I realize that I am nearly alone in my opinions of Lipstick Jihad- I enjoyed the book. I admit that the book has its flaws, but I enjoyed the author’s story, and enjoyed the fact that it was a bit of a change from some of the other readings.
One flaw that was obvious was one that the class discussed the other day: it constantly alternates in the style and format of writing. It alternates between informational, journalistic, and memoirist writing styles. Now, I do not know much about different types of writing (let alone their technical terms!), but even I could detect these changes. At first the switches were very distracting and made the story harder to get interested in, but after I got deeper into the story, the switches did not less noticeable.
Another flaw that was brought up in class was that the author did not have enough authority to analyze/criticize Iranian culture in the way that she did. This is due to the fact that she was born in America, was in a very specific situation (going between the two cultures as a journalist), and also due to the fact that she was ”indoctrinated” with Western Orientalist ideas. She was a reporter for the New York Times, which raises a huge red flag, according to others in the class. Though I understand these red flags, I also do not think that her work should be criticized too harshly, either. In my opinion, her opinion should matter. Yes, she may have been in a very specific circumstance, but we still get the privilege of looking into that situation through her eyes. I think there is much to benefit to learning from a person that is going back and forth between two different cultures, and is able to see both sides of issues in a way that other people cannot. Yes, one culture will most likely dominate, but there are still advantages.
I hope to further analyze this text, and not to discount its story just quite yet!
I see what you mean. I felt that she set out to write a memoir in the way that she was used to setting out to get the facts for a news story. A memoir should be a thoughtful retelling of events from the author's past. In this way, her memoir is most authentic in the beginning, when she recalls her adolescence. I found the most merit in the telling of her experiences as an Iranian living in California.
ReplyDeleteI honestly didn't think the book was that bad either, it wasn't my favorite book but I did enjoy parts of it. I guess it would make a difference if I had studied different things like this before, but I did enjoy the story as well.
ReplyDeleteI did not read this book, but I agree that her opinion should matter. She may have a different perspective to offer being a part of two different cultures, and that is definately something to consider.
ReplyDeleteI agree with you that the author's opinion should matter. I think that she went about telling her story the only way she knew how to. Her experiences and interactions at home being more story-like or memoirish and her interactions with less familiar people more journalistic and facty. Perhaps those two halves of her have always been separate and her reconciling of the two didn't integrate as well as she had hoped.
ReplyDeleteYou know I have your back. I think this author had as many pressures at play writing the book as she had trying to develop her own Identity. The memoir writer who wants to tell her own coming of age story, the journalist who wants to report the facts of Iran in an objective way, and her loyalty to her homeland that wants so desparately for us to understand that these are wonderful, strong, and amazing people who are living under a set of conditions that are very difficult. It is like your two best friends don't get along because they completely don't understand each other. (US vrs Iran) In the end, you are trying to be the mediator...but sometimes the effort is futile and you get upset because you can see the virtues in both, why can't they?
ReplyDelete