Reading Lolita In Tehran Post 3 (A & B)

So, third part of the book so far: James. Just like Ashley noticed, Nafisi is engaging more political influence in the novel. It was a jump for me because I guess I could say I didn't expect the story to become so “involved”. When Azi, the narrator, would tell her readers to “imagine” something or a scene she is replaying for them, I would just read along. But, unlike Ashley, who insightfully did so, I realized I was missing out on the book. Therefore, I went back a few pages and reread only that passage and I felt the sudden “sympathy” of what these women would go through. I could never really place myself in the shoes of these people and feel what they experience as something so normal a part of their daily lives. One scene that I particularly felt haunted by was the scene where Azi actually participated in the revolt. There were men armed with guns and knives ready to attack and murder any of those who opposed or caused destruction. As women were the subordinate sex, I would be extremely fearful for my safety because they would probably consider me just one less woman to worry about in the world—plus they had no mercy for even the teenagers they killed. Now, Iran is at war with Iraq, posing an even more political threat for the people.

Certain aspects that fluttered in part one of Lolita have emerged in James, part three. The situation with women being their own person—individuality, and how the head scarves create an enormous blend of bland women, all the same, and how once they remove the hijabs, they become themselves and unique in their own way. As I mentioned before in the previous paragraph, there have been revolts and a war in Iran. The revolts included a women's protest against veiling, which they obviously lost. So, women are to have the heads covered when entering the workplace at all times and there were no exceptions. But, “'I am authorized to stop any woman who—at this point I interrupted him. I am not any woman! I said with all authority I could muster,'” (161). This statement was from one of Azi's friends, Laleh, who was cut off from working further at the University of Tehran because of her refusal in adapting to the new law of the veiling of women. The italicized words are meant to stress the earnestness in Laleh's voice. She believes that women should be able to freely express herself and the new law would disable her from doing so.

I think Jenny answered her own question in her analysis of the novel. She asks at the end, “what should fiction accomplish?” I agree on almost all of her analyses. I think fiction is meant to accomplish anything and everything. The certain glitches one may have when reading a novel is normal and only means that the brain is engaging with the text, if one has any questions. Also, I think fiction is meant to make one think and question what is around him and also question reason. I remember reading in my history book that philosophers would write endless books with different meanings of life and theories as to why this is this and that is that. I think fiction functions in a similar way because Gatsby for example portrays an average American man with big hopes and dreams that all come crashing down at the end. I think it was meant to force us to question human ability in reaching goals and to expect the unexpected. The only opposition I have is that Jenny believes that “she indirectly praises the works of literature”. I personally don't believe that she indirectly praises literature, I believe its the other way around. I figured this because 1) she held secret meetings at her home every Thursday afternoon for those devoted to literature 2) she went on trial in defense of the shunned book by F. Scott Fitzgerald, The Great Gatsby, which is considered an abomination in Muslim society because of its “immoral teachings” and 3) she just seems so dedicated to literature that I couldn't imagine her not directly praising the work otherwise.

Almost there...