From its provoking, intriguing title to its very last page, Azar Nafisi's book, Reading Lolita in Tehran, partly a narrative biography, partly a history of a nation and its people, and partly critical analysis of great American and British authors, is astonishing, enlightening, and important. Much like Marjane Satrapi's amazing graphic novels, Nafisi pulls back the headscarves, the long black robes dictated by the Guardian Council, to show us the modern women of Iran and how they fight to maintain their sense of identity.Focusing in a large part around the seven students Nafisi convinced to meet in her apartment after quitting her job at the University of Tehran, the book introduces us to each of the young women and gives a thumbnail account of her life and its hardships and its joys. There is an early image in the book when the narrator talks to a painter student of hers about color. Paradise, the painter tells her, the color of her paradise is swimming pool blue. A year after the revolution, her father died, the government confiscated their house which included a big swimming pool where she had trained regularly. My paradise is down at the bottom of that swimming pool, she tells her teacher.And that in a nutshell is why such a book like Lolita is so meaningful, so powerful in a place like Iran. In a country where young girls can be arrested for eating an apple to lasciviously or for licking ice cream in public, where the very first action upon seizure of power during the Iranian Revolution (before even writing a new constitution) was to lower the age of consent for marriage from eighteen down to nine, a book about a middle aged man who destroys the life of a pubescent girl is all too familiar.There is much here for fans of Nabokov in general, not just Lolita, but especially (and blackly humorously) An Invitation to a Beheading, Nabokov's most Kafkan story. The mindless, impenetrable mysteries of authoritarianism were wonderfully grasped in Kafka and regardless of ideology powering the system they are almost always universally the same. For Nabokov, who lived under such a system in the Soviet Union, or for Nafisi in Iran, the repression in all its brutal absurdity is the same.Consider that in Iran, under the mullahs, the position of film censor was held by a nearly blind man. It is a curious feature of totalitarian government, as noted by Kundera, that irony is completely and entirely dead among the political class, that the sheer humor to be derived from a blind censor is never apparent. It's black humor is unknown. "Our world under the mullahs' rule," Nafisi writes, "was shaped by the colorless lenses of the blind censor. Not just our reality, but also our fiction had taken on this curious coloration in a world where the censor was the poet's rival in rearranging and shaping reality."What becomes crystal clear as you listen to Nafisi's narration, is what a radical act reading is, how it is peering into a created world and determining your relation to it, it is an act of discovery that sneaks in self-discovery. To discuss books, to talk with a class about them is to articulate your own thinking, it is to think aloud about nothing less than self-discovery. It is all the more important an act of personal revolution when one lives under a totalitarian regime that would dictate to you your personality and appropriate and inappropriate thoughts and beliefs about the world around you. To then discuss with another person your own intimate creation of a world shared with the author is to create an intimacy with others, it is a connection you make of your innermost self with others' innermost selves, it is a connection of your projected conception of yourself with others' projected conception of theirselves.It is, in short, nearly the most important thing in human life.And for repressive forces, it is perhaps the most dangerous rebellion of all. Or as Nabokov puts it, "Curiosity is insubordination in its purest form."The book's second part is primarily made up of a thumbnail history of the Iranian Revolution in which the author found herself whirled. What's surprising is that even in its shrunken form, the history adds to the complexity of the picture in a way American accounts never seem capable of doing. That the early stages of the Revolution was not primarily religious, but that they came to dominate after factionalism crippled the more secular-minded of the youthful revolutionaries and the communist leaders, was something one rarely hears in accounts here in America.It is a step back into the past even more so than the first part. Told from America, the book's first part takes place in 1995 after Afisi has quit the University of Tehran; the second part -- a discussion of The Great Gatsby forming its central theme -- takes place when she was still employed there. Managing to avoid the immediate purge of disloyal and impure employees from the university, the author was constantly amidst the fire, her classes challenging not only students’ abilities to analyze texts but also their blinkered views of the world and how everything is filtered through the prism of revolutionary fervor.This culminates in a mock trial during class in which an intolerant young man as the prosecutor accuses Gatsby of being an immoral work, while a more liberal student defends the novel as its counsel. Nafisi herself sits in the trial as the book itself. In one debate, it is discussed how literature is one of the best ways of learning empathy, of putting yourself in another person's shoes, and in this way we learn how complex people are, how multifaceted and not so black and white. This can be a curb to ruthlessness; thus a moral duty to read ever more complex works; intellectually skimpy novels with black and white caricatures of characters are less likely to assist in the development this moral sense and in fact can retard it.Nafisi tells in her book's third part, this time discussing Henry James, of how it was during the eight years of the Iran-Iraq war. These tempestuous two middle sections contains one of the best glimpses into the human heart of this time is when Nafisi sees the televised confession of an executed military man who had been responsible for her father's imprisonment when she was a child. No matter how much she hated the man and wished for a revenge upon him, his death even, this shaken, shell of a person, repeating the faked confession makes her feel even her own self has been cheapened.The book's fourth part, as the class turns to Jane Austen, turns its focus on the Islamic Revolution's madness when it comes to women. There are too many absurdities to cover within a short review. The banning of nail polish and makeup, the government mandated wardrobe hiding nearly all outward signs of one’s physique, the absurdity of monstrous sheets hung at beaches to segregate the sexes, not to mention the aforementioned Sharia-based nine year old marriage age. This prompts one class wit to remark, "It is a truth universally acknowledged that a Muslim man with or without a good fortune must be in need of a nine year old virgin wife."Which is not to say that everyone else is less oppressed. Going to a concert, one of the few frowned upon but grudgingly accepted entertainments, the crowd is reminded not to behave in a non-Islamic way, which is to say they are warned against showing any emotion or enjoyment. Imagine! A concert of wooden faced musicians, denied even the physicality of swaying or tapping their feet, playing the music of The Mambo Kings to a likewise stoic and immobile crowd. Even applause is silenced by the Revolutionary Guards who stand in attendance, ready to crush even the slightest manifestation of enjoyment.Nevertheless, Nafisi constructs her book so admirably that she turns to society as a reflection of the novels being studied. Thus Henry James' revulsion to WWI is a meditation on the Iran-Iraq war, Gatsby turns on class consciousness and what is the appropriate future of which to dream, and Austen, while dominated by the idea of marriage and male/female relationships, also circles around behavior and its contradictions between private and public.In hearing her stories, in listening to her disquisitions on what is important in novels, Nafisi reminds you of the best professors you’ve ever had. At turns insightful, funny, sensitive to the larger issues that ripple through an author’s work, and capable of expressing her beliefs directly in ways that challenge her listeners but with great respect, Nafisi has written a book that encapsulates a Great Literature class, an Iranian history class, and a good long chat with a friend. The result is nothing less than mesmerizing.
أن تقرأ لوليتا في طهرانتخيل أيها القارئ ( عبارة ستصطدم بها كثيرا في هذا الكتاب تأتيك كصفعة أحيانا خصوصا حين تكون معارضا للنفيسي) تخيل أنك تجلس على مكتبك و أمامك كتب أدبية منتقاة بعناية فائقة و كتاب واحد سياسي يتحدث عن الثورة الاسلامية الايرانية و شذرات من أوراق حياة أستاذة جامعية ..تخيل نفسك تقرأ من هذا و ذاك مستمتعا بهذا و رافضا ذاك..فتتداخل الأفكار في عقلك ووجدانك مسببة فوضى و صداع و أحيانا صراعات قد تنتهي بقرارات قد ترضيك و قد لا ترضيك ..تخيل اذن لو جمعت كل تلك الفوضى أمامك في كتاب واحد هو أن تقرأ لوليتا في طهران..تخيل أن تحمل هذا الكتاب و تعبر به نفق مظلم و في يدك شمعة تنطفئ أحيانا تحت سطوة نسمة عابرة مجبرة اياك أن تحيا في ظلمة قصيرة تفكر في بعض ما جاء في الكتاب و باحثا في ذات الوقت عن عود ثقاب لتشعل تلك الشمعة مجددا و تكمل المسير ..هذا ما قد يحصل لك كما حصل معي أثناء قرائتي لهذا الكتب.فلنتوقف قليلا عند العنوان" أن تقرأ لوليتا في طهران' لما أختارت النفيسي هذا الكتاب دون غيره عنوانا رغم انها ذكرت كتبا أخرى كغاتسبي العظيم و اعمال جين اوستن..وجدت أن اختيارها قد يكون نابع من سببين أولها ربط الثورة الايرانية بالثورة الروسية و ثانيهما و هو الأقرب في نظري الصدمة التي قد يحدثها العنوان كنوع من الدعاية للكتاب لهذا أنصح الراغبين في قراءة هذا الكتاب ان يعرجوا قليلا على أعمال نابكوف خاصة لوليتا لتتضح له الرؤية فالنفيسي أرادت ان تضع نفسها بجانب ناباكوف و هي المغرمة بهذا الكاتب لحد الجنون أرادت أن تربط بين غضبها و رفضها للثورة الاسلامية و رفض ناباكوف للثورة الروسية ...فلنعد الآن للمضمون..سيرة النفيسي تعالج فترة جد مهمة من تاريخ ايران قد ابالغ ان قلت تعالج فالمعالجة السياسية بالتأكيد تحتاج الى خبرة أكثر و حيادية أعم لم نجدهما في هذا الكتاب لأنها تحكي وجهة نظر شخصية حتى لو استغلت حكايا تلميذاتها أو بناتها كما تناديهن..فلنستبدل كلمة معالجة و نقول الكتاب يشير الى فترة ما بين 1979-1997بين اندلاع الثورة الايرانية و خروجها من ايران متجهة نحو امريكا الهروب من الضد نحو الضد ..يا للمصادفةأعترف أني لم أكن حيادية أحيانا في القراءة و وجدت نفسي مضطرة أن اهمس للنفيسي متفقة معك تماما .. فالثورة الاسلامية الايرانية لها من الأخطاء ما يكون عادة لكل الثورات فليست الثورة منزهة و تكفي نظرة واحدة لواقعنا المعاصر لنتأكد من الأمر..و لم أمنع نفسي من الضحك الأسود الغاضب و النفيسي تقتبس عن كتاب الخميني" المباديء السياسية والفلسفية والاجتماعية والدينية" يقول : إذا مارس رجل الجنس مع دجاجة فهل يجوز له أكلها بعد ذلك؟ الإجابة : كلا لا هو ولا أي أحد من أفراد أسرته الأقربين ولا الجار القريب يجوز له أن يأكل من لحم تلك الدجاجة، ولكن لا بأس مع الجار الذي يسكن على بعد بابين ..بالله عليكم ...فلنصمت و نعود للكتاب قلت ساندتها أحيانا..لكني رفضت نظرتها الشخصية- و يجب التأكيد على هذا الأمر الشخصية- لمسألة الحجاب كما استهجنت أيضا أريحيتها في الـتأكيد على حبها للحم الهام "لحم الخنزير " و كأن ايران تخلو من لحم غيره و أضف لهذا الخمر بكل انواعها هذا كله كان موجودا في ايران تحت حكم الخميني ...غريب هذا الربط الحتمي بين المثقف و المفكر و بين كل ما يحرمه الدين فهل الخمر و التدخين و لحم الخنزير و أن اعري كتفي و صدري يجعل مني مثقفة و مفكرة منطق غريب على العموم النقاش حول مسالة الحجاب هل هو مفروض أم غير مفروض يبقى جدل بيزنطي لن يخرج بنتيجة فالأمور واضحة و المرأة المسلمة لا تحتاج لمن يدافع عنها و عن اختياراتها خصوصا من كتب تنشر من خارج الدول الاسلامية من بلاد تنتظرأية فرصة لضرب الاسلام فهذا شيء غير مقبول بتاتا...على العموم فقراءة النفيسي لايران تحت الحكم الثيوقراطي لم يستهويني جدا بل ما دفعني لأتمم هذا الكتاب هو قراءتها لعدة كتب أدبية و هي قراءة بالتأكيد على درجة كبيرة من الخبرة الاكاديمية تحسب للنفيسي..قراءة جعلتني أغير بعض من أحكامي السابقة على كتب قرأتها أو أهملتها لكني الآن بالتأكيد سأعود اليها بحماس أكثر و رؤية جديدة لا يسعني الا أن أشكر النفيسي على هذا الأمر..الحديث عن الروايات و النقاشات التي تمت في الحرم الجامعي بين النفيسي و الطلبة و بينها و بين طالباتها في الصف الخاص شيء مثير ذكرني بنا نحن رواد هذا الموقع فالنقاش بالتأكيد يثري جدا فلكل منا أسلوبه الخاص في القراءة و مبادئه التي تعكسها ملاحظاته و تعليقاته و نظرته للحياة عموما و هو شيء أجده حيوي و مشجع فكم من كتاب لم أكن لأقرأه لولا تشجيع البعض و كم من فكرة خاطئة أعتبرتها من المسلمات فأجد من يعارضني فيها و يأتي بضدها فاعيد التفكير من جديد ..النفيسي في كتابها هذا بغض النظر عن المسألة الايرانية تدعونا الى اعمال الفكر حين نقرأ و أن لا نكون مجرد عبيد للكلمة نبكي حين تفرح البطلة بل أن نسأل ما سبب الفرح و ما الغاية منه ...لهذا السبب أشكر النفيسي على هذا الكتاب...و أدعوها الى قراءة الاسلام بين الغرب و الشرق لعزت بيغوفيتش ( فهو الكتاب الوحيد الذي يخطر ببالي الآن ومن يجد غيره فليخبرنا به لتعم الفائدة) ادعوها أن تقرأه لتفهم الفرق بين الثقافة و الحضارة فالاسلام ابدا لم يكن دين يجمد الفكر بل على العكس تماما ..و لنا عودة في الموضوعقراءة ممتعة نسيت أمرا مهما تحية للمترجمة ريم قيس كبة
What do You think about Reading Lolita In Tehran (2003)?
This memoir about the power of books in a time of crisis and oppression definitely falls short of the transitive powers the novels it details possess. Though the overall message of the book is a powerful one, its disjointed narrative structure, organized by theme rather than true chronological order, left me more confused than inspired and did not help in my understanding of the bigger picture.For someone fairly out of the loop as far as politics and world issues go, especially issues that started before I was born, I was very confused as to what was going on with the regime in Iran during the book. I could never tell what the separate groups were fighting for, who was in power, or who, if anyone, the author supported. The disjointed structure of the narration, skipping backwards and forwards in time at random intervals, also caused me to lose track of what events were influencing other events and how the people she discussed fit into the grand scheme of things. I feel like some sort of timeline or at least direction to a website for further information would have really helped clear things up in that regard, if an un-chronological narrative structure was necessary to the story.Also unhelpful to the clarity of the memoir was Nafisi’s inconsistent dialogue notations. At some points she used quotation marks, and at other points she dropped them all together. Whole conversations were contained in single paragraphs, making it difficult to tell who was saying what. This uncertainty left me in doubt about the characters’ personalities and voices.It was interesting to see how the moral debates in the novels the students read in Nafisi’s classes fueled the debates about what was going on in their own government at the time. Though the best novels always allow the reader to make personal connections, sometimes it is difficult to see how the people in places as vastly different as Henry James’ America and late twentieth century Iran can have so much in common. However, as one of Nafisi’s students comments in her journal, “‘[I]t was good to know that even in a decadent society like America there were still some norms, some standards according to which people were judged’” (199). Though those standards were certainly not the same in Iran as they were in America, the fact that there are rules and conventions in any place at any time indicates that there will be people there to rebel against such rules. Nafisi and her favorite students are the real life reflections of those who defied society in the novels they so cherished.I found the information and analyses of the books they read in class to be enlightening, provided I had read the book they were discussing. However, in the case of probably half the books they discussed I was lost without a plot synopsis and missed many of the points they were making about the connections to their own culture. I suppose this is less of a negative about the book and more of a reflection on my reading habits and a sign that I should improve them.
—Nicola
I feel like I showed up for class without reading the required assignment. This book should come with a prerequisite reading list: Lolita, Invitation to a Beheading, The Great Gatsby, Daisy Miller, and Pride and Prejudice or at least a warning for spoilers: (view spoiler)[Lolita is raped by an older man, Gatsby dies, Daisy Miller doesn't get a happy ending, and Elizabeth Bennett does (hide spoiler)]
—Annalisa
This book is very personal and my enjoyment of it is very much rooted in my experience of living with Iranian people in the UK and fascination with the country's history and culture. When I first read the book about ten years ago, I was astonished to read about how the 1979 revolution, which is seen by most Westerners as the triumph of Muslim extremists and had been described to me as the British/American led replacement of the insufficiently compliant Shah, looked to Nafisi on the ground. Whatever the international machinations (she doesn't discuss them), it's clear that the internal push to unseat the dictatorial monarch was anti-imperialist, whether Marxist, nationalist or 'Islamist'. As Edward Said tells us, Orientalism ignores political and economic factors in the Middle East, tying every narrative to the rigid structure of its construction of Islam.What struck me on this reading, actually, was how closely aligned with Western ideas of Iran and of Islam Nafisi's perspectives seem to me. I recognise that it's totally ridiculous of me to say that but I'm going to say it anyway (she did spend 17 years studying in the USA before the period of teaching in Tehran described here) Of course, I'm not here to defend the regime that, as Nafisi says, reduced the age of consent for women from eighteen to nine, prescribed death by stoning as punishment for adultery, disappeared its dissidents and spat out their corpses, not to mention exiled my friends, but I am sceptical that things were really so great before the corrupt clerics came to power, especially for people of a lower social class than Nafisi. I'm also a bit depressed by her caustic dismissal of 'Islamic feminism' as an oxymoron. I know numerous Muslim feminists so I believe in them wholeheartedly.For Nafisi the veil, and specifically the imposition of the veil, is of great importance, and naturally I agree with her that imposing the hijab on women (NB the Quran does not tell women to veil and, I understand, characterises law as open to interpretation) robs them of meaningful self expression; women who choose to wear it cannot use it express their devotion to Islam, and women who otherwise would not are forced into a limiting uniform. I feel moreover, and I wish Nafisi was more nuanced on this, that the choice to wear the veil is more than self expression - I understand it not only as identity symbol but as an active part of a woman's faith practice and relationship to her faith and to society. To some wearing the veil is a feminist act (NB feminism is a multi-stranded ID-in movement so back off). All the more reason to despise a regime that strips women of agency, but not to question the integrity and agency of those who veil...This review is coming out all wrong! I sound like I don't empathise with Nafisi and her students, unable to dress the way they want in public, to write and say what they want without fear of incarceration, to sit in a cafe with unrelated men, to dance to music or watch films unmutilated by the censor. And also, this is Nafisi's memoir and I suspect I am engaging in cultural imperialism by complaining about how she chose to share her truth. Repeatedly, she talks about the regime's colonisation of public space and discourse. Surely I'd share her vehemence in her position. And her memoir is not devoid of nuance. Her students have different views and she respects them, and worries that she is painting the USA as a paradise for them and making them long to leave Iran. And of course, her love for traditional Iranian culture runs deep.Anyway what about the book? Is it good? Well, yes I think so. It reflects on classics of Western literature through the prism of middle-class academic women's experience in revolutionary Tehran. Or on the experience of living in Khomeini's Iran as an English teacher and mother via the values and metaphors of great authors of the Western tradition. And of course, the true stories of a diverse group of young women. Whichever way you want it, it's quite interesting. On her discussion of Austen, Nabokov et al, having read Decolonising the Mind I'm interested that she considers the 'universal' emotional aspects of the books AS their politics of liberation; in her situation the right to love and to feel is more keenly desired than, for example, economic equality; I'd like to witness a discussion between Nafisi and Ngugi wa Thiong'o about liberation!
—Zanna
