Harry Potter and the PHILOSOPHER'S Stone (Pgs. 0 - 130)

About that title… It's philosopher's stone. What in the world is a sorcerer's stone? Why was this changed? Why is this a thing? Did the publishers think that no one would get it? Honestly, what was the logic behind this? That's a rant for another time. Not now.

I must confess that I never read the Harry Potter series as a kid. I wasn't abroad the train of the obsession of Harry Potter, and although I enjoyed the movies, I couldn't tell you what the first few were about today. It was that long ago, and thus reading this book now is like getting a new experience… or close to one, at least.

It only hit me, as I was reading, the surface of the cool stuff present in the universe of Harry Potter. The nomenclature is very inspired, though at times significantly less than clever. As a fan of fantasy and one with a great appreciation for the likes of J. R. Tolkien's efforts in creating an entire language all its own, seeing things like the "Put-Outer" do nothing but put a foul taste in my mouth. I understand that it is a Young Adult novel, but seriously? In a world with so many cool inspirations and naming conventions, the first magical item the reader hears about is the "Put-Outer"?

What could a an evil, inhuman wizard look like?

Complaints aside, starting off the novel with the celebration of some (at this point) unknown evil sorcerer's death is one way to get a reader's interest going. Had I not known about Voldemort and his role in the events to come, this would have interested me greatly. The idea of some vile wizard whose only discernible motive seems to be to gain power doesn't really make for a good, morally questionable and well-written antagonist, but it does invoke a certain drive in the reader to want to learn more about how such a villain could be thwarted. When Hagrid talks about the rumors about the cause of Voldemort's disappearance, he says,

"Some say he died. Codswallop, in my opinion. Dunno if he had enough human left in him to die." -Pg. 57

That plays up a villain. That creates mystery. That makes the reader wonder just how powerful the guy was, if he had apparently gained enough power to lose the title of being human at all. And the book is barely 3 chapters in at this point. That is good writing. And speaking of good writing, given my knowledge of the later events in Harry Potter, J. K. Rowling does an excellent job of foreshadowing. Her planning is evident when Harry chooses his wand.

Slightly disappointing in all honesty.

"It is very curious indeed that you should be destined for this wand when its brother --why, its brother gave you that scar." -Ollivander, Pg. 85

The fact that Harry has a wand that is connected to Voldemort's is clear foreshadowing of a connection between the two. This is all only the start of the cool things I could talk about in just the first half of the book. 

Image Sources: 

http://lilithstreasuretavern.weebly.com/uploads/1/3/7/3/13737227/s144094589190160637_p425_i1_w639.jpeg

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a3/Lordvoldemort.jpg

Persepolis 2 Blog 2 "Looking at the Person"

Now that I have finished Persepolis, I want to know just what kind of person that Marjane Satrapi is. I believe that I have the information necessary to figure that out, but at best I can derive from anecdotes and interviews. As a note, nothing is certain until one actually meets someone in person. 

Despite what some believe, I do not think she is an instinctive person. Given the opportunity, not once but twice she speaks out against the Islamic Regime at a school setting. Perhaps from her being raised up with people like her uncle who was executed for wanting freedom and a family who generally were overjoyed with the rebellion against the Shah, she greatly valued liberties. It would make sense that she would act with every chance she got to attempt to fight something that restricted her so much. On the other hand, Satrapi also failed to defend herself several times while in Austria. She would occasionally explode, such as when she overheard the girls talking about her at a cafe, but most of the time, was self-blaming and passive. She is a short-tempered person who likely battles clinical depression of some sort.

If anything, this short temper and clinical depression would make sense considering her inclination to being an artist. There have been several studies linking depression and mental illnesses such as bipolar disorder to bursts of inspiration and a person's level of creativity.** This is because of an exposition to a greater range of emotion. She says that she chose to use writing and visual art to express herself for Persepolis.

"Well, for me, who is someone who cannot choose between writing and drawing, [a graphic novel] was the best way of expressing myself" -Marjane Satrapi*

She is a passionate person who puts in a great amount of effort to her work because she believes that that is the mark of a truly creative person.

*Source: http://99u.com/articles/7134/marjane-satrapi-on-artistic-freedom-fame-finishing-no-matter-what (Interview with Satrapi)

**Source: http://talentdevelop.com/interviews/psychcreat.html (Article about creativity and how it functions)

Persepolis 2 "Iranian Revolution"

Persepolis 2 is the second part of the auto-biographical graphic novel about Marjane Satrapi, someone who was a young girl during the Iranian Revolution. This part of her story details her venture into France when sent away for her safety. How people treat her in France gives an interesting view on the event, given the history of the Revolution.

The Iranian Revolution was a result of a history of unfortunate monarchy and a combination of US and British interference. In the early 1950's during the Cold War, the US feared Iran falling to Communism due to its being in close vicinity to the Soviet Union. Of primary concern was the potential for Iran to end up as a source of oil for the Soviets. "Thankfully", the Shah, bloodline monarch of Iran, would co-operate with them and promise not to ally with the Soviet Union. Through a long campaign of covert affairs, the US ultimately supported the Shah by performing a coup d'etat against the democratic political leader, Mossadeq, who was suspected of being a Communist sympathizer.

For years afterward, the people placed the blame of this on several sources: Britain, themselves, but they remained in the dark about US involvement. (Source: http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/) It eventually came to light, however, and Iran was quick to respond to them, such as when a group of people attacked the US Embassy, resulting in the Iran hostage crisis.

Source: http://www.gq.com/news-politics/big-issues/200911/iran-hostage-crisis-tehran-embassy-oral-history

This took place in 1979, 5 years prior to Satrapi's initial arrival in France. This puts things into perspective, though it doesn't really illustrate the significance of this point in time. Although Iranians knew what the CIA had done, US citizens did not. At least in the US, the Iranian Revolution was not of great concern to the public. It was only after the attack on the US embassy that people started to care, and even then it was in spite of Iran. In this way, the stigmas present in anti-Iranian sentiment are understandable. To exemplify this disdain, Satrapi says that at the time,

"Iran was the epitome of evil and to be Iranian was a heavy burden to bear." (Pg 41)

Now, the story itself more focuses on the life and times of Marjane Satrapi, but knowing this part of history adds a lot of depth to one's perception of the events in book. It acts as a good way to contrast what history has reported on with what a person who experienced the events has reported on.

(Background Knowledge on CIA coup d'etat from All the Shah's Men by Stephen Kinzer)