Iran's 1979 Islamic Revolution was a period of great bloodshed and political shift so tectonic it rippled across the Muslim world to considerable political and social effect. Millions were swept up in a wave of fundamentalist euphoria, change and violence. Marjane Satrapi was a small part of this massive upheaval, and her graphic novel, though unique, presents a universal interpretation of the recent history of Iran.
Satrapi's artistic style is simple yet bold. Every character has a unique and distinguishable appearance, yet the character designs are simple enough that readers could easily cast themselves in a given role. It is also cartoonish rather than realistic. My theory is that Satrapi had these powerful experiences during a time of great physical and emotional change in her life, and the graphic novel affords her the ability to convey this heightened and exaggerated sense of reality to readers. Her conversations with God are an excellent example of this: the mystical hopefulness and imagination of a willful child given life through images.
Despite the symbolism of Satrapi's drawings, the way she tells her story is not only valid to her, the author, but to the audience as well because it represents what really happened. Assuming that Satrapi was honest, we can accept her story because her medium properly communicates to the audience the storyline, the characters and their personalities, and the inherent emotions. Never mind that a theater full of patrons did not literally transform into screaming, flaming spirits that raced upward in death: the horror and pain of the event and the gruesome manner in which the theater-goers died is acutely captured through symbolic imagery. Her drawing is not just symbolic of the event itself, but of the violence of the revolution and the bloodshed it inspired.
Despite the inherent fallacy in the graphic storytelling medium, it is rooted in truth. Just as Joyce's Ulysses is an account of the mind's wanderings rather than a photographic representation of the outside world, it is rooted in truth. Yes, it may be the truth as seen and felt by a fictional character, but the experiences of the fictional character are projections of a real person, the author. Where else could they come from except the real world? Ideas do not manifest themselves.
Christopher -
ReplyDeleteWhat is the inherent fallacy of the graphic storytelling medium? I haven't gathered what this is from your post.
What do you mean by, "valid?" I see from that paragraph that valid has something to do with the representation of reality, but I don't fully understand.
I also question whether Satrapi "exaggerates" reality for her readers. Perhaps instead she portrays reality in a medium that allows her to capture both inner and outer conflict in ways that do not require words or explanations more easily. She can also represent highly complex and frightening events in a way familiar to readers (through graphic/comic strip type pictures) so to create a story with more universal appeal.
Chris -- I echo the question: What is the inherent fallacy of graphic storytelling? but also, What do you mean by "rooted in truth"? These are assumptions that I'm not sure I share (and I'm not sure McCloud actually makes), although if you were to unpack them and help me understand how they were derived, I might be persuaded to accept them more readily, and to understand better how a fallacy can be truth-bearing. Something tells me you are hinting at fallacies as truth-pointing (i.e., helping to reveal to the reader where they fall short of a commonplace or a topos), rather than truth-bearing. But again, I'll need you to make that clarification for me.
ReplyDeleteYou're making a very interesting argument for Satrapi's narrative style as "heteroglossic," and I appreciate being prompted to think about her memoir in that way.
-Prof. Graban