The Advantages of a Graphic Novel

Usually when we think of graphic novels the first things that come to mind are light-hearted kids' books without a deep story.  Perhaps this is because there is much less text than in a traditional novel.  However Persepolis is not like this.  The format of a graphic novel works to emphasize and augment the concise words of the story with powerful images.

I think the reason that this novel brings forth so many emotions is that it tells the story in these two separate ways, combining words that tell you the history with pictures that show you what words alone cannot.  A good example of this is the bottom panel of the first page in which all of the little girls are playing games with their veils.  In this frame we, as westerners, are instantly made aware of the fact that kids do the same things in Iran that they do everywhere.  Also, we see one of the Islamic government's policies through the eyes of these children.  Through the graphics, it is clearly evident that the kids do not see the veil as something of religious significance deserving of respect.

Another way the graphics in this novel are used is to emphasize the descriptions of what these people went through.  A great example of this is the frame depicting Marji processing the torture the political prisoners went through.  Because this is shown graphically, the torture seems much more intimate and terrible and the effect of this knowledge on Marji is very clear.  She hears of tortures such as whipping followed by the torturer urinating on the wounds, but the one that seems to stick with her the most is the iron.  She is shocked by the fact that the iron could be used for torture, and from the bottom frame on this page it seems like she will never look at an iron the same way again.  

These are just two examples of how the graphics contribute greatly to the reader's perception of the story.  I think that this format also makes it easier to process the difficult topics presented in the book and is certainly easier to read than a traditional text-based novel.  Do you like reading such a dark plot in this format?  Does the graphic novel format take away from the seriousness of the issues presented.  

Grant is the Hero

I think that Grant is the journeying hero in this novel, not Jefferson.  He is the one who is given the heroic task of  making Jefferson a man.  He takes the classic Campbell path of resisting the call at first, dragging his feet at every step when getting access to Jefferson.  However, he does accept the call eventually and starts to teach Jefferson despite the fact that he seems to be a little overwhelmed by the challenge.

"What do you plan on doing when you come up there —if I let you come up there?" Guidry asked me.
"I have no idea, sir," I told him.

This conversation shows how Grant does not really know what he is trying to teach to Jefferson, much less how he will go about teaching it.  He has an idea of what Ms. Emma wants, but does not seem very certain about why she wants him to spend time with Jefferson.  The fact that he continues on this journey despite this uncertainty is a sign of his heroism.

Grant is also the one who changes the most during this novel.  In the beginning, he is an educated but sort of naive man who doesn't recognize the cycle he helps to perpetuate.  However, because of the challenge that Jefferson presents him with, he comes to realize that the black community is trapped in a cycle of ignorance and oppression.  His part in the oppression becomes apparent to him when the superintendent visits his school and looks at all the children's teeth while they stand in perfect lines just like he taught them to.  

"Rise," Irene called to the class.
They came to their feet, their heads up, their arms clasped to their sides. But instead of feeling pride, I hated myself for drilling them as I had done.

This is when he starts to see how he himself is part of the power structure that has put Jefferson in prison on purely circumstantial evidence.  In the follow chapter he begins to see what his old teacher meant when he said that attempts to change the situation were futile.  Grant realizes just how continuous this cycle is while he watches his students chop wood for the winter.

And I thought to myself, What am I doing? Am I reaching them at all?  They are acting exactly as the old men id earlier.  They are fifty years younger, maybe more, but doing the same thing those old men did who never attended school a day in their lives.  Is it just a vicious circle? Am I doing anything?

It is in this moment that he makes the transition from being a passive school teacher who plays along with the system to someone outside the system who sees it for what it is.  This is what sets him apart from the other characters in this book and what makes him a hero.

Anse's Role

One way to explain the plot in As I Lay Dying is to consider that the driving force behind the plot might be the reader's inevitable disgust with Anse.  He is just a bad human being.  First of all, he is lazy, and I find his excuse of dying if he sweats a little too convenient and unlikely.  He pretty much forces his wife and children to do all the work of running his farm, and just sits around on his porch all day rubbing his hands and trying to look pitiful.  At this early point in the novel, the reader must begin to dislike Anse, and one thing that keeps them reading is a search for more justification for this hate.  They don't have to wait long for more evidence.

The point of the journey he forces the family to take is supposedly to honor his wife's wish to be buried in her family plot, but for Anse this burial takes second priority to getting himself a pair of dentures.  In fact, nothing else seems remotely important to him.  In the process of getting his teeth, he harms all of his children.  First, Cash's leg is broken while he tries to get Anse's wagon across the river.  Then, because of Anse's cheapness and incompetence, Cash's leg is set in cement which takes several layers of skin with it upon removal.  Cash may never walk again. As the story progresses, the list of Anse's self-serving acts grows long and the damage to his family increases, driving the plot forward and keeping the reader wanting more.

Another result of Anse's stubbornness in crossing the river is that both of their mules are drowned, and Anse refuses to borrow the mules offered to him. To buy new ones, Anse trade's away all of Cash's money and Jewel's prized horse, as well as an insignificant amount of his own possessions.  By Cash's interpretation, this unfairness is what causes Darl to set the barn on fire as he sees it as making things more even.  So, indirectly, Anse is responsible for Darl being sent of to an institution as well.

Finally, when they get to Jefferson, Anse guilt-trips Dewey Dell into giving up the ten dollars she had received to pay for her abortion.  Having stolen from and hurt all his childern who made his journey possible, Anse buys his teeth, becoming the only Bundren to get what they wanted out of the trip.  Also, he takes a new wife just hours after burying Addie.  This conclusion of the novel caps off a buildup of increasingly disgusting things that Anse has done, and thus serves as a relatively satisfying conclusion of the book.

Do you think this interpretation of the plot makes sense?  Can we view this book as driven by hate of the central character?

Can We Trust Darl?

One issue that having so many different narrators creates is the conflicting points of view.  We as readers must decide which narrator is more trustworthy in each situation.  However, this is even more complicated when Darl narrates, as he seems to have some kind of omniscience or ESP.  How he knows about events happening while he is not present is not explained at this point in the novel, and probably won't be.  Therefore, as readers we must decide whether or not these seemingly clairvoyant sections are reliable or not.

The way that these sections are written it does not seem that he is retelling what he was told by someone else, someone who was present.  Instead, he seems to be observing the scene much the same as a third person omniscient narrator would.  The only difference is that his narration of what is happening far away is interspersed with bits of what his happening to himself, Jewel and the wagon.  I think that if we can trust what we hear from narrator in this book, we can trust Darl as well.  He seems to be Faulkner's way of putting an omniscient narrator into this book without disrupting the structure of narration by all the characters.  If this is true, then perhaps these clairvoyant passages are in fact Faulkner speaking directly to the reader without the intermediary step of a character narrator.

Regardless of whether or not this is Faulkner's direct narration, there is little reason to distrust Darl.  He seems to be one of the most objective of the narrators, and nothing he says about events when he is not present is incorrect, as far as we know.  He is certainly less opinionated than Cora, who narrates everything against Anse.  He and seems to be more reliable than Vardaman, who tells us his mother is a fish.  Which narrator do you trust most?  Is Darl's long-distance narration reliable?

Odysseus's Pride

It seems to me that if Odysseus had simply walked in to the city of Ithaca and announced his return to the suitors there would have been very little resistance.  The majority of the suitors lack the will or bravery to openly challenge such a renowned hero.   Even if the most ambitious suitors chose to fight against him, they would not be able to defeat Odysseus, for most of the city would be happy to see their hero and back him.   He could still punish the suitors as he saw fit, probably killing the ones who "deserved" it.  With this in mind, why then does Odysseus pursue this roundabout plan of disguising himself as a beggar in his own home?

He chooses this scheme partly because Athena wants him to take revenge in an aesthetically pleasing (and bloody) way.  But, I think that the main reason that he chooses this roundabout path is that he wants the suitors to have the "oh crap" moment as he reveals himself to be the beggar who they mistreated, and the suitors realize that they are about to die.  It is this feeling of absolutely dominating the suitors physically and psychologically that Odysseus craves, that his pride demands.  As a hero who is mostly praised for his tactics and wiliness, he cannot be satisfied by just driving the suitors away by revealing himself or taking them unawares and killing them in their sleep.   He seems quite vain at some points in this story, especially when he asks a bard to sing about his own deeds, so it makes sense that he wants this plot to be impressive and clever enough to be sung about by bards alongside his other exploits.

The idea that a person is only great if others recognize them as great seems to plague Odysseus throughout the epic.  It gets him into trouble with Polyphemus, first when he demands gifts after already taking many of the cyclops's possessions, then later when he cannot resist telling Polyphemus his real name and revealing how he tricked the cyclops.   Both of these actions have serious consequences for Odysseus and his men.  If he had followed his mens' advice, they could have taken what they wanted from the cyclops's home and left without trouble.  However, because of Odysseus's greed and need for glory, many of his men are eaten, and Odysseus barely escapes with his life.  However, he obviously does not learn from this since as soon as he is back on his ship and away from shore he taunts Polyphemus.  He needs the cyclops to know that it wasn't "nobody" who blinded him, it was the great hero Odysseus.  Because of his pride,  Polyphemus is able to throw boulders at the sound of his voice, narrowly missing their ship.   Furthermore, this whole encounter with Polyphemus angers Poseidon and is therefore the reason that Odysseus takes so long to reach home, which is why there is this issue with the suitors in the first place.

Is it right for Odysseus to kill all the suitors because of his pride?  Does he deserve respect for his exploits, or is his overdeveloped sense of pride the source of all the conflict in the Odyssey?

Xenia

The greek word "Xenia" does not translate perfectly.  Host to guest hospitality is part of the concept, but the ancient greeks placed an equal emphasis on how the guest treated the host.  Xenia is the concept of the proper host-guest relationship, characterized by respect, courtesy, and gift giving on both sides. Obviously, the host will usually have more to offer the guest, such as food, drink, a bath, and a place to sleep.  In return, it is considered very important that the guest do their best not to be a burden and to reciprocate in any way they can.  One reason the greeks placed such a high importance on Xenia is that they believed gods walked among them in disguise, and to mistreat such a guest could incur divine wrath and potentially vengeance.  This idea was deeply set in ancient greek culture, and thus we must read the Odyssey with the knowledge that Homer's audience would have been familiar with the concept of Xenia.

I think that with this background information in mind, Telemachus deserves more respect for his own actions that are not prompted by Athena.  He is beset by suitors who throw the idea of Xenia out the window, however when he sees a newly arrived stranger, who happens to be Athena, Telemachus immediately attends to the stranger's every need.  I think that the ancient greek audience would have responded very positively to his actions, especially in contrast to the actions of the suitors.  The suitors are a perfect example of bad Xenia.  They are a huge burden on the household of Odysseus, in fact it seems that they try to be a burden.  This direct clash with the concept of Xenia would be horrifying to ancient greek audiences, and certainly would make Telemachus seem better in contrast.

He also demonstrates this in the role of a guest when he visits King Nestor and King Menelaus in their homes.  He is very courteous to them, and fits into the role of a visiting prince surprisingly well, considering that he has never been prepared for this role.  He certainly demonstrates that he is deserving of respect for his Xenia, regardless of whether or not he should be respected for what he does carrying out Athena's plan.  Although Telemachus's journey is micromanaged by Athena, his exemplary Xenia is his own.

Free Will in Libra

I think that the question of whether or not Lee has free will is central to this book.  We go in to this book knowing that he killed President Kennedy, what see along the way is why he did it.  In the beginning Lee certainly seems to think he has free will because he is very conscious about his goal of becoming a historical figure.  He takes initiative towards the goal, reading Marx and doing everything he can to become the man he wants to be.  This action on his part suggests that he believes he has to do such things to reach his goals, not just sit back and let destiny take it's course.

However, David Ferrie, Lee's handler/friend, sees life very differently.  In New Orleans, Ferrie takes Lee to see a friend named Clay Shaw.  The first thing this man asks Lee is when he was born, and we find out that Lee was a Libra.  Through Shaw, we get DeLillo's interpretation of what it means to be a Libra.  

He said, "We have the positive Libran who has achieved self-mastery. He is well balanced, levelheaded, a sensible fellow respected by all.  We have the negative Libran who is, let's say, somewhat unsteady and impulsive.  Easily, easily influenced.  Poised to make the dangerous leap.  Either way, balance is the key." (315)

In this book Lee seems to fit much more cleanly into the second of these two types of Libran.  He is certainly unsteady and impulsive, as shown by his attempts to get out of the army, defection to the Soviet Union, and shooting of General Walker. Also, it seems that he is relatively easily influenced by De Mohrenschildt to shoot Walker and eventually by Ferrie to shoot Kennedy.  Finally, the "dangerous leap" he is poised to make is undoubtedly the assassination of the president.  However, it also seems that the "positive Libran" is what Lee wants to be, respected by everyone and in control of his life.  I think that Lee was certainly smart enough to recognize at least some of the parallels between what Shaw said and his own life.  Therefore, when Lee asks Ferrie "Do you believe in astrology?" a few minutes later, this indicates that Lee is seriously considering the notion of astrology and fate.

When David Ferrie attempts to convince Lee to go through with the shooting he uses the argument of fate and coincidence, presenting it as something Lee has got to do, rather than a choice he has to make.

"You see what this means.  How it shows what you've got to do.  We didn't arrange your job in that building or set up the motorcade route.  We don't have that kind of reach or power.  There's something else that's generating this event A pattern outside experience.  Something that jerks you out of the spin of history." (384)

If this argument helped sway Lee towards shooting Kennedy, and I think it definitely affected him to some extent, then Lee must also believe that there is some element of fate in life. What do you think Lee believes about fate/destiny?  Does he believe in free will?

Bonus: Writing about free will naturally made me think of the song Freewill by Rush, which has quite interesting (and relevant) lyrics.