Journal Entry No 7: Lolita in Tehran

     The book begins with the author mentioning a picture of her group of students for the secret literature class. She compares two pictures, one with the burkas and the hijabs and the other picture where the girls are not wearing their veils. The splash of color between the two pictures make against the authors subconscious is highly evident with the tone she initiates within the memory.
     I find myself very annoyed with the author. I say this with experience. When I was 10 years old, I went to a summer camp that taught  Islam. I discovered the importance of the word and that I was Muslim. I always knew I was different from the other kids in my elementary school. As infamous as Pakistan is now, in the news, back then it was obscure not even known what part of the globe it was located in. Being bullied for my dark  "looks" had made me a very introverted child. I found my sanctuary from books, a place where I could breathe without the constant harassment about things I couldn't control. Teachers barely acknowledge bullying but from a child's' perspective I knew that my teacher was aware of my bullying as well as other children but it was ignored as children conversing and not a big deal. That summer the book I would be introduced to would be the Holy Quran.. I was fascinated by the stories of the Holy Prophets.
Until that moment my family was cultural which is very different from  being religious. Pakistani Culture does have some influence of Hinduism since it was part of India before the partition. One example is matrimony which can last for a week and is very similar to a traditional Hindu wedding, bridal dresses and traditions, with the only difference which is the Nikkah. I asked my mother to make me scarves. I had that feeling of belonging that was lacking in school. My mom was delighted with my enthusiasm and didn't discourage me from my choice, even though she didn't cover her own hair. I bought books about the life of the Holy prophet. I read books about various Hadiths. I had discovered a world of respect where no one  bullied me or called me names. My friends were from different countries and races, we were joined by the stitches of faith. I was accepted. Those were the happiest days of my life. Nothing could take me out of my dreamlike reverie. Nothing except for the event of 9/11. 9/11 changed my world and impelled me to assimilate.
          The author has no pride for her roots. In her liberation so far I find her narrow. I was also upset with the regime in Iran and how they took things such  as having blush in your bag to the extreme. I acknowledge that there is a problem there. I was also upset with how they jailed Manshid for her beliefs. Ignorance is the word for jailing women (people) for their beliefs yet we even find that in the states. Sadly one case is of Fahad Hashmi, who is Pakistani - American who is in imposed self isolation in the United States without the fairness of a trial which is his constitutional right. This is only because of what he is and for being a Muslim who openly advocated to protect the rights of Muslim Americans after September 11. For his beliefs he is in imposed self isolation for years, pretrial,  with no communication with the outside role, no sunlight or even the freedom to choose his reading materials.
         I do believe that following religion and the act of wearing the hijab should come from within. I am also disgusted with Muslims, that think being westernized will allow them to be accepted into the West with open arms. These individuals ostracize people that are  converse to what they portray and being in the middle of such a spectacle I can see a lot of different ideas. Apparently society, even a democratic one that wants to shine with example, has problems .

Catalysts: Empowered women or Victims?

 Catalysts: Empowered women or Victims?

                  Relationships are important and essential to living a normal life. The genders of the individuals involved play crucial roles within these relationships. In Fahrenheit 451 by Ray Bradbury and Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov, the female characters Clarisse and Lolita become the catalysts to sequences of events that inadvertently affect the lives of not only the male characters, Guy Montag and Humbert Humbert, but also the sequences of events throughout their books. These events clearly show the power that both Clarisse and Lolita have, despite their lack of experience and age.
           Clarisse is depicted as very ethereal in Montag’s mind. Their first meeting makes a huge dent in Montag’s armor. He finds her questions disgruntling but they force him to think. When he returns home after meeting her for the first time, he sees the stark contrast between Clarisse and his wife. His wife is the total converse of Clarisse; a very shallow woman who just wants to watch T.V.  Montag amplifies Clarisse in his mind.  This is very evident when Montag thinks that she “had a very thin face like the dial of a small clock seen faintly in a dark room in the middle of a night when you waken to see the time and see the clock telling you the hour and the minute and the second with a white silence and a glowing, all certainty and knowing what it had to tell of the night passing swiftly on toward further darkness, but moving also toward a new sun (Bradbury, 10).” He is acutely aware of not just her physical appearance but also the strong emotions that she brings to the forefront. That description is a door into the subconscious mind of Montag. He is well aware, albeit unconsciously, that Clarisse is not meant to be in his life for a long period of time. The large age difference between Clarisse and Montag is a common denominator between both books. In Montag’s case it’s a difference of thirteen years.
                 Lolita is twelve when she and Humbert Humbert first meet. He is a man of great learning yet he is shown to have Lolita on a pedestal from the day that he first meets her. She was considered a grubby child by her own mother, yet Hubert’s’ descriptions of Lolita are of a beauty so undefined that his descriptions can go on for pages. These descriptions are in direct conflict with who Lolita actually is as a person. However, Humbert is well aware of the reality and acknowledges incidents that show her as she truly is. The advertisements that affect Lolita during their travels are examples of this, showing how she would take them at face value. There is a mention of that in the following: “She it was to whom ads were dedicated: the ideal consumer, the subject and object of every foul poster (Nabokov, 148).” His relationship and love is so one - sided that it often leads to ridicule from Lolita. This includes cussing and demeaning him. Humbert Humbert has to cajole her through the use of threats and constant entertainment in order to keep her his complacent Lolita. Humbert is not above using the threat that she will “become the ward of the Department of Public Welfare- which I am afraid sounds a little bleak (Nabokov, 151) ” if she doesn’t comply.   This is done to attain her full cooperation and make sure she doesn’t disclose the full reality of their relationship to anyone.              
            Clarisse’s questions are her weapons of choice. She is fully aware of the fact that she is asking the wrong questions, which would be normal in the real world, and delights in discomforting Montag. The woman in the fire that dies with the books supports those very discomforts that Clarisse’s questions kindle. The fact that a women dies with her books is another show of the gender power which also reinforces Clarisse’s questions about burning the books. That sequence of events coincidentally falls into the same time span as Clarisse’s’ questions. The next day, Montag is so disturbed by the death that he pleads sick from work. Around this time Clarisse disappears and Montag constantly asks about her. Their ghostly conversations repeat themselves in his mind.   This also leads to Montag’s exposure for the book hoarder that he truly is. He confides in his wife about the hidden books, who is greatly horrified. Were it not for the effect of Clarisse he never would have confided in her. This leads to his meeting with Faber, a fellow reader in hiding.  Beatty, the antagonist, dies in the end, which is another common denominator with Lolita because Quilty is killed by Humbert Humbert.  With Beatty’s death comes the realization that “Beatty had wanted to die. He had just stood there, not really trying to save himself (Bradbury, 122).”
           Lolita was a persona in his mind before Humbert Humbert even knew of her existence. This is seen through the mention of Annabel in the beginning of his narration. The power of the unattainable amplifies the lure of Lolita. The fact that Humbert Humbert kills Quilty towards the end, for kidnapping her, is another sign of her power. Even though Lolita is no longer in his life and pregnant with another man’s child, Humbert is still willing to take Lolita with him.   Toward the end of the book all his actions are driven by Lolita, as was Montag’s by Clarisse. Humber Humbert respects Lolita’s privacy, at the end, when he makes the statement “I make all the legal impact and support of a signed testament:  I wish this memoir to be published only when Lolita is no longer alive (Nabokov, 309).”
         The main characters Humbert and Montag are both influenced by women. Guy is troubled by Clarisse’s questions to the point that the hidden layers of his life are out in the open. It moves him to action. The main male characters, in both Lolita and Fahrenheit 451, kill the antagonists with their own hands. They both end up with a legacy: Guy with his entourage of fellow book readers and Humbert with his memoir. Regardless of how it initially began, all the events were kindled and sparked by two inexperienced girls, who swayed the two men with not only their beauty but also with the power of words.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Journal Entry Number 6: Lolita

Lolita is given great power as a nymphet and it just reinforced this article that I came across on Yahoo the other day. It was about young girls and the pressure they face in the technological society, such as Facebook, to look pretty.
The article actually continued to say how it was all about looking sexy and a lot of teens as well as tweens are fully aware of this. Throughout the novel Lolita is fully aware of how she affects Humbert and she tries to utilize that to get what she wants. For her childhood to consist of that is very horrific. Despite the pros and puns, childhood should not be smeared with sexuality.
Going back to the article that I just mentioned looking pretty for these young girls consist of awkward poses and scanty clothy. Young girls that have not fully developed are showing their cleavages and trying to attract any form of attention. Cyber stalkers are having a field day. My question at this point, would Lolita have been more vulnerable in this high geared technological society versus the fifties?
They are many issues that creep into the mind. I am not saying that technology is bad but its not just all flowery either. The fact that young girls cant go through the awkward phases of childhood is horrible and inadvertently a loss to our society.
There is so much eye candy for pedophiles on the internet. It makes the accessibility of vulnerable children quite easy. There are girls, on Facebook, that don't know who half their friends are and just want to add them because they want the attention.
With this article, there were many comments about the responsibility that parents have to protect their children and make sure that they are appropriate. To blame Facebook for the entire issue would be highly unfair.
I knew kids in high school that would actually drink and be encouraged by their parents. There parents didn't care to implement the drinking age and thought it was fully appropriate for the child to drink or get drunk. Some of my fellow classmates were alcholic as teens.
A lot of disturbing questions and yet no real answer.

Journal Entry No 5: "Lolita, My Mother-in-law, the Marquis de Sade, and Larry Flint"

      Thoughts were spiraling in my head . I could  not contain them even if I wanted to. The essay, "Lolita, My Mother-in-law, the Marquis de Sade, and Larry Flint" by Norman Podhoretz,  in itself was really interesting and I say this with the utmost sincerity. The author mentions his mother in law and her denial of the truth. He talks of her like a benign stranger with a distant aloofness. The fact that she denies the sinfulness in the Mid-west annoys the author who is a Native New Yorker. He mentions coming across this article about a pedophile and in the process ends up venting about his mother in law.
    Personally, I feel like denial is the best form of protection from the outside world. I live in Bensonhurst and growing up it was an Italian dominated neighborhood. At this point and time it's predominantly Asian and heavily diversified. Italians still live here and yet they are horrified with the change in the ethnicity in the neighborhood. I was walking on the sidewalk the other day and an Italian individual mumbles "I don't like change"  while looking dead at me. I presume he wanted a confrontation of some sort and I refuse to cave in to such patronizing conversation. My amazement was in the fact that he did not notice that the majority of people around him were not Italian. This kind of behavior, in New York, would be astonishing for some but it still does occur.
     The author mentions a book that was banned called the "Last Exit in Brooklyn" by Selby Jr. The fact that the book was banned made my mind question with all caps "WHY"! I was so curious that I had to stop reading the article and find the book. With the self imposed intermission, I ended up reading the short story "Tralala" that mentioned a gang rape of a prostitute with the frank clarity that was horrific. Yet, I wanted to understand, my questions were stark and demanded an answer. Common questions would be "Where is the mother of this minor?" "How did she come to be in such a predicament?" When Tralala is offered love she does not understand and just trashes the letter like the trashy lifestyle that she embraces.
        This scene was considered pornography and was an issue in a courtroom. There was  much outrage over the graphic undertones of the novel and local shop owners were taken to court for selling them. Today, Lindsay Lohans' mother considers it "classy" if her daughter poses nude for the Playboy magazine. Nude magazines are highly accessible and religions seems to have no influence. The costliness of maintaining censorship overrides the stance that certain local communities would like to take. The stance that needs money to stand on is that really a true outcry of morality? Shouldn't communities consider the protection that they wish to engulf their children in?
          The author is very contrite when he defends pornography with the defense that all books cause emotion and pornography should be considered another extension of that very emotion. He mentions that Nabokovs' wordplay has no regard for the reader which I do agree with. I found while reading "Lolita" the fact that I had to constantly flip pages annoying. The annotation made it seem like I was reading a textbook. I do concede that the prose and puns, once understood, were remarkable in understanding Humbert Humberts' character but the length of time that it took to read and decipher this puzzle of Lolita was quite lengthy and frustrating.
       Regardless, I have waded through the thorns of puns and prose of "Lolita" and  came to appreciate the love of words that Nabokov does convey. This is a book that I truly believe came into existence to quench his love of the interplay of words in a language.

Lolita Continued: Journal Entry No 4

  Lolita s mother dies at the end of Part 1. I found it interesting that  Lolita is not one bit afraid of Humberts Humberts attention. Rather she mentions the word incest and with much relish. She is well aware, even at the tender age of 12, how immoral the relationship is.
   Part two begins with the two of them on a journey across the states. I found it bizarre the merging of paternal love with that of being a nymphet lover. Humberts matter of persuasion can be anything from bribing her, threatening her (with the fearful abode), to even confusing her. Humbert is a character of mass contradictions. He claims that he wants to protect Lolita yet he is the biggest danger to her physical self.
  Even at the end when Lolita is pregnant with another mans child, Humbert desires her. This situation reminded me of a recent recovery of a victim of pedophilia, named Joyce Dugard. She was impelled to have two children with her abuser. Diane Sawyer did a special on her and was horrified when she calmly stated that her abuser was the  father or "Daddy" of her children.
   The lack of horror confounded Diane and I truly believe that is what horrifies society about Nabokov. Nabokov had the audacity to use the pedophiles viewpoint and present it to the public. Expectations from society would have been horror, disgust and indignation. The lack of that response from the author might have baffled certain people. The language, of the book, unique as it is in bringing beauty to the tale of pedophilia also backs the theory that not all pedophiles are victims of child abuse.

Lolita: Journal Entry No 3

     Lolita is a book that I find highly disturbing. I read this book initially in my Freshman year of college. I was horrified by the subject matter, that of pedophile, and lacked the eagerness to understand it.
      The fact that life has impelled Lolita to the forefront at this time in my life is highly symbolic for me. Even as a freshman in college, I could see the beauty of prose that Vladimir used in this book.
      Experiences make up the person and I am no different, yet this book brings up the question of pedophile and how beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Beauty and pedophile in one sentence would horrify many people but isn't that what Vladimir desired?  Normalcy is what we make it? "We" would be society, and Humbert Humbert shatters the box of that very "we". Vladimir would have found that amusing and probably did, the ripples in the pond that his book became.
   Since the mention of the book "Satanic Verses", I have been thinking of that book constantly. I even went so far as to go to the library to grab a copy. It is harder to fight with a quill, as one might know, yet the impact of words is inarguable. Knowledge does come at a price and innocence is never redeemable yet I have already paid that price.
    In my freshman year of college I was exposed to many subjects that to this day are considered taboo. Vladimir does question  how society can consider the vulnerability of young children. Did he have awareness in mind? The awareness of people, like Humbert Humbert, and what steps should be taken to avoid Lolita s' plight?
    I actually did research in reference to the background and found it funny how his wife Vera carried a gun to protect him. Vladimir never learned how to drive; his wife was his driver and bodyguard. The author was a masterpiece of contradictions. The prose and subject matter in the book Lolita is in itself a contradiction.

Scream (written in 2011)

Aggggggggh

Screaming oblivion
Seeing an abyss
Unknown tide

Splash

Water everywhere
Drifting hair......... like thin noodle's
Limbs, glistening under moon.........

Waves wide.......... widen........ widening
Make bigger abyss
Drowning identity

Screech

Seagulls hover
Watching scene
Natures witness
Ominous silence reigns.

The innocence of childhood (Note intially written in 2003)

The innocence of childhood
has come and  washed away.
Full of childish delights,
of lofty heights and play.

The giggle of laughter
has become yesterday.
For childhood is little
Compared to life ahead;
Filled with gay naivety
pretend and play.

Woe to people,
who destroy such fun!
For childhoods shorts
are not made for the run
of the long life ahead...................

You'll find a lot of thrones
in the life ahead ....................
That might bend inwards
with shreds of glass
Made of the very tears that shed.

For happiness in naivety
is precious that is true!
Once childhood is over ...........
It'll never come anew!

Scholarly Pursuits or Hidden Agenda?

Title: Scholarly Pursuits or Hidden Agenda ?


Azar Nafisi’s book Reading Lolita in Tehran is a memoir that emphasizes American literature to portray various aspects of the oppressions in Iran against women. At the same time her informative nature leads the reader into the interpretation that Nafisi believes she is an expert on everything she talks about. The fact that her book conveys such an a rigid stance about everything Iranian makes the reader wonder if there is another alternative besides her rigid stance. Professor Hamid Dabashi’s stance in his article, “Native informers and the making of the American empire,” that the book is “insular’ and an “illusionary text” is justified (Dabashi 7), especially since Nafisi does not back her view with any scholarly interpretations other then her own authoritative one; rather her message can be conveyed through other means that would not glorify Western literature.
Dabashi believes that Nafisi is a colonist and agent for the “American Empire” and is also is “reminiscent of the most pestiferous colonial projects of the British in India”(Dabashi 3) . He reinforces that statement by using a quote of a colonial officer, Thomas Macaulay, who believed in having a class of Indians that were educated in England with British tastes. He believes that Reading Lolita in Tehran is a similar attempt to create a class of agents of colonialism by Nafisi, who was educated abroad and throughout most of her memoir pushes Western literature. Nafisi believes, by using the book Lolita by Vladimir Nabokov as an example, that Western literature is a “defense not just of beauty but of life, ordinary everyday life, all the normal pleasures” (Nafisi 33) that were taken away by the Iranian government. She never mentions why normal everyday life should be Western for all Iranians, including the average Iranian man, and not Iranian in nature. Dabashi continues to quote Mr. Viswanathan who believes that “the establishment of English literary studies” goes “back to its colonial origins in India and as an effective strategy of colonial control”(Dabashi 5). He asserts that Nafisi is like one of those Indians who were used by colonists to keep the population of the colonies in line. He also points out that she is from a privileged Iranian family that were able to afford to send their daughter overseas to be educated and the privileged are the elite minority in Iran. There is also a question of whether the common man in Iran even has the opportunity or choice of going overseas for a Western education.
Dabashi mentions the cover of Reading Lolita in Tehran and how it has been robbed from its true context. He mentions that the original image was “distorted” intentionally from its true purpose which was really conniving. The real picture is of female students reading about a political outcome in an Iranian newspaper on a college campus in Iran. They are also in front of a poster of President Khatami, who represents the reformists’ movement. Dabashi believes that Nafisi is stripping the intelligence of those Iranian women by suggesting that a sign of intelligence is only shown through the reading and knowledge of Western literature. The image also contradicts the fact that when her students came to her house Nafisi does tell them that they can “take that off ,” ( Nafisi 12) meaning their veil. So the image on the cover, that they are wearing their veils while they are readings the books, is inaccurate and misleading and there is evidence in Reading Lolita in Tehran that backs Dabashis’ claim.
Nafisi even goes so far as to put The Great Gatsby by Scott F. Fitzgerald on trial while she teaches the book in her class. Since Nafisi had suggested putting the book on trial she was encouraged to defend it to which she responded that she “should not be the defense but the defendant,” “ and to talk in my own defense” (Nafisi 121) which makes Nafisi’s stance, of the books, an extension or even reflection of herself. Dabashi criticizes Nafisi for that very authoritative gesture and omissions that “any relevant theory amassed for generations about and around the works of the authors that hold the four chapters of the books narratively together” (Dabashi 7). Dabashi’s view on this point does hit the mark that The Great Gatsby and Lolita were not always considered classics, that in the beginning right after publications there have been many criticisms of both books and even attempts at banning. Nafisi does not care to recollect that fact and if there is its as a slight inclination that is just an after thought. Nafisi even forgets the history behind the perception of Lolita, in the US and Europe, like it has been a “piece of proverbial cake” (Dabashi 9). Nabokov was turned down by many publishers before he found “Maurice Girodia Olympia Press” which published pornographic titles. The fact that Nafisi considers only Iran as a country that bans books is clearly intentional and attempts to conceal the fact that they there have been attempts in the West to ban Western literature.
There is even a scene in the book where Nafisi and her “magician” have ham sandwiches at his dining room table “greedily biting into a “forbidden ham and cheese sandwich“ (Nafisi 55). The fact that pork is taboo has not escaped Nafisi and her magician and they gleefully portray that and it ultimately rises the question of why? How does eating pork emphasize the harm that the Islamic regime has put the Iranian women through? Yet again Nafisi ignores the fact that the West is benevolent, in principle, to all forms of religions and the freedom of practicing ones religion. The West does cater to the other types of food such as kosher and halal. At this point her message is unclear and the interpretation, for the cause, is very obscure. Does her actions reflect any world that she mentions the “West” or even the Iranian Regime? Nafisi’s, message, if any, is very unclear at this point.
Every country has undergone change to reach the pedestal it is currently on. America, as a country, went through many changes from the moment of its birth to its current position as a supreme power. They are various historians within America with different positions and stances about America’s history. Nafisi conveys the arrogance of thinking she can be the only voice of Iran with one opinion that does not allow room for any other. Dabashi, who is also a professor at Columbia University an Ivy League University, questions this arrogance by pointing out the flaws in her arguments which are completely justified. He does admit that they are issues in relevance to the role of women in Iran that need to be addressed. He doesn’t agree with her platform but also doesn’t agree with her patronization of other forms of literature by emphasizing only one category, that of the West. Scholarly disputes do come up and Dabashi makes a strong claim with evidence that were in existence prior to his article. Nafisi only uses her life and shuttered view of evidence to convey her stance. Although a memoir is by nature only the author’s viewpoint, to hold it up as the only viewpoint is misleading and contrary to the values of the freedom of expression she so values of the West. She forgets that the books she mentions were initially banned when first published. Banning of books, though not encouraged, are still attempted at even in America. Nafisi holds up America as an icon yet overlooks even that simple fact which would go against her point that the West is ideal.






















Bibliography Page:
1. Nafisi, Azar. Reading Lolita in Tehran: A memoir in books. New York: Random House Trade Paperbacks, 2008.
2. Dabashi, Hamid. "Native informers and the making of the American empire." Al-Ahram Weekly. 7 June 2006. Al - Ahram. 12 May 2012 .

Bicycle

I have never been able
                         to ride
                                 a bicycle.

Childhood innocence was denied,
             the laughter of the carefree
             was never uttered by me.

Always the outcast
at home and in school,
selected for this life of solitude.

I've saddled responsibilities,
a never ending shadow
cast over me.


I have never been able
                         to ride
                                 a bicycle.

To join the various children
at play,
who raced.........

To their hearts content.

Bitterness embodies me
while sitting at my dining room table -
just a physical presence,

Casually,
            I am being ignored
            by many and nobody.

Yet,
 I have never been able
                         to ride
                                 a bicycle.

The shadow
                of incompetence
                 mocks me day and night.

For carefree dreams
                were denied to me,
                 without a waver or thought.