![[Reading Lolita in Tehran]](http://www.realmofthewombat.com/images/books/readinglolita.gif "[Reading Lolita in Tehran]")
Reading Lolita in Tehran is described on the cover as a memoir in books. For me it was also a lesson in the history of Iran. If nothing else, the reader gets a true account of the Iranian Revolution, life under fundamentalist Islamic rule, and attitudes toward Western life, no propaganda, no spin. However, along with this political story, there are nuggets of literary critique that speak to the quality of Nafisi as a teacher.
Very early on Nafisi dismisses 1984 and instead cites Lolita as the novel most relevant to the plight of the Iranian woman. Her rationale is that an individual’s self-image is indistinguishable from the government’s idea of the individual’s place in a moral Islamic society. However, I can’t help think of Orwell’s classic: the educational system inundated with propaganda; Revolutionary Guard patrols control action and, it is hoped, thoughts; dissidents are periodically punished publicly to intimidate others; selectively positive news of a war used to unite citizens, when the reality is a conflict at a stalemate. The most eerie connection to 1984 is the description of what happens when political prisoners were executed.
The victims of this mass execution were murdered twice, the second time by the silence and anonymity surrounding their executions, which robbed them of a meaningful and acknowledged death and thus, to paraphrase Hannah Arendt, set a seal on the fact that they had never really existed.
Other reoccuring themes that a high school student could write a five-paragraph essay about are dreams and irrelevance. Here are some observations I made while reading:
- There is little reference to Iranian or any Asian literature. I’m guessing that this has to do with danger of writing anything contradictory to the government, so there weren’t really any Iranian authors Nafisi felt worth discussing.
- There is little reference to her husband. The book is mostly about Iranian women, but several men do appear prominently. Yet, I almost forgot she was married.
- During the war with Hussein, Iraq is vilified as an ally of West. I’m not sure what the Iranian opinion was of the US invading Iraq, but I bet it wasn’t too positive.
I probably did more thinking while reading this book than any other.
![[The Fire Next Time]](http://www.realmofthewombat.com/images/books/firenexttime.gif "[The Fire Next Time]")
Written in 1964, this is James Baldwin’s analysis of civil rights through his life. There are three main sections: (1) growing up in Harlem realizing that his future seems to be either making a living unscrupulously on the streets or running to the church, (2) conversations with the burgeoning Nation of Islam, and (3) thoughts on race relations in the past, present (i.e. 1963) and future. In the first section, Baldwin shuns God, concluding, “If the concept of God has any validity or any use, it can only be to make us larger, freer, and more loving. If God cannot do this, then it is time we got rid of Him.” While his opinion of humanity isn’t much better, he does believe people can overcome their need to feel superior and achieve equality, not by segregation, but by integration. It was really more optimistic than I expected in the end.![[JFK]](http://www.realmofthewombat.com/images/books/jfk.gif)
Thanks to my negligence in catching my flight back to the Bay Area, I was able to finish JFK’s biography. I’m certainly not going to make a habit of 700 page books, but I think this one was worth the effort. The writing and subject matter were excellent. I guess I’ve always been one of the people who thought that JFK got too much credit for just being a Kennedy. After reading this book, I was partly justified. His pre-presidential political career was nothing noteworthy. As president, he was somewhere between mediocre and poor on domestic issues, i.e. civil rights. In terms of foreign affairs, it seems like he essentially maintained the status quo, except for some progress on nuclear non-proliferation. So if the question is, “How much did the country improve over the period of his presidency?” the answer is going to be mildly positive. However, that’s really not the best way to evaluate. It’s unlikely that anyone could have much in terms of civil rights with half of his own party against him So while he could have been more bold on the divisive issue, he opted for smaller steps, and focused on foreign policy, a uniting issue. There were missteps, but his balance of pragmatism and idealism was a true masterpiece in a very dangerous environment. I say that he maintained the status quo, but it was a tough status quo. We could very easily have blown up the planet, so on that score, Kennedy deserves substantial credit.![[History Lessons]](http://www.realmofthewombat.com/images/books/historylessons.gif)
This is an American history book made up of excerpts from foreign textbooks. It does an excellent job of putting perspective on the United States’ place in the world. Going in, I expected the American Revolution to be the most interesting part, however, in the context of Europe’s long history, that event represents just a small portion of what was happening globally for Britain and France. One thing I took from this book was the negative outlook of American foreign policy, basically since its inception. I wouldn’t say I was surprised, but it was a reminder in light of 9/11 that distrust of the United States is not a recent phenomenon.![[United States of Canada / Jesusland]](http://www.realmofthewombat.com/images/misc/usc-jesusland.jpg)