21st Century Literature discussion

This thread will be for discussing the first section of the book titled "Lolita."

After resigning from her teaching position at the University of Tehran, author Azar Nafisi forms a private literature class in her home consisting of seven of her former female students. In “Reading Lolita in Tehran,” she interlaces stories of her students and her own personal experiences with events as they are occurring before, during, and after the revolution in Iran. Nafisi and her students use literature as a lens through which to view the social and cultural milieu surrounding them. Thus, the book is part memoir, part social history, and part literary criticism. It’s organized into sections based on the literary works discussed.

In this first section, Nafisi talks about her decision to leave university teaching and the impetus for forming her private class, which she describes as “the color of my dreams.” What do you think of Nafisi’s analysis of the themes in “Lolita”, especially the image of Lolita as a half-live butterfly fixed to the wall and “forever associated in the minds of her readers with that of her jailer. (p. 37)” Why do you think this book resonated so strongly with Nafisi’s students?

I think the image of Lolita is symbolic of many things at once - of lost innocence, of subjugation, of unspoken gender inequality/sexual dominance of a male, often a father-figure, so to say.

Not to forget, Lolita is a victim of a system she cannot escape - she tries to come terms with it, and finds ways to resist subordination within the system instead of outwardly challenging it. And she is also a symbol of what is "forbidden".

I think the students, all of them female, relate to these sentiments. You'll notice in the later sections that Lolita is derided as sinful by many - the same way women, because of their unwilling participation to a culture of subjugation are often derided as "they had it coming" kind of people instead of being seen as victims.

Butterfly, again, is a delicate, ephemeral being - pinned to the wall, it is alive, in pain, but powerless and mute - like Lolita, and Iranian women.

How do you see it?

Lit Bug wrote: "I think the image of Lolita is symbolic of many things at once - of lost innocence, of subjugation, of unspoken gender inequality/sexual dominance of a male, often a father-figure, so to say.

Not..."

Very well said. And like Lolita, the Iranian women had to do whatever they could to survive in the face of a regime that is robbing them of their past and their individual identities.

One of the themes in this section is the idea that reading fiction can help us escape the harsh realities of life around us. Yet fiction is often filled with tragedy. Mitra's questions are thought-provoking: "Why is it that stories like "Lolita" and "Madame Bovary"-stories that are so sad, so tragic-make us happy? Is it not sinful to feel pleasure when reading about something so terrible?" How would you answer her?

I think the answer is what Aristotle calls catharsis. A vicarious experience of tragedy and emerging out of it unscathed, but changed. It somehow makes us more aware, more perceptive, more empathetic. It radiates 'feel-good' waves when we're done with it. And we reflect upon it with our meager store of experience, we find ourselves participants in the sorrow of strangers, real or imagined. There is a sense of kinship, especially in a country like Iran where so many things are 'improper'. It is as much a politics of identity and affiliation as it is vicarious enjoyment and enlargement of experience and empathy.

Lit Bug wrote: "I think the answer is what Aristotle calls catharsis. A vicarious experience of tragedy and emerging out of it unscathed, but changed. It somehow makes us more aware, more perceptive, more empathet..."

And yet, while we feel horrified or empathetic when reading about a tragic event in the newspaper, it is only through literature or poetry or drama that those feelings evolve to something we might call joy or happiness, but perhaps is better described as deep satisfaction or a sense of wonderment. For me, it has to do with the sense of the hugeness of the transcending human spirit that literature at its best somehow translates to us.

I have only just finished the first part of this book. If I was not on a quest with my wife to read books by authors with each letter of the alphabet I would probably have abandoned it.

Commenting too much on a book before finishing it leaves plenty of scope for me to get egg on my face as initial opinions and thoughts may be washed away with a nights sleep or further reading but anyway...

In terms of literary merit I do not find it that well written, its not Dan Brown levels of terribleness but it is just not that great. It is written well enough that the pages turn but I do not find the language used terribly interesting or affecting.

The book seems to try to provide a portal to the west on what it is like to be a woman in Tehran through the portal of a group of women meeting and talking about predominantly western books. One of the problems of this approach is that I felt I got less insight into the characters and their experiences than I would with a more conventional narrative.

I have not read Lolita and I definitely think that this hindered my enjoyment of the first part and it also to an extent hampers my ability to provide much critical evaluation of the book. How can I say if the analysis given of Lolita is true or trite, if the analogies with experiences of women in Tehran are real or forced? On the whole I am finding myself leaning a little towards this review https://www.goodreads.com/review/show... although I feel more positively about the book than that.

I know a bit about life in Iran through spending time with Iranians both socially and through volunteer work with refugees. I felt I learned a lot more through reading the utterly brilliant Persepolis in fact even reading the mildly entertaining The Dark Tourist but it is early days with this book as I am less than a third through it.

As for the resonance with the book and the readers I think partly it is because the author liked the title "Reading Lolita in Tehran" and rightly thought it was marketable. Nabokov definitely has meaning to the writer and her readers group beyond this but I do feel that this is at least part of it. There are parallels with him and the writer - they both originally wrote in their native tongue, both left an oppressive regime to the west and both moved on to write/publish in English. There are parallels beyond this but I feel I would need to have read Lolita to comment further.

Great comments, Ben. I agree with your take on the marketable title. I read Lolita some years ago and have to say I didn't see everything in it that Nafisi has but I picked up a copy from the library and intend to give it another go.

Thanks for the recommendation of Persepolis; I've heard others say good things about it. Please continue to add your comments as you work through the book. Your familiarity with Iranian life will add some depth to our conversation here, I'm sure.

Apart from marketability, I also feel that the title Lolita has significance for Iranians because it is a kind of taboo, like the subject matter of Lolita was - I read this book about three years ago as part of academics, and repeated readings of it within a year made me feel that although it is neither too well-written, nor has a coherent focal point, it is important for all those people who feel marginalized. For the subalterns, in this case, both liberal Iranians and women, Lolita (especially to Nafisi and other liberal teachers) became the symbol of the forbidden fruit, in view of what was to happen - see spoiler (view spoiler)[Western literature would become illegal in the Iranian Revolution (hide spoiler)].

So reading Lolita in Tehran becomes a transgressive act, an act of defiance, a liberal stance in a higly morally conservative culture, and not simply a marketable title. Lolita becomes a symbol of both, breaking a cultural taboo and the state of victimhood.

Lit Bug wrote: "Apart from marketability, I also feel that the title Lolita has significance for Iranians because it is a kind of taboo, like the subject matter of Lolita was - I read this book about three years a..."

Ah, thanks for that perspective. Yes, the symbolism is definitely there, as you point out.

Sidebar comment -- Lolita is probably a better book to put on one's TBR than RLiT. Nabokov's book is not a story I like, but I understand why it is respected as a work of literature. I will probably reread it one day, a status only a handful of books on my shelves receive. The book really is not its popular persona.

this book isn't literary, I agree - but I consider it important from a different perspective, that of a repressed entity's struggle for their rights, as women and humans, and the role of liberal literature in shaping one's life, especially in a theocratic regime.

RLiT is far from the only book though that looks at cultural repression and I do feel that there are other works that handle this so much better. There is also the issue that the books referenced heavily (Lolita, Gatsby) are to some point spoilerised by what I see so far as a pretty derivative work.

I also feel that without having read Lolita I didnt enjoy reading the part as much as I otherwise would. I certainly enjoyed the second part more when the text was Gatsby which I am much more familiar with.

I committed to read stuff I don't think I'll like this month, to do what I asked everyone else to do and read outside my comfort zone, optimistically expecting to be delighted and surprised. I'm not a big fan of memoir.

Ben, you ate giving me no hope here!

If you look at RLiT as a fun read and you don't mind the spoilers for various classics then it is fine just nothing amazing. Some people have really connected it and loved it so you can but try it and see how you feel about it.

If you are looking for one book to look at what it is like being a woman in Iran before and after the cultural revolution then I would strongly recommend Persepolis instead.

I am also trying to at least read a few chapters of everything on the list this month (although I might run over into next month to complete it).

I hate memoir. I find two hundred pages of people talking about themselves to be like those phone calls where you put the tv on low and say uh huh every twenty minutes. Except you have to participate.

Seems like we are moving into a discussion of the book as a whole here. That's fine and there's a thread for that if you want to continue the discussion there.

I thought this section was stunning. The parallels drawn between what Humbert did to Lolita and what the Islamic Republic does to women is chilling: “… a dream [imposed] upon our reality, turning us into figments of imagination.”