indeed something strange going on in part 2. Most readers will remember this, I think.
One of the most surprising things about the movie was how precisely it captured the artistic intent of the book. A serious achievement by those animators.
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.
"Marjane Satrapi died of sadness a little over a year after the death of Mattias Ripa, her husband and the love of her life"
The simple humanity in this candid description brought a small tear to my eyes. I'd say that the classical approach to this is a dry, clinical description of a depression stage, or a description of a how and not a why. Very welcomed in the age of AI slop!
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.
>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.
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, bombing and murdering 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.
> EDIT: I have been shadowbanned, again, by HN. I check this by opening this thread in a private tab, not logged in, and notice my most recent comment is not visible.
> I wasn't personally insulting nor aggressive in any comment I have made. I didn't spread disinformation. This thread is inherently political by nature, and I have been objective.
> It just goes to show, even here on HN, if you don't stick to the "THIS SIDE GOOD THAT SIDE BAD" narrative, your voice WILL be restricted.
> Again, RIP Marjane, you taught me a lot about Iran and the world.
You're not shadow banned, but comments peddling objectively false conspiracy theories and whining about downvoting do not play well here.
> 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.
If you talked with actual Iranians or people who've been in Iran, they would corroborate what I said. The IRGC truly aims to control every aspect of people's lives - it's less pronounced in places like Tehran, but it's definitely there.
Hell, if you read Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, you would find plenty of similar examples. The haircuts are just the cherry on top of that authoritarian cake.
Also, the west is not just the US. Trump failed to find anyone willing to join him in his military adventures.
And yet, you think that Tehrani's are somehow different in their haircut styles compared to other places in Iran?
I can tell you about nuances you won't read anywhere. Like, many Tehrani's obviously derive a lot of their fashion/styling sense from Shirazi's (whether they like to admit it or not). Indeed, I've spent more time in Shiraz than Tehran. So many good times in Esfahan, Yazd, Kashan, Tabriz, Zanjan, and countless others. I've travelled around the Kurdish region, to the Caspian Sea, and to the Persian Gulf. I honestly could not count the number of times I've visited, and each visit was between one and six months. Not working - just enjoying Iran and getting to know the place and it's people, over a period of more than a decade (up until recently).
I have a "VIP" card from a Mullah at Qom, who was present as a young man when Khomeini was giving pre-revolution speeches. I've been places almost zero (possibly zero) foreigners have been for many decades. I've been drunk inside speak-easies in small towns. I've been inside the tomb of Xerxes I - not even local professors get to do that, ever. I've had to organise access to specific sites with the IRGC. I've seen more of Iran than almost all Iranians. I've had my own apartment, and I have a reasonable level of Farsi.
Just think how many "actual iranians" I would need to have spoken with - in Iran - to make these things possible in my life. Not just passing conversations - dinners, family events, long cafe chats, I've even been invited on family vacations.
But, you read a book, spout disinformation about "official" haircuts, and now you double down 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.
I guess kind of like Gabriel Garcia and Mexico, though I don't think Columbians would like anyone to describe him as having been Mexican (ex as Mexican-Columbian) in any way though he lived there for the majority of his life and had become very well integrated into the elite circles of Mexico city -that said, he never renounced his Columbian citizenship and I think he also considered himself Columbian and not Mexican --which makes sense, he was not born there and none of his parents were from there.
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.)
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.
It seems like you're disappointed it wasn't a modern "noble savage" myth, that it was realistic instead of a fairy tale about a person coming from a bad place to a good place and being happy, wholesome, and free.
This kind of mythology is a pretty big problem in the western world right now as is the kneejerk reaction to it.
I read Persepolis a few years ago, and it’s hard not to come away with a similar impression. The first part often does resemble a fairy tale of sorts, while the second part is a pretty dark story of teenage alienation. The contrast is jarring, and it goes well beyond “duh nobody’s perfect”.
Both parts are excellent in their own right, and quite unlike any other book I’ve read, but there is indeed something strange going on in part 2. Most readers will remember this, I think.
I will second, the graphic novel is excellent. Up there with Maus in terms of showing you a new perspective.
But of course the other kind of people very rarely have someone writing international bestsellers on their behalf, so this is all we’ll get.
The simple humanity in this candid description brought a small tear to my eyes. I'd say that the classical approach to this is a dry, clinical description of a depression stage, or a description of a how and not a why. Very welcomed in the age of AI slop!
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.
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.
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.
> 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 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.
> I wasn't personally insulting nor aggressive in any comment I have made. I didn't spread disinformation. This thread is inherently political by nature, and I have been objective.
> It just goes to show, even here on HN, if you don't stick to the "THIS SIDE GOOD THAT SIDE BAD" narrative, your voice WILL be restricted.
> Again, RIP Marjane, you taught me a lot about Iran and the world.
You're not shadow banned, but comments peddling objectively false conspiracy theories and whining about downvoting do not play well here.
It didn't send its military for that reason, if that helps.
Hell, if you read Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis, you would find plenty of similar examples. The haircuts are just the cherry on top of that authoritarian cake.
Also, the west is not just the US. Trump failed to find anyone willing to join him in his military adventures.
And yet, you think that Tehrani's are somehow different in their haircut styles compared to other places in Iran?
I can tell you about nuances you won't read anywhere. Like, many Tehrani's obviously derive a lot of their fashion/styling sense from Shirazi's (whether they like to admit it or not). Indeed, I've spent more time in Shiraz than Tehran. So many good times in Esfahan, Yazd, Kashan, Tabriz, Zanjan, and countless others. I've travelled around the Kurdish region, to the Caspian Sea, and to the Persian Gulf. I honestly could not count the number of times I've visited, and each visit was between one and six months. Not working - just enjoying Iran and getting to know the place and it's people, over a period of more than a decade (up until recently).
I have a "VIP" card from a Mullah at Qom, who was present as a young man when Khomeini was giving pre-revolution speeches. I've been places almost zero (possibly zero) foreigners have been for many decades. I've been drunk inside speak-easies in small towns. I've been inside the tomb of Xerxes I - not even local professors get to do that, ever. I've had to organise access to specific sites with the IRGC. I've seen more of Iran than almost all Iranians. I've had my own apartment, and I have a reasonable level of Farsi.
Just think how many "actual iranians" I would need to have spoken with - in Iran - to make these things possible in my life. Not just passing conversations - dinners, family events, long cafe chats, I've even been invited on family vacations.
But, you read a book, spout disinformation about "official" haircuts, and now you double down it.
But complaining about upvotes and moderation is bad decorum and will get you downvoted out.
Even Khomeini was in exile in France until the shah was deposed.
> 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...
It says so right in the title so I may have misunderstood your question.
And unlike the UK and US, they had no historic bad blood with Iran (Mossadegh et al.)
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement