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.

Great literature does not exist to be heartwarming but to speak fundamental truths, however uncomfortable they are. Persepolis cleaned up as you implicitly desire would cease to be the great work that it is.

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.

1. Departure - from a humble background the subject leaves amid struggle

2. Growth and Initiation - the subject discovers who they are building themselves into the hero they'll become

3. Heroic Return - the now hero makes a return to their beginnings to great success

Instead, Persepolis is a much more realistic story and each act is around three very different kinds of strife experienced by our hero and only in the very end a kind of coda where things go well.

My criticism of the criticism is that Persepolis is tremendously more realistic than the hero's journey and people are jarred by it because it doesn't represent their imagination of what real world struggle is like, the fact that it upsets people is one of those deep core societal issues because of the wrongness of the lens people see the world through.

For reference, I also really enjoyed the Catcher in the Rye, and there are some superficial similarities: a young person is scarred by events in their lives and succumbs to depression. (there are a myriad of differences between the two stories -- I'm not drawing an equivalence, just making one comparison)

Catcher in the Rye is probably best read as an angry teenager: you meet Holden Caufield and he's witty, cynical, funny, defiant, etc. You might fall in love with the character, but what you ultimately learn is that he's a miserable failure; he lost the battle with his depression and so many of the people he was cutting down were just normal, decent people trying to enjoy their lives.

Crucially, we never meet Holden when he is young, bright eyed, and innocent. The narrative structure shows us who he is right away, and we the reader learn that this is actually quite a bad thing throughout the course of the story.

Persepolis works a bit differently: we spend the first half of the book with innocent, bright-eyed Marjane and we fall in love with that character. The character we fall in love with is taken from us by the events of the story, by living unsupervised in exile, etc. It's nothing but sad. It's well-written, it's very memorable, but I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling unhappy about an unhappy turn of events.

May be, but to someone going through similar life experiences an honest story might give their internal emotions some validation. Art can do wonders in that "I am not the only one" aspect.

Indeed, the story is quite Western overall, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that the author had already been living in the West for over a decade when she wrote it.

To whoever is downvoting this: it is not even a criticism. Just a description. When you discuss stories, Americans will frequently insist on the "hero story is the only one possible fun story" and simultaneously interpret bad ending as punishment for moral failure. French wont argue that all that often. And European literature is in general more likely not be that.

And second, using "western" as synonym for "american" wherever the author knows a lot about American and just assumes everything in Europe is exactly the same is something I noticed multiple times on HN.

I got a few breaks as well as a kid too. I think teenage boys end up being a community investment and people are cleaning up broken windows, stolen cars, graffiti, and worse as we hope the kids grow up.

Vulnerable young people becoming low level drug dealers (often for lack of other options) isn't exactly a rare story.

Died of sadness did make me wonder about something self inflicted.

May she be at peace now, and her work cherished.

Grief is not just metaphorical, severe bereavement can affect health in very real ways.

I will second, the graphic novel is excellent. Up there with Maus in terms of showing you a new perspective.

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!

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 do recognize that the type of person who I might encounter in the workplace is an educated, accomplished, English-speaking person who has likely gone through cultural adjustments to operate in an American workplace. So there’s a filter there.

But when you get to know people, especially when they talk about their family and childhood, the idea that a nation is full of bad people full of hate is just laughable.

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.

https://www.bbc.com/news/10527088

And it didn't stop here:

https://www.bbc.com/news/newsbeat-32587418

A few of my friends went there and I talked with a few Iranians whose families moved out. Yeah, the people are welcoming and you can have an amazing experience there, but it's still a theocratic regime. All the things you did happened because those who want to control everyone simply can't be everywhere at all times.

You don't see people in the west getting the death penalty for their political activity like you do in Iran.

My country also tried to interfere with people's private lives decades ago, but fortunately that system collapsed.

You can't make the argument that the common person enjoys the same freedom in Iran as they do in the west.

(you just moved the goalposts from "officially allowed" to "an official announcement")

In your link to a BBC article from SIXTEEN YEARS ago, the closest it comes to saying "officially allowed" or "official announcement" is...

"published a guide".

There is no "officially allowed" list of seven haircuts in Iran.

It literally does not exist, and yet you are now trippling down on your disinformation.

> 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.

But complaining about upvotes and moderation is bad decorum and will get you downvoted out.

Which ironically enough proves the precise point.

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