Review: Reading Lolita In Tehran

Here is a review in 3 parts.

Part1. In which I give my initial thoughts.

An intriguing title indeed, but does it deliver? What did I expect? I expected a story about living in Iran with a conflict between Western liberal literature and religious fundamentalism. At the end of part one we had done all that but I was having problems with my concentration and the questions that were raised in my mind. I found that I did not really want to read more, and time ran out and the book had to go back (maybe I will get a copy for myself and battle on).

At times it seemed that the book was more a critique of Lolita and Nabokov’s writing rather that a new insight into life in Iran. At the discussion it was suggested that it was propaganda. Now that made some sense. It was certainly not a balanced view of the history of how the country got to where it is today. After all, the revolution is only 40 years old. I remember hearing news of the Shah and his Western ways and of British and American involvement (should I write meddling here?) in the country. So really I would have liked to hear a view on that. But that would be a different book. So again what was this one? By the end of part one I “knew” that life in Iran for a woman was a.....trial, shall we say, and that there was a dictatorial leadership. Side question: was it worse under the Shah? A point for heated discussion here. As I said, I did not need any more stories, I could imagine the rest.

Part 2. In which I start reading what others have said about the book.

I will give here some comments made by reviewers just to give a better idea of what you will be in for, if you decide to read this book.

First, and maybe the only one you need, is to go to Wikipedia. After reading that you will either want to know more, or say too academic, too clever by half. But the list of books referred to the text look like a good reading list, maybe if I had read at least some of them, I would have been better prepared to read this one.

From “goodreads” (http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/7603.Reading_Lolita_in_Tehran) written by blereader:

I'd say this is ideal for students who have read at least some of the various works (Lolita, The Great Gatsby, etc.) and who don't mind reading a 400+ page book. Many of the complaints about Reading Lolita in Tehran are about how "boring" the literary analyses are, so students who enjoy analyzing classics and who can reflect from memory about their experiences with Lolita etc. would probably enjoy Nafisi's memoir better. I myself didn't read many of these Western works until my college years, so I suppose I'm biased towards thinking that this book is best for university students. Also, much of the accounts take place at a university, so it might ring well with those who are going through or who have gone through a university education.

For younger students, you might consider Marjane Satrapi's Persepolis. It's more or less the same place and time period. Satrapi's work is just as serious as Nafisi's, but it might keep the interest of young students better, as it's less "pontificating," it's in graphic novel form, and it follows the life of a young girl growing up.

There are several good comments on “goodreads” and they might encourage (discourage) you to read this book. I do not think I can better them but maybe you have to read the book before you can appreciate the review, ummm that sorta kinda make the review a bit of a nonsense.

Someone did produce a fairly bitter summary comment on this book “It uses memoir to wrap up propaganda. The author could have been a wealthy American doing some revolution tourism, while avoiding acquiring any unsettling information about what was causing it. She exaggerates the Islamist Regime’s sickening human rights record by inflating the number of its victims. She attributes these atrocities to Islam itself rather than Khomeini’s illiterate fundamentalism. She even exonerates Saddam Hussein for the eight war between Iraq and Iran. Her feigned opposition to the Shah’s regime is betrayed by her concern for the treatment of the general in charge of the barbaric SAVAK secret police and the bulldozing of the previous Shah’s grave. Her liberalism is confounded when she puts words into the mouth a Red Shiite activist (Mujahedeen) that elites are attacked from envy and when she states the only goal of politics is for government to stay out of people’s lives. Both sentiments that belong to another refugee from an earlier revolution Ayn Rand. Some of the literary criticism in the memoir was interesting, as were the struggles of her relatively well-off selected students. This is really an insight into the thinking of a product of the Shah’s elite, while its vast Western readership have taken it as informative dramatized journalism.”

Part 3. In which I get confused and cop out.

Here is a reference to a long and very erudite article, from 2006, condemning this book from a cultural perspective.

“Native informers and the making of the American empire.” Prof Hamid Dabashi http://weekly.ahram.org.eg/Archive/2006/797/special.htm

I found the article very difficult reading but what I picked out was a view of how a section of Islamic society sees the colonial worlds of America, Britain and France. Not nice to be thought of like that, but there is certainly some truth there. Maybe the criticism of the book is too harsh, or unfounded, he even takes exception to the cover picture. Maybe if you want to be offended then you can always find, or invent, a reason. The critique admitted that all was not well in the present system, but deplored the perceived attempt in this book to subjugate and deprecate Iran by ignoring the wealth of culture and the whole history of the area.

If I continue with this line of thought and writing, I will be getting into areas that I do not understand and putting into print half-assed ideas, so no more!