Persepolis is Complete

Now that I have viewed the film, I can get a better understanding of what Majane Satrapi went through and how other people in the film were affected by emotions. As Majane's life passes by, she becomes more aware and more mature as she gets older by the events that occur that affect her family and the country she lives in. She lost many people she cared for including her uncle with gave an everlasting effect on her throughout the film. We see how the regime took control of Iran and how many innocent people were punished. Marjane learned to become independent and let go of her past to try and better her future.

My impression of Marjane is that she is a kind hearted girl but gets influenced to easily by her family and peers. She hangs out with the wrong people that gives her the idea to make bad judgements. She still is family oriented but slowly separates from them physically and emotionally. She had to leave them to be free from Iranian control but then she does not speak to them for a long period of time. So when they are reunited it is a little awkward being that they do not know what she looks like or even what she has gone through. By the end of the film, Majane is liberated from her past and forbidden to return to Iran as her mother tells her so this we can see that she is her own person ready to take on the rest of her life and make her own decisions. (Mason Roessler Post 21)

The Complete Persepolis

In the movie "The Complete Persepolis" there was a lot of emotional tyranny going on. It almost seemed like the main character, Marjane could never win. Things seemed just to go from bad to worse, as many close to her died, her city was being bombed and she always feared for her life. She was allowed no individual identification, she could never express herself and she acted out in ways that got her thrown out of school and into some major trouble.

Marjanes struggle I felt acted almost motivational to the reader. It made you read the story of her life and realize that nothing is impossible, and that where there is a will, there is a way. You can make it through anything if you just believe in something. She struggled enormously throughout her life, but always found a way to make the best of the situation she was in.

-Cali (last post)

Graphic Novel Within the Film

After viewing most of the film and completing the book its hard to say which one I like better. If the novel wasn't graphic then I would most definitely choose the film because it allows you see what the author is trying to portray. However, because Satrapi choose to write her story in a graphic novel form it allows for us as readers to really imagine and view what is happening. It allows us to learn about difficult topics in a lightened setting.

The only thing that the film really has over the book is that you are able to pick up on sarcasm, characters attitudes and body language because they are moving and actually speaking the dialogue instead of a person just reading it off the page. I really enjoyed both the book and the film and I don't really read much except for when it's for classes, but this novel I could see myself reading outside of class. It had an interesting topic that is still in our current news and the way the author presents it is easy to learn from. (Shawn Parkhurst, Last Post!)

Film vs Book

I really enjoyed the film. I like how she made serious times, less serious with humor. The humor in a way always lightened the intensity of what was going on. I think the film explained everything, and instead of the book it like showed her true emotion. I would rather watch a film, then read a book because you can feel and hear emotion through a film and not reading. You can get some emotion from readings but not as much in the film. That is how I personally feel. I really hope we can finish watching the film, because it was very interesting. (Nicole Butzke, Post 22)

Changing Stereotypes

Satrapi's use of sarcasm in both the film and graphic novel bring lightness and comedy to some very heavy topics and help her . After 9/11 and other terrorist attacks, many nations and people generalized their opinions of the small fundamentalist group that planned and executed the attacks, to describe all Muslims of the world. Marjane's ability to exaggerate the appearances and feelings of others, as well as her own appearance and feelings humanizses the characters and enables her audience to better relate to them. In doing so, she is able to seperate Muslims and those from Iran from the small fundamentalist groups that gave all Muslims the negative stereotype. By making this clear separation, she is able to portray how the majority of citizens of Iran are in fact victims, and not murderers. She is able to show how all of the nation suffered. By showing this she enables her audience to empathize with a nation they once had looked upon with disgust and disdain.
Cailee- #

Motion Picture or Graphic Novel??

Similar to Sarah, thus far I am unable to decide whether I enjoyed reading the book more than I enjoyed watching the motion picture. This is the first instance where I have experienced this kind of dilemma; I have always preferred the book over the movie based on it. This is normally because the movie is lacking in details. More specifically, I feel I am unable to gain insight about the characters' thoughts and feelings in a movie version; whereas in the book, these elements are abundant. The thoughts and feelings of the characters' are an integral component of any story, therefore when a movie is lacking in these areas, it becomes difficult to extract the same meanings and insight that the book depicts.

It is difficult for a motion picture to portray these fundamental components that comprise the book. Where an author can narrate a characters complete reaction to an event, person etc; a character in a movie can only use his actions and dialogue to portray this same reaction. However, in the motion picture, "The Complete Persepolis," Marjane is able to narrate her own feelings and reactions. She is also able to better depict the reactions of others through her narrations and through the animations. Her use of sarcasm and exaggeration enable Satrapi to clearly illustrate her thoughts, as well as the thoughts of other characters. For example, when Marjane catches her boyfriend cheating; she uses sarcasm in her images and word choice to literally paint a picture of her feelings to the audience. She portrays him in the the exact opposite way she did earlier in the motion picture. Instead of being romantic and loving, he becomes a disgusting, lazy pig. This exaggeration helps the audience to understand her feelings at this time in a way a movie cannot. Instances like this help the audience to gain insight in order to better understand the important themes of the film.
Cailee J- #

Majane's life on the big screen

After reading the comic book version of "The Complete Persepolis" I got the full picture of what was going on in Iran and how the whole country viewed what was going on. When Marjane moved out of Iran and into Europe for the most part you could see her thoughts and words, but could not really get the way she sounded. You had to use your imagination as to how she sounded in her expressions.
Putting things in motion for the comic book into a movie really helped to get a better picture of how Satrapi wanted things displayed in my mind at least. I could see the way she really sounded and the humor she involved in her story. It didn't really change much from book to movie just made it easier to understand the actual tone of the story.
Post 1 Kevin Ostempowski

Marjane in motion

I feel as if the movie did an excellent job of portraying every single aspect about Marjane. It may have even done a better job than the book itself. Usually it is nowhere even near close to that being the case, but since the book was a graphic novel in the first place, it seems as if the movie had to do a better job, because it puts more motion into play. This leads to many more observations being made about characters reactions and emotions.
Not only does it lead to more observable characters, but now their emotions dont have to be exaggerated as much in order to get the point across. What I mean by that, is that in graphic novels and comic books the emotions on the characters face, and their over all posture presents their feeling to the reader. Usually, in order to assure that it is clear what emotion the character is feeling at the time they make their expressions extreme. In the movie however this is not necessary, because the characters can show full movements, giving them opportunity to be more natural and subtle about how they actually feel while still easily showing what's actually going on in their minds.

Which is Better?

This is one instance where I actually can’t decide if I like the book or the movie better. Usually I always side with the book, mostly because I find that it has more detail than the movies. But in this instance, both the movie and the book have positive and negative qualities.

The book is wonderful. I loved it, once I got into the storyline, and got used to the different style of the graphic novel. I actually feel that the book was better as a storyline. It seemed to flow better, even though the stories were the same in the movie. I expect movies to have some sort of transition between the different scenes, but this movie really seemed to jump around. This jumping around during the scenes could be Satrapi reminiscing about her childhood. Memories like that never seem to flow in a coherent manner. We are just observers looking in on a woman’s memories of her traumatic childhood. Another thing I liked about the book more than the movie was more detail into her adolescence and young adulthood. I feel like the movie really focused on the details in her childhood, and not so much her time in Europe, and her time in the university. The book was more detailed about her life, while the movie, like most movies, had to cut things out, most likely for time reasons. Another thing I like about the book is that the still images of all of the soldiers, and other frames where it is one figure used over and over are more dramatic as still images. The movie takes away a little bit of the striking quality of the still images.

I also like the movie better than the book for different reasons. As a design student, I really liked the fact that they left the childhood memories in black and white, while the present Satrapi sitting in the airport is in color. It gives a sense of drama to the war scenes from her childhood, while also lending an idea of Satrapi not remembering them in all their detail. She remembers what happened in them, but not well enough to remember the colors of the scene. This happens to everyone. Memories tend to get foggy or faded after long periods of time. I like that they brought that idea into the film. It really gives a sense of reality to the whole thing. Another thing that I liked about the movie more than the book is that the movie allows the characters to become more real. The characters are now able to move around, and show better facial expressions. This allows the audience to better understand exactly how the characters are feeling. In the book, we can get a general idea of how the characters are feeling, but the animation allows Satrapi to show minuscule signs in the facial expressions of the characters that really tell us exactly how they are feeling.

So far the movie has done a good job of imparting the story line, and I can’t wait to see the rest of it!

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 23)

Motion Picture Novel

"The Complete Persepolis" was an enlightening book that displayed the harsh conditions in which Marjane Satrapi had to endure while growing up the Middel East. To read about the events that took place was one thing, but to actually view it in movie format helped to bring more life to the story. The characters are now given a voice and can represent their feelings in a more direct demonstration opposed to the novel. The movie itself seems more interesting and eventful, and really allows for Satrapi's character to be more clear. The actions taken forth by many of the characters bring more raw emotion and allow for the events in the story to be expressed with greater detail. The horrible actions that took place in Satrapi's country really show that her life was full of twists and turns, and it must have been hard to endure the strict limitations that were placed upon the woman such as always wearing a veil in public. The military factions and the jailing of innocent people were terrible situations in which Satrapi dealt with on a regular basis. I cannot even fathom having to witness something like that each and everyday. I think the movie does these events justice, because it actually shows what happens with sound and detail, rather than simply reading it and not understanding what is happening.

Upon viewing the film, I noticed that all the events that took place in her early childhood were in black and white. I thought this was interesting, because it showed how long ago Satrapi's childhood must seem to her, like looking at photographs of one's grandparents from the 1930s. She seemed to grow up so fast only leaving her past behind with memories of the war and the death and destruction that had embodied that portion of her life. As she grew older, the film transitioned to color, thereby representing the present day, and almost like it was a fresh new start to her life. Her present life is free from war and the military that had destroyed much of her early childhood. She is now an adult woman and ready to start a new chapter in her life.
(David Roberts, Post 23)

Marjane's vision

I enjoyed the novel a lot I thought it was very enlightening to what has gone on in the middle east through the eyes of someone who lived there. I don't know if I'm a visual person or media loving person, but I'm enjoying the movie more. I feel it pushes the envelope but in cynical way that makes it funny. Actually seeing the characters moving around and giving them a voice instead of reading the words on a page I think make more of an impact. You get more of an understanding of what the characters are going through and see more of the connections between each other.

I've never really been a fan of reading a book and then watching the movie on the book it never usually works out. I'll be honest when I saw we were watching the movie I was quite surprised that in an English class we'd be watching a movie on a book, but I'm glad we did. I loved that fact they kept many of the frames from the novel especially the scene where they black out a whole picture after she saw her friends bracelet. Overall great movie good book but either way enlightening.
Thomas Moss (final post)

Film vs. Graphic Novel

Well I would much rather read a graphic novel rather than a regular book when it comes to a topic with this level of importance because a graphic novel has pictures which convey meaning a lot better than words a lot of times. I did really enjoy reading Persepolis as a graphic novel because it definitely changes your viewpoint about Iran as a country and the citizens that live there. Since we started watching Persepolis as a movie today I think I am enjoying the movie more so than reading the graphic novel. The movie shows more of what is going on in Iran rather than just what Marijane is going through. The movie conveys more emotions than the book did. The movie shows more of Iran in general than the graphic novel did but I feel like the movie is missing parts of the story that the graphic novel had. These parts may be small but all parts seemed important within the graphic novel. I can't think of an example off hand it just seemed like we got to the point of her leaving Iran very quickly and missed a whole bunch of events in between. Still I am enjoying the movie and am glad we are not only reading the graphic novel but also watching the movie.
(Kelcey Summers 22)

what they say

In Persepolis, we discover a problem that seem to be contagious around the word, that is people like to say "what they say." Marji spaghetti incident at her boarding house with the nuns. A lot of times in society we base our whole ideas of single groups of people by what they say. So who's they? they are the people who say kill them all when one person or small group does something terrible to them or there people. they are people who if you do not act a certain way, you are consider a savage. we have all these racial or ethical slurs that just separate us from each other. This is general cause by our standard of what we or what we were taught was right. And a lot of time we take those over board. For example Marji was a little piggish in eating out of a pot But because the nun did not consider it proper conduct she associates it with some one not having education. What if we set aside these petty views? would not we open away to cross the boundaries of the world

One piece of hair

Persepolis has many different angle on which we can see the revolution and its development. First off the veil, The way in which to control woman in a close society. The use this to bring women to submission in order to gain control over one person instead of treating them as people. It also put blame on women by saying the because one stand of hair show you can cause a man to sin. Which just covers up the issue of lusting towards other woman, which men should take responsibility for them selves on how they think and not blame it on something stupid as woman hair. I think this way of life really put conflict in Marji life because of her free spirit. She was more open outwardly but society told her to keep everything in. when governments or people start doing this freedom to express and equality go out the window and darkness is throughout the land.

Persepolis 2

I find that the main character marjane her situation in general, is harder to relate to than her character. Her as a character the struggles and changes she goes through as she grows up can easily be related to our childhood. Going through the different stages, different trends. Although her childhood was a lot more restricted then ours, with the rules she had to live with.
She couldn't even go out into public without being completely covered or risk getting arrested. I would never be able to live with that, I felt like every one of her rights as a human being was completely taken away from her.

Cali Simmons (Post 14)

Persepolis

In the novel Persepolis, its the story about a young girl growing up in an ever changing world. She has to deal with rules that only seem to only increase in reinforcement. From being forced to wear a vail, and cover ever inch of her body. To face threats such as terrorism and bombing to having her very own family taken from her. Even being sent away to be away from all the danger and be forced to live on her own without her parents.
I couldn't imagine being sent away from my parents just like that to live in a different country, a completely different world with people who aren't even related to me. I don't think under those circumstances i would be able to adjust.

Cali Simmons (Post 13)

A Whole New World

Marjane continues to develop further, and as she is given more freedom, she is also faced with more responsibilities and decisions to make. Even throughout all of the peer pressure and temptations, she easily refuses most of them, even though she pretends to utilize drugs. In my opinion this is more acceptable then legitimately taking part in these activities because she knows she is not supposed to do them and sticks to it. Other responsibilities she had however, was to live in boarding school and make it all the way through which she in fact did not. This is because Marjane did not choose her battles wisely.
While reading by herself and eating pasta in a pot, a nun confronts her. Even though she really isn't doing anything wrong the nun feels the need to tell her off for eating in a pot and makes fun of her heritage. This is where her responsibility should have stepped in and she should have properly chose her battle. Even though what the nun did was wrong and in complete disregard to her own feelings, succeeding in the school was of importance and had she ignored the nun and not snapped back at her, she could have made it through boarding school.

Marjane's development as a Child

Throughout the book, Marjane has developed as any child would, adapting to her surroundings and growing as she is told and born and raised to grow. However as she grows and becomes more intelligent, she comes into a fork in a path and has to start choosing what to believe and what to fight for. At first thanks to school, she begins to develop a belief completely contradictory to what her parents believe. Another reason she may have began to believe otherwise is because for her own protection her parents didn't let her come to protest rally's that they went to, which didn't help their own case very much, because it gave her no evidence.
The reason her development is significant is because this is how children are influenced all over the world. When things happen in a child's life and they wonder why, if they are not convinced of why something is the way it is, they tend to assume otherwise. For example when i was younger i would hear something from my teacher and repeat it to my parents (or vice versa) and there were often times when i was told that the other party was incorrect. Often i believed the reason that disproved my initial teachings because more than not, it was easier to make it seem like something was wrong even if it wasn't. More often however, I (as I'm sure many other children do) believed my parents over my teacher for the sole reason that they were my parents.

Breaking the Chain of Conformity

Further reading of Persepolis has revealed several distinct hardships that Satrapi had to endure throughout her life growing up, as well as the relationships that she had developed with other people. Satrapi writes in such a way that allows for the reader to draw their own conclusions regarding the scenes that represent her life. It is upon a detailed overview of the comic pictures that a specific trend can be acknowledged. This being that several of the characters that are depicted in certain scenarios all look exactly the same. It is like the characters in these situations all have the same ideals and perform the same actions, as if they are nothing more than a bunch of robots. This type of depiction can be specifically portrayed in the drawings of the military factions, in which each soldier is exactly the same as his comrades. They all act the same and live the same lives, which is not unlike how many people might view those of such backgrounds. Satrapi does not conform with this type of imagery, but rather breaks free from the mold that she is supposed to fill. She cuts herself away from the society and chooses to make her own choices without the influences of being told what to do, whereas the soldiers and extremists only do what they are told to do. They cannot think for themselves so they are all essentially the same and in unison with one another. If a group of people cannot exercise their own ideas or practices then what makes their physical appearance the ultimate distinguishing factor? This is how most Americans live by and this is perhaps why most Americans now view anyone who looks Arab to be a terrorist, which is simply wrong.

Expanding upon the idea of the extremist view and how Satrapi depicts them, this is no different from soldiers of Sierra Leone. In Sierra Leone, many of the soldiers are actually children much like the soldiers who are Islamic extremists. The children are not only used as physical man power, but also to psychologically mess with their enemy. It is hard to picture a child trying to kill another person and for many adults to even point a gun at that child is almost impossible. The children of Sierra Leone most of the time are taken from other villages and drugged and told what to do. They do not have a voice and are manipulated into thinking that their actions are good and for a good cause. They try to instill a fear in those around them to feel power and kill anyone who refuses to break free. This is no different than how many Islamic extremists opperate and carry out their actions. Their message to instill fear becomes the teaching method to those around them and anyone who does not share their ideals are then the enemy. Satrapi's character is not the enemy in this notion, but rather she is the unheard voice that is trying to break the barrier. She is trying to convey her side of the story and show that one should not be afraid to speak out to the world.
(David Roberts, Post 22)

God's Help

In the beginning of the book God is a huge part of Marji's life. She wanted to be the next prophet even though she was a girl. She made her own book of rules like the Ten Commandments. Sadly only her grandma believed in her. God would always come visit her whenever she wanted him to. She would even compare God to Carl Marx imagining what God looked like. When she began to support the revolution against the new Regime God started to disappear in her life.
The one night Marji was picturing herself as different military leaders to imagine herself being a focal point of the revolution. That was the first night that God left her and didn't come back when she wanted him there because her parents wouldn't let her be a part of the revolution. As her life went on she obviously got farther and farther away from him. At one point she became a drug dealer which is the farthest in my mind as you can get from God, compared to the way she acted when she was younger. This is a major changing point in her life in my mind because that is as low as she got. She realized that she wasn't getting anywhere because of it and changed her life afterwards.
Kevin Ostempowski Post 2

Change of view

Before I started to read The Complete Persepolis my views of Iran were solely based on the radicalists in the nation. I thought the whole country was this way that everyone had the same ideas. When I started to read more and more I learned that it wasn't the whole nation thinking the same way. The majority of the people in the nation think differently than the head Regime. While reading it the book pointed out that there were a couple different ways to take things on how the government is supposed to be set up.
Also in reading this book Satrapi points out her personal views as to whats taking place. God was a big point of her life. She would point out how the leaders who were in charge were chosen by God to be there. Her father instead told her that the leaders actually weren't chosen by God instead they got there by greed and wealth. It put a focus on how things should have been and what they truly were. When a person wanted to change things to how they should be they were swayed by money to not change a thing.
Kevin Ostempowski Post 1

Questionable Gender?

In the beginning of the book, Satrapi wanted to do the things that guys did. She wanted to be a prophet. Everyone shot that dream of hers' down. Throughout the book she displays different questionable gender comments. Did Satrapi want to me a guy?

Also further through the reading she cuts her hair off really short. And through the illustrations, Satrapi made herself look manly. She would get boyfriends, but the question rises, why the manly side. Does she want to be a bigger figure? (Nicole Butzke, Post 23)

Views

So when I first started to read the book, I viewed it as just someone telling their life story and point of view, of the current events. I later realized how much different it was from a child growing up through the whole event happening, then just someone saying how everything happened.

Satrapi's point of view is very interesting. I really enjoy reading about the book, and how she views the different happenings. Her description and how she makes the book into a comic book setting is very interesting. (Nicole Butzke, Post 22)

The World Needs to Change Iran?

The Complete Persepolis doesn't mess around when it comes to depicting life under the current leadership, but it also makes you realize there are amazing and wonderful human beings who are doing their best to live dignified and noble lives. This leads back to our discussion where how has your viewed changed after reading and it really has changed my opinion because I realized that it is not the whole country, but the actions of a few that give everyone a bad name. They love their country and would it being invaded by a foreign power than just as much as we would. I'm sure they would fight against any such invasion in spite of their disagreements with those in power. Just because you don't like your leaders, doesn't mean you don't love your country and want to see it taken over by a foreign power.

The Complete Persepolis is a powerful story because it shows of a person's struggle to find her place in the world. The biggest thing for me is that Marjane Satrapi has chosen to tell it in the form of a graphic novel not only shows us how far means of expression as changed, but allows us a glimpse into a world that few of us know anything about. Before anybody makes any decisions about whether they think the world "needs to do something about Iran" they should read this book. (Shawn Parkhurst, 22)

the use of the graphic novel to tell the tale

Marjane Satrapi could have told her story just as easily in a straight autobiography, and I'm sure it would have made for a good read. But by telling it as a graphic novel, she brings a visual part to it that increases its impact. The graphics themselves are plain black and white drawings, but her ability to use imagery to tell the story along with the dialogue and narration makes them as effective as if they were in full color as a film.

The visual element allows her to include the offstage, and imagined part that the reader normally has to do on their own. Instead of having the information as separate incidents, where its impact is reduced by removing it from the context of the story, we see things as they happen. In my opinion this technique increases the emotional power of the moment. Something about the directness of her style that allows her to do two things: distinguish between individuals easily, especially portraying all the women as completely clothed in black (suggesting they are just objects that are all the same). It also allows her to make her own depiction of horrors, death, torture, and anguish, emotionally realistic without being graphic or gruesome.(Shawn Parkhurst, 21)

Poverty

Marjanes' grandmother comes to town to visit and explains the hardships and poverty of years past. Growing up was hard because the work load was more heavy and it was harder to live by living with a lot of people and poverty just made it worst. The difficulties in it is hard because of the fact that Iran is not such a developed country in ways that America is developed. The technology is different and the people are different because Iran is a country that focuses more on the traditions and America is a country that focuses on more the luxuries than their own traditions. This is why it can be hard for an Islamic person to go to an American school because of all the technological advances they lack.

The Iranian regime has much to do with the outcomes of the Islamic faith. Children are brought up as corrupted individuals who are forced to join their military at a young age so they can increase their military numbers. They are trained to kill soldiers and civilians and have the advantage because nobody would want to see a child be killed. They use this strategy as a psychological effect so that children with guns can get closer to the opposing forces and exterminate them. In order to stop this crisis, the regime must be stopped and brought down and train the corrupted individuals to become normal people once again. (Mason Roessler Post 20)

The Islam Faith

In this book, we see how life is different in an Islam country than our own. The religion is different and that is how it can affect people's lives. The traditions of he native people in those countries can be very strict and family oriented that if one person decides to go against the traditional roles, it can have serious consequences on them. Going to a different school can even be hard for an Islamic person to do just because of the many different roles other countries play. It is important to know that clothing is a major part in Islamic lives. This is because women are to wear gowns not revealing anything so it draws attention to them in a postive or negative way. The bottom line is that we need to realize that other people have different faiths and beliefs and we need to respect that and accept them for who they are.

If we look at Iran, there are many different stereotypes that can we assume. We may look at Iran as a terrorist country or one full of fundamentalist views, but that is not always true in some cases. It can also be seen as a country that produces a lot of oil that we acquire for our country's use. There are many people like us who live in Iran that are innocent and everyday civilians just like us. In other words, Iran does not seem to be such a bad acountry as it is made out to be. It is full of postives and some negatives but the good can out weigh the bad. (Mason Roessler Post 19)

Not So Very Different

I am coming to understand Satrapi more and more as the story goes on. She is such a real person. It sounds terrible, but there is always some sort of detachment between myself and the authors I read, that this open honesty, with no metaphors or anything to hide behind, she just makes Satrapi feel more real to me. I feel like she is completely baring her soul to the audience, no matter their feelings on the subject. She doesn’t hide anything, and that makes her more real to me.

Another thing I really like about this book, is that despite her different upbringing, Satrapi “rebels” in the same way the “classic” American does, or for that matter, any teenage does. She smokes, she loves rock and roll, and she participates in drugs, even at one point selling them. She just comes across as so relatable because she is flawed. She has grown up in a major time of war in her country, but she still manages to “rebel” or act out as a normal teenager would. Mind you her parents supported her rebelling against the government with the rock music, but some of it was against her parents as well. She has made mistakes in her past that she is not afraid to come clean about, and that she grew from in the long run, so she is like a normal person. Even though she is not of our culture, she still experiments to find out who she really is, cutting her hair, experimenting with make-up, making new, not totally acceptable friends, and making other mistakes along the way, just like we do.

One scene that I really enjoyed was the scene where she was in the diner and overheard some girls talking about her behind her back (pg 196-197). This scene displays Satrapi most as a real person I think. She had been holding information back from people for so long, that eventually she just burst, and screamed that she was Iranian and proud at those girls. Not that they didn’t deserve to be screamed at, but every person that I have met has, at one point in their lives, blown up at people because they decided to withhold information. It happens to everyone. It is a very human thing to do. We want to fit in with the majority, and there is nothing wrong with that.

I completely agree with some of my classmates who have already posted that despite our different cultures, we still need to treat people from the Middle East with respect. There is a huge difference the radical extremists, and the everyday person. We need to acknowledge that difference, and respect that these people had nothing to do with the attacks on our country, even if they are from the same country or religion as the attackers. I think that the teenage Satrapi rebelling in the same way that we might, really stresses just how similar we are to each other, and how much we need to embrace our similarities, instead of focusing on our differences.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 22)

Not Appropriate or Perfect?

I have to say that I was a little bit confused as to why Satrapi decided to write a graphic novel about her life in war-shattered Iran. It is essentially a comic book, and it didn’t seem like a “real” enough form to write about such a serious topic in. I realize now that it might just be the best way to address such an issue.

This style of writing can be more expressive of feelings and ideas than another form might be. Satrapi literally draws her characters’ faces to represent their feelings at the time. It allows us to interpret said emotions more accurately. I also think that this style allows us to connect with the characters even more than we might if it was written straight. We have someone to picture in our mind when we think about what happened in the story, and it helps me anyway, to have someone to picture, even if it is a cartoon version of a person. I think that this style of writing also lends a lot to the fact that this story is a story of growth, and it helps portray the time of her life that we are in.

Writing this as a graphic novel is also very fitting in that the main character is a growing child when all of this is happening. All of these extremely serious things are going on, and I kind of forgot that she is a little kid for a good portion of what we have read so far. She doesn’t really act like a kid in the “normal” way of being a kid, but reading about her story in this kind of form helps accentuate the fact that she is in fact little kid who has seen terrible things happen. It is also interesting to see how her little girl mind interprets all of the things that she is experiencing, and I feel like we get a better understanding of how she did interpret it through the drawings in the graphic novel.

I also think that this for of writing also helped Satrapi keep her readers interested. It manages to keep a sense of levity through the stories, even though the topic is quite serious at times. I think, as it is quite a serious a subject, that if she had written it straight, as a novel, or another form, that it would have gotten quite heavy, and she would have lost some of her readers. She lightens the mood with funny anecdotes from her childhood, and clever illustrations for the darker parts of her story, without losing the seriousness of the moment.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 21)

I just wanted to blog about how much I am enjoying reading this book. I believe the fact that it is different from a regular novel makes it more interesting to read. The pictures definitely help to explain more about how the characters are living their lives. Pictures tell a thousand words. If it was just a regular novel I don't think we would really get the full picture that the author is trying to convey. The pictures and even the written words help to portray the way the characters are feeling. I would never have thought that graphic novels existed for adults. When I hear graphic novels I immediately think of comics but this rather is very informative. It helps to change the countries viewpoints about the Islamic faith. It also helps to capture the characters' everyday lives.

The main character, Marji, can be portrayed as a "normal and typical" teenage girl but when you look closer at the story she is conveying you see that she lives in a war stricken country. She is sent away and the pictures help tell the story of her new life in Austria better than words can ever do. For one example of the way the pictures tell the story better than words could is when the family is pulled over after coming from a party and the cop follows them home. I don't think words can explain the stress the family was undergoing when the grandmother and Marji had to run upstairs and dump everything before the cop came up. The pictures show this worry and anxiety way better than words. Another example is when ZoZo and Shirin come pick up Marji from the airport in Austria. In the car, Shirin has possessions that Marji would have never been allowed to have. The expressions on both their faces throughout their conversation would be difficult to convey in words. This is a great book so far and I am really enjoying the graphic novel component!

(Kelcey Summers 21)

Two Sides of the Story

After viewing some of the short stories written by Marjane Satrapi, the true background of the Islamic people becomes evident. In America today, many people have harsh criticisms directed towards those of Islamic faith. After the attacks taken place on 9/11, a strong sense of prejudice has evolved with many Americans pointing fingers without a direct understanfding of the truth. It is through this analysis of American behavior that Satrapi's comic stories become all the more intriguing. She presents us with the true renditions of her experiences during the Islamic revolution with the war between Iraq and Iran. It is hard to face the truth when one has blamed the wrong person for so long. It was extremists that were responsible for the terrorist attacks in both the past and the present, and we must acknowledge that difference. Satrapi's words and concrete issues sort of help to distinguish that difference between the extremists and those who are the real victims.

Satrapi writes in such a way that we almost question ourselves what is truly happening, or what is the significance of this event. One such a story would have to be "The Veil." The story really demonstrates the radical side of Satrapi's character and her rambunctious attitude to cease to conform with her fellow people. A specific scene would be the class photo that was taken in the beginning of the story. As it was discussed in class, a possible explanation to why her character is separated from the rest of the class could be that she does not feel like she belongs. Her character comes across as being an outsider, especially later on the book when she leaves to go away. She wants to be independent from everyone and live the life that she chooses, rather than live a life that is pre-determined much like the rest of her classmates. It is similar to how American associate anyone of Islamic faith as being a terrorist. This is horrible to think like this, but it is the truth of the majority behavior in this present time. It's almost as if Satrapi recognizes herself as being the "enemy" and doens't want to have that association anymore. She wants to leave her past behind in a sense to start her own story, one that spells the truth of the harships that she had to endure.
(David Roberts, Post 21)

I just wanted to comment more on Satrapi choosing to exclude herself from the class photo. I wanted to say that I think the reason she chose to do that was to show that the story wasn't about her or for her. I think the story is more meant for those other children who maybe look just like her because they're are just like her. Maybe this story was is for them. It was brought up the fact that no one else was looking at the camera really. I thought that was a great point. Maybe they have the same story or have been through the same things but they can not speak out like Satrapi.

After reading my article I started taking a closer look at the reading. I have to say I'm really enjoying it. I started to notice what was mentioned in the article about how it's a story about a "girlhood" not about Satrapi herself. It's about the country around her. I think the fact that her speaking out when many women of that culture have to stay silent makes her an "Outcast" and thus a part of our course study. Good choice. Thomas Moss (post 16)

Changing Viewpoints

This book is a really good book to read. It definitely helps the reader gain awareness of everyday life for teh people who live in Iran. The citizens aren't all terrorists or fundamentalists. They are people as well and the book really helps us to gain that awareness. I really liked the way that you learn about their history from the child's perspective. We talked a little in class about our impressions of Iran had changed after reading the first part. I think that it is important to gain awareness about other countries on their history. You don't really understand a culture until you realize the history that they have had to go through. As the Iranian people have developed their culture they have had to go through a lot of wars and a lot of fundamentalist regimes. Unfortuneatly, this story gives you the first hand experience of all the protests.

She had to go through a huge change in school and even a huge change with having to wear the hood after not having to wear anything. That is a huge difference in how you live your life. She learns about all the struggles first hand but it is nice that we can gain this knowledge and understand all they have gone through. My perspective of Iran was that they were mostly fundamentlist extremists and plot against the US but in reality that is only a small portion of the country. The people are the ones that have to risk their lives everyday hoping that the regime ends its power and a new one comes that will be better. Unfortuneately, it doesn't happen that way. Your impressions of Iran definitely change reading this and I think putting it into a comic book form helps to incorporate the importance of the imformation.
(Kelcey Summers 20)

Revenge

In Tod Browning's "Freaks," the circus performers use the negative stereotypes to their own advantage at the end of the story. Throughout the show, the "normal" people working at the circus separated themselves from the "freaks." They felt superior because they did not have some sort of disability, and therefore ridiculed and took advantage those who did. For example, Hun was taken advantage of by Venus because of his feelings for her. Because she was "normal sized," she felt that it was okay to play with Hun's emotions in order to get his inheritance. At the end of the story, her treatment of the disabled comes back to haunt her when she is turned into a chicken by all of the people she used to ridicule. The disabled circus performers used the negative stereotypes of Venus in order to scare her before turning her into a chicken. They accepted the things that made them different, and used these differences to their own advantage in order to get revenge.
cailee-11

Offend One, Offend them All

In the movie Freaks, there were many points in the movie where the "freaks" were insulted. When this was done, the rest of the freaks there were offended and upset about it as well. This is because if one person is humorous because they are different, then anyone who is different will feel as if they are being directed as well. Many people don't actually consider what the consequences of the things they say will be. For example when they say "don't get her started, he'll punch you in the nose" to the male/female combination.
Saying this led to his/her feelings being hurt and her feeling like an outcast. Things like this are devastating truth bringers, because even the freaks make fun of and mess with the other freaks. One example being when the Siamese female twins were arguing with one of their significant other who had a stuttering problem and as he stuttered they told him to spit it out already or something to that extent. This goes to show that even disabled people sometimes poke fun, but dont realize how much damage their statement actually may do.
-Derek Guarino

Modern Day Freakshows?

Eli Clare brings up an important point about the treatment of the disabled by medical professionals. Instead of a one on one, personal meeting with a doctor, those with disabilities are put in front of large groups of people in order to be studied by medical students. It is almost as though those with disabilities are put on display as "freaks" were put on display in circuses and freakshows in the past. However, the main difference between the disabled being presented for medical students and the freak shows of the past is the purpose. Today, the purpose of a large group of students studying one disabled person is for education, so the students can learn about the disabled in hopes of becoming a better doctor. In the past, those with disabilities were put on display for others' entertainment. Because of this different, I think there needs to be more understanding from medical professionals as well as the disabled.

Medical professionals and students need to think about the feelings of the disabled when they are being presented in front of large groups. They need to understand that in a sense, they are gawking at the disabled as people gawked at freaks in the past. However, the disabled need to be more understanding that the intentions of the students and doctors are essentially good. They are not being gawked at because it is entertaining for others, but rather to educate others about disabilities and improve the lives of those that are disabled. It is for the benefit of the disabled as well as the students to be studied, because the ultimate goal is a better life for those that are living with a disability. Because of this, there needs to be a compromise. Rather than displaying a disabled person for hundreds to look at, there should be a much more personal approach. For example, maybe one or two medical students will sit in on a disabled person's visit to the doctor. This way the students can observe and learn both about the person with the disability, as well as how they should interact on a more personal level.
-cailee 10

Eli Clare and Stones

Several times throughout the article Eli talks about how his body was stolen or taken from him. He mentions that he was raped several times by his father and that his mother stated she never knew. By addressing his sexual abuse and neglect, he connects this to his homosexuality and trans-gender identity.

However, one of the passages in the story makes me debate whether Clare really does attribute the abuse to him becoming a transgenders person.

“How did his gendered abuse reinforce my sense of not being a girl? How did his non-abusive treatment of me as an almost son interact with the ways in which fists and penis and knives told me in no uncertain terms that I was a girl? ... and later “How did my mother’s willful ignorance of the hurt he inflicted on me influence what I absorbed about femininity and masculinity?” (126)

Clare states that he does not know and will never be sure if the abuse or neglect he was exposed to in life caused him to be transgender or homosexual. (Shawn Parkhurst, 20)

right vs. wrong

Just wanted to continue on my last blog and answer some of the questions posted. First the question about considering the public stripping of the children. I kind of look at it this way when I have a doctor look at me I don't consider it public. Aren't we supposed to have patient doctor confidentiality? I don't think that would change by the amount of doctors who view the child its still confidential. While this may effect a child physically and/or emotionally what about the million of children it will save? It may sound crude but you have to look at the risk reward factor. Possibly hurting one child may be worth the amount of children it could save. Also it is not the doctor who can take on how this will effect the child. The child's guardian has a right to say no. That part should be put on their shoulders.

Lastly who would this benefit? Does it benefit the child? I would say yes all those doctors discussing one child the more thoughts and ideas the better. Will it benefit the medical profession? Why sure it's cost affective and unfortunately in the state we live in that has to be a factor. So does time with the amount of time some children are given to live with disabilities the more help the better. Unfortunately this whole idea is not pretty, but getting over the political correctness of somethings is the best way to help people. I just think this maybe one of those occasions. Thomas Moss (post 15)

Freaks? Or Just Different?

I do not believe that Browning meant to portray the freaks as objects of interest. Naturally, they are going to attract attention, not all of it positive, because they look so different from the typical person, and they are not usually seen an everyday person’s everyday lift. In fact, it seems that he does just the opposite of portraying them as “freaks”. If he truly wanted to show them as being “freaks,” I believe that Browning would have shown the acts that they performed for the circus. He does not do this, in order to keep the film from becoming another platform on which to prove their “freakiness”.

I think that Browning successfully allowed his viewers to see the “freaks” as people. We got to know each character and what their personalities were like, which were not freaky or different in any special way. They seemed like regular people that just had different bodies. They had their own family, and they all fit in and served a purpose to that family, just like normal people have certain roles and purposes in their own societies. I also think that Browning effectively portrayed how the circus people react when their family is threatened. They had absolutely no problem accepting Cleopatra and Hercules into their family. They wanted to include them, as equals in their “circus people” family. They showed this at the wedding feast.

It was only when Cleo and Hercules began showing threatening behavior to members of the family that the other members began to react and treat them accordingly. When they did begin threatening bodily harm to Cleo and Hercules, it was with switchblades and guns, probably two of the most common weapons for everyday people to have. If Browning had truly wanted to play into the “freakiness” of his characters, I think he would have had the circus people act in completely unexpected ways. He would have really gone to the extremes and possibly pulled stereotypical fears of physically deformed people like having them have particularly gruesome ways of killing people. Instead, he gave them two very common weapons. They did end up turning Cleo into a chicken-woman. I think that was justified, and just a play on her being terrified and prejudiced against the circus people, effectively turning her into a freak, so she could experience how she had treated them from the other side.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 20)

From Beginning to End

In the beginning of the movie "Freaks" the circus people were being shown as how they were different and how they were viewed upon by other people. When the family of "freaks" was out in the woods dancing around and having fun 2 men walked by and yelled at them. Since they were acting so foolishly they could possibly be seen as children. The woman said they were her children and the men said they weren't children they were monsters and he felt bad so he kept letting them play. They were shown this way on purpose even Han was shown as a child by the way he fell for Cleopatra so easily. He acted in a way that a child would have acted when he saw a toy or something he wanted really bad and would do anything for it. He ignored what people said about him and Cleopatra whether or not they were right.
In the end of the movie the "freaks" were also shown as being freaks but in their own way. When the second part of the movie started with the family accepting Cleopatra into their family it was showing her as being the "freak." Most people would see her as being the normal one but since they were the freaks and she was normal she was a freak to them. When Cleopatra poisoned Han the family acted like the mob and attacked her and Hercules. When thinking about the family attacking them it almost seems like the childest side is still coming out. The reason it seems this way is because I feel like they could have called the cops as Venus wanted to do, instead they went the easiest way out and killing Hercules and turning Cleopatra into a chicken woman.
Kevin Ostempowski Post 2

Freaks

In the movie Freaks by Tod Browning we viewed the behind the scenes lives of the circus performers and were taken through emotional struggles, relationships, greed and controversy all throughout the film. At the end of class we were handed a sheet with questions on it relating to the film. I will be responding to question 6.
I do think the freaks changed throughout the movie, as we watched and were introduced to the characters we began to learn more and more about their individual characters. Even though they all had physical and mental deformities they soon became more human, or normal to us as viewers we began to relate more to them once we were able to see they experienced emotions and struggles just like we do, and we began to feel emotions towards and about them. As we learned more about them they became more friendly and we soon began to see the characters true colors. As the film went on we saw the freaks change at the end going from friendly to down right dirty at the end of the film killing one performer and seriously mangling another. I do not think the film reinforces the notion that individuals with deformities are outcasts, since throughout the film it allowed us to become closer to the characters and begin to forget more about their disabilities.

Cali Simmons (Post 12)

Abuse and Sexuality

When Eli talks about when she was abused as a child by her father it brought out the topic she wrote in this chapter. She said that abuse is caused by the sexuality of a child. What is so important about this statement is that usually a person would say that sexuality is caused by abuse. Such abuse that a child would normally endure that is thought to lead a child in their future to possibly change their sexuality would be rape. As shown by Eli it could be the complete opposite way around. She believes that the reason children have to deal with abuse is because of their sexuality. For example, she was abused by her father to push her back to acting feminen. He would rape her to show her how she should act normally.
Another important part in this specific section was when Eli writes about how she asked her mother if she was feminen. This seems important for a few reasons one of which it stops her growth as a female in a way. Her mother didn't remember her response to the question. Therefore could not help with her growing up and not being raped by her father and acting like a normal girl. Another possible reason in my mind atleast for this to be such a key factor is because of the fact that she always saw her sister putting make up on and other things like that. Eli could have possibly seen that as being wrong and the way she acted being normal.
Kevin Ostempowski Post 1

Freaks

We watched the movie Freaks in class on Wednesday, one thing really stuck out to me. I thought the treatment of these people was horrible. They made them live in almost like a colony with all of the other "Freaks," to me this is worse than the treatment of Rachel in the book "The Girl who Fell From the Sky."
These people are no different inside than you and I but they are treated horribly wrong. There "owner" makes a profit off of people to come and watch a circus involving these "freaks." To me this is way worse than the verbal torment that Rachel received in her story.
Anthony DiChristopher
post 16

Eli Clare

In class we were shown a photo of Eli Clare, one common question that arose was is Eli Clare a man or a women. The photo was of Eli Clare in the woods kneeling down next to a very big tree. The photo shows Eli Clare being very cut and defined in the areas where muscle is present.
She was born a female but had an aspiration to be a male at a very young age. She then started dressing and acting like a man. The question now is present, is Eli Clare a man or a woman?
Anthony DiChristopher
post 15

Who exactly are the Freaks?

Tod Browning's movie called, "Freaks" made you think a lot into who really was the Freaks. The movie casted people you would not see everyday, and then there was two "normal" people. By "normal" I mean humans you would see everyday.

With Browning being a formal circus performer himself, I think he also has something "freakish" about him. I think the freaks were the "normal" people. Yes, the normal people thought the people with disabilities were freaks, but the "normal" people were freaks to the people with disabilities. I think Browning was referring to the "normal" people as freaks. (Nicole Butzke, Post 21)

Eli Clare

The photo that was shown in class made many people question if Eli Clare is a girl or a guy. The photo displays a human in the woods, with red hair on the ground and a shirt. The human was very defined. The question is asked Is Eli a woman or a man? I think she is a woman trying to seek the view of a man.

I believe this because maybe she feels like men have more power then women through writing. Many women writers were not successful back then. Her beliefs are unclear through her writing style though. The picture I think shows how she longs to be a man, and she will change herself to that level, by doing anything. (Nicole Butzke, Post 20)

Freeks Are People Too

The movie "Freeks" was very interesting to watch. It looked at the behind the scenes of a circus to find out what the performers are really like. They were very upbeat and energized but not all of them got along. When Cleopatra and Hercules were tricking Hans into thinking that Cleopatra and him were gonna get married, the rest of the performers got there revenge and put an end to Hercules and Cleopatra for good. It was interesting to see all the different characters with different appearances and abilities come together to form a bond to take Hercules and Cleopatra down. It showed the behind the scenes action because people can be decieving fwhen they are onstage to when they go backstage. We saw this here how Cleopatra was a fake and Hercules was a scam artist.

When Hans was lonely, Rita was his only friend. She looked out for him and stuck up for him and cared for him. She loved him more than anybody else. Those were the last words in the movie. I think this is giving the message of not to look past the people that care about you for something that was never even there in the first place. This is how it started out in the beginning to when Rita and Han were talking about their engagement. The story revolved around Han and his desire for love but did not find it because he was looking in the wrong spots. When he spent his fortune on the house he had purchased, it showed that he felt a little better about himself and was not wasting his time on people that never cared for him. (Mason Roessler Post 18)

Eli Claire- Person of Nature

As we viewed the photo of Eli Claire, we gathere some assumptions of the message he was rtying to convey. Since he had a sex changed, the characteristics of him made him that more unusual. He had a tree going through his shirt which stood for him bein one with nature. He also had features a man but also of a woman too. His book exile and pride describes him exactly. He was exhiled from society because he did not know hwere to fit in but he still took pride in himself for not being down by what other people thought of him. He was one that took pride in him writing and that is why he is such a greater writer.

Eli Claire can be labeled as a freak. This is not saying that he is a freak and should be bannished from society. It is saying that he is a freak where he had a sex change which made him different which caused him to act differently which is where the term freak comes in. Being a freak can be looked at two ways. It can be seen as a person who is abnormal and seen in society as weird and an outcast. It also can be seen as a person who is different but has a very unique ability which is labeled as a freak as being not human but in a good way where it would be impossible to out beat him. Eli Claire is a freak in a way where he is different, but has a unique ability to write just like anybody else and have a passion for it too. (Mason Roessler Post 17)

Who is the real Freak?

Throughout the year we have been bale to make a connection with all of the works and I feel that the movie "Freaks" is no different. We have to realize what the author or director is trying to convey and question who the real outcast is. I think a lot of the literary works that we have read have also questioned the layout of our society and how we treat people. Ted Browning does this in great extent in the movie Freaks. Although society may of looked at the people in the film as being social outcast or insulting and disgusting to look at, they were actually the good people in the film.

The people that we may have seen as normal (Hercules and Cleopatra) are actually the real outcasts. They reject the circus family or what could be viewed as society. Because of their disrespect to people that they find inferior they end up being subjected to either desk or an even worse fate of the ones that they called "Freaks." I think what Browning was really trying to suggest that our true being is not judged by the way that we look on the outside, but the character and attitude that we display which comes from the heart. (Shawn Parkhurst, 19)

Blog Prompts: Browning's Freaks

Hi everyone,

If you are stumped as to what to blog about this week consider responding to one of the discussion questions I passed out in class on Freaks. I will re-post them below for your reference.

1. Browning (a former circus performer himself) never represents his characters’ actual performances within Madame Tetrallini’s circus, but rather chooses to depict their lives behind the scenes. Why do you think this is?
2. Why is it that the freaks are viewed as children or as child-like? How do they challenge this view within the film?
3. How is sexuality represented in the film? In what ways do freaks trouble traditional sexuality?
4. Are women depicted in a positive light within the film? Give a few examples.
5. Is Browning’s film problematic in that he depicts the freaks as objects of interest, fascination, and visual curiosity, or does he ultimately allow his viewers to achieve a more sympathetic understanding of them?
6. How do the freaks change throughout the film? Does the film reinforce the notion that individuals with disabilities are outcasts and to be feared?
7. Did the film at all make you uncomfortable? If so, why?

Or you may want to analyze the above image that was used to advertise the film.

Best,
--Jeff

Stones

“I turn my pockets and heart inside out, set the stones—quartz, obsidian, shale, agate, scoria, granite—along the scourged top of the wall I once lived behind, the wall I still use for refuge. They shine in the sun, some translucent to the light, others dense, solid, opaque. I lean my body into the big unbreakable expanse, tracing which stones need to melt, which will crack wide, geode to crystal, and which are content just as they are” (Clare, 134-135).

I think this is my favorite part of any of Clare’s work that we’ve read. It sums up her writing in a beautiful way. I love the imagery of placing her stones on her wall that she built to protect herself as she was growing up. Building a wall around one’s personal self is a thing we all do. There are certain things that we don’t want people to know, fearing that if they knew, they would like us less, if they are “friends,” or mock us for, if they are “enemies”.

Placing stones on a wall or other kind of monument is an act of remembrance. Clare is placing her stones on her wall of protection, remembering each one of these experiences that shaped her life, that made her want to hide behind that wall. There are several different kinds of stones in her heart and pockets, just like she has different kinds of experiences and memories. Each one of these experiences was important in shaping who she is today. She has overcome so much, just by growing up, learning, meeting new people, and perhaps through the act of writing about them, showing the world who she is, and how these experiences shaped her.

The act of deciding which stones need to “melt” is important in life. I don’t think that the experiences represented by these stones ever really go away, but Clare is acknowledging the effect that these stones have had on her life, but she knows that she doesn’t need or want to carry them around with her anymore. She knows how they have shaped her life, but she doesn’t need to constantly remember them or the effect they has on her anymore. She is letting them go.

The stones that will “crack wide, geode to crystal” are the experiences that had such a profound effect on her and her life that she will never be able to not carry them around with her. They started off as just ugly stones, experiences that were not pleasant in the time they occurred or the time soon after. But as time went on, Clare realized that these experiences had the most beautifully profound effect on her and her life. They cracked open, and revealed beautifully colored crystals just below the ugly stone surface. She had to carry them around for a while before she learned of the true beauty of their lesson.

And of course there are those stones that are “content just as they are”. These stones are either good memories of life and its lessons, or the ones that haven’t yet explained why they are important. They deserve their time in our hearts and pockets just as much as the other kinds of stones. They have their purpose, or we will soon learn of what they mean.

We all have all of these kinds of stones. The important thing to remember is that every stone we pick up in life is somehow important in shaping us as adults. Whether we know their purpose now or in the future, each experience happened for a reason, and each experience deserves a spot on our wall of protection, to remember each one, and give it its due respect.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 19)

Looking Beyond the Skin

The movie "Freaks" gives a wide view of emotion and actions people may or may not do throughtout their life. I liked how he portraited them outside there physical deformities or disabilities. He makes the viewer look pass their physical straits and look more at the characters of the actors themselves. Which makes you lead to the conclusion that the real freak was Cleopatra. The freaks of the movie loved, hated, cried, laughed, and many others. This is nothing more than what we do our selves. So where is the freak? Most movies the freak is the one who is corrupt and murderous, unkind, deceptive, etc. But couldn't this exist in all of us. Tod I think breaks those boundaries by showing them all doing different every day stuff and going through the same problems we all do. So I think Tod is conveying a message look beyond the skin and find out who they really are. Something so many still have a hard time doing today.

Confusion

In Eli Clares "Stones' in my Pockets, Stones in my Heart" I see a very confused little girl. This piece for me, brought a lot of unanswered questions. In regards to her gender view which I guess on her web site is he, it is very hard to separate her early life from her life today. It is hard to believe that her early life didn't shape her decisions today. For example, the events of her father dressing her like boy and do what is typically what people call manly duties. If the child is already confused of ones gender this would have a signifieant impact over time. Similar to children who watch wrestling over time start acting out what the see. Another event was the painting at the carnival, when the painter thought she was a boy. Though she give the impression she was leading towards that thought at the time, she still an encouraging event. And also through out her piece she seem unsure her self of how she got where she is now. But I think that a confusion question for us all, How we got where we are?

The freaks definitely had a dramatic change from beginning to end. In the beginning the freaks were portrayed as almost normal human beings. The "child-like" freaks played in the wooded area and were having a lot of fun. This is an activity that most children do. When you get a group of children together they sing and dance around, laughing. In this notion the "freaks" are normal. Then we are brought to the circus environment and where they live. Again they are portrayed as normal. They live as a community and have different romances throughout. The girls that are attached together find "love" and even Hans and Frieda have a romance that actually finds a conflict like some normal romances do.

As the movie progresses it continues to portray the characters as normal human beings. When we get to the second part after the wedding is when the changes occur. At the wedding dinner Cleopatra poisons Hans because Frieda told her about his fortune. Cleopatra becomes intoxicated and starts making fun of the freaks just as they are welcoming into being one of them. Hans is very upset about this. After the dinner the freaks all come together to find refenge onto Cleopatra and Hercules. All the freaks turn into "monster-like" creatures in order to refenge Cleopatra for what she has done to Hans. As they attack her and Hercules you see the animal like behaviors come out. UNfortunately, refenge is a normal human being action and sometimes we do act like animals when we want refenge but the movie portrays more aggressive monster-like actions.
(Kelcey Summers 19)

The Real "Freak"

Tod Browning's "Freaks" is very interesting so far in the story. The "freaks" as they are refered to are simply just circus performers. Many of them do have certain deformities that would set them apart from the rest of society, but does that really make them freaks? They still have thoughts and feelings just like each and everyone of us, but still they are treated as though they are not even human at all. This, of course, is really sad and unfair, and can really make one think what it would feel like to be in a position similar to the circus performers. How would you be able to convey your personhood to the rest of society if society will not even give you a chance? This is basically how Hans is treated by Cleopatra. Cleopatra is not deformed like a majority of the circus troop and she uses her beauty to seduce Hans into falling in love with her. This is wrong and she is just using him to get to his fortune. This is no different than how society treats people who they feel are lesser or on a lower level than everyone else. Society can take advantage of those of lesser value and make them feel completely worthless. Cleopatra comes across as being dominant over the rest of the circus and does not seem to care at all for any of them.

The freaks in the movie are treated more like passive children than actually adults. Hans is a perfect example of this claim, because although he is an adult man, he looks more like a small child. He dismissed by some of the other circus performers because of his appearance, which is sad to watch, because he wants to be treated like every other adult. Cleopatra does no justice by pretending to love him and playing with his emotions. She is the real freak in this movie, because she does not have a heart at all, and finds pure enjoyment in destroying someone else's life. She only cares about herself and only sees herself as being the perfect image, when in fact she is more disfigured that any of the other circus performers. This will most likely have an impact later in the movie as she is about to marry Hans as some of the freaks are beginning to catch on to her plan.
(David Roberts, Post 20)

Identity

"Stones' in My Pocket, Stones in My Heart" was very interesting, because it helped me to see how Eli Clare was treated throughout most of his life. I refer to Eli Clare as a man, because this is how he has wanted society to view him all along. A person does not have to be constituted by the body he/she was born with, but rather what makes him/her happy. We should not just be referenced as a category of boy or girl, because we as individuals are so much more than just a category to be placed into. Eli Clare was trying to convey this message to society, because we are so naive in our understandings that we have cannot even fathom a person who does not fall in a certain category. Clare was open to discovery and tried to find his place in this world, and it took several tries even refering himself as a dyke. Clare had enjoyed being called a boy when he was younger, but he was still lost because technically he is actually a woman by medical terms. However, Clare seems confident now about being a man, and it really is about being happy where you are in life. Clare did not feel comfortable when he was younger and sought to change the society's perspective on him by declaring himself as a man.

Although Clare is a successful person now, he had to endure much pain and hardships while growing up. There was one certain scenario that I found odd at first, but perhaps the purpose of this certain scenario was to compensate for something else. This, of course, is when Clare was raped by his father when he was younger. The father could have done this to prove his dominance over Clare, who was beginning to portray himself as a man. The father could have wanted to show Clare what it means to be a man, although to rape Clare was an extreme method to go by. However, if the father had wanted to show Clare who he really was, then why did he treat him as a son for so many years? Maybe, the father wanted to show what the life of a man was like in hopes that Clare would not be satisfied, however, Clare had loved working with his father and doing the hard labor each day. Clare was free to feel and do what he wanted to do, and by doing so would eventually set him free.
(David Roberts, Post 19)

Consent...right or wrong?

I was reading Derek's post about consent and he makes a valid point. Sometimes the laws that are there to protect us as individuals may actually take away some of our rights. I, obviously, understand why children under 18 can not make choices for themselves but at the same time shouldn't parents ask their children what they think. In order to learn and understand what decisions are the right or wrong ones to make we have to have experience making decisions first. There are so many parents out there that either don't care at all or care way to much and in turn shelter their children. In order for a child to know what is right or wrong they need to be taught. If there parents don't care about what is going on in their lives then the child may experience things that they really shouldn't be at a young age.

On the flip side if a child has an overprotective parent then they risk the chance to learn important failures in life. If a parents protects their child from ever failing at something how do you learn to be a better person? Again if a parent makes all the decisions for a child while they are growing up what makes them think they can make decisions when they get older. They will be afraid to make decisions because their parents are there to do it for them.
(Kelcey Summers 18)

Medical Advances Weigh Heavily Against Human Morals

Many people instinctively throw the idea of using someone with a disability as an example away and consider it appalling. When people do this, they begin to fully consider the situation, but do not realize most of the time consent is required for these studies or shows. Another common issue arising now however, is how disabled must someone be to be considered unable to consent for their self? These two factors are very controversial and discussed and protested against frequently.
Addressing the issue of someone being disabled helplessly, the government should make much more specific guidelines and/or laws to aid in the determination of whether someone is responsive enough to handle themselves or not. These guidelines should include things such as reaction times, their ability (based off of their disease and the level of the disease they are at) to handle real life situations and their decision making skills. For example an elderly person who cant speak at all should still be able to live by themselves instead of in a nursing home by law.
-Derek Guarino

Consent

As a child I ran into many occasions where my parents would have to sign something saying that i was allowed to participate in something or go somewhere in school. At the time I never really understood why kids in general needed to have their parent/guardian to sign something to make someone else's (the kids') decision. I do understand it more now of course, but i do believe that there is a flaw in the construction and composition of the laws revolving consent. The reason these flaws are present is because the laws are way too general. It's almost as if the government is too lazy to do anything with them, because all they really say is regardless of people's intelligence and amount of independence they still have to be eighteen and up to make their own decisions.
Some parents are excessively protective and wind up sheltering their kids and overpowering them when given such a responsibility. Due to this, many children lose out on endless amounts of opportunities and lack the trait earned otherwise, which is being a well-rounded individual. Without this necessary trait, many kids wind up missing out on proper decision making skills when it comes to something of actual significance where they let the parent/guardian take over.
-Derek Guarino

Challenges

I feel as if someone who is able to take care of themselves should be able to have a kid. Some people are considered disabled can have a kid. The parents can still care for the kid, and the kid will have parents there for them when they get older. I'm not saying that people who can not take care of themselves should not have kids but it would be harder. If someone has to take care of a disabled person, and a kid would be extremely hard. Not only for the person who is taking care of the disabled person, but also for the kid as they grow old.

The doctors and government classifies you as if you are disabled or not. I have not really thought about this, until this reading. I know from a personal experience, how it feels to know someone that you love who is considered disabled. They are able to do everything except use that one body part. They raised a great family for being classified as disabled. (Nicole Butzke, Post 19)

Who Is to Judge?

Clare writes about Supercrips. In the story, Clare mentions how all these handicapped people do extraordinary activities. These activities are not even performed by humans that are not disabled. These people have something to talk about. The supercrips which I think means someone who is handicapped and doing something that is not expected of them due to their disability. The Supercrips set a bar for the other handicapped people.

I almost think the supercrips look at us non-handicapped people and feel superior. I believe they should, they are accomplishing stuff that I would NOT even think about doing. I almost feel they did not only set the standards for the handicapped people but also for people without a disability. (Nicole Butzke, Post 18)

How do we learn?

There seemed to be a big debate about the viewing of disabled people by the medical profession. I have been thinking about how there may be another way to study these medical issues in a way that seems less public. I think though still for me I have to look at it in a trustful way. I want to believe that doctors are here to help not to get a kick or laugh out of what patients are going through. I believe that a class viewing of a disabled child is the most efficient way for medical students to learn. I know that doesn't sound very nice and caring, but that is not what doctors are supposed to do. They are supposed to look at a patient objectively without emotion so that they can make the best decision for the patient. I think by allowing the students to view disabilities in this way it doesn't allow them to make a personal connection to place emotion into decisions they make later in life.

You may think why back the viewing of disabled people in this way. I worked with the disabled for awhile young and old. Many don't live that long and the lives they do live are never easy. It was hard to not get close to these people especially the children. However I learned quickly that if I allowed my emotions to take control I wasn't helping them I was doing things that I thought would allow them to not have pain because I didn't want to see them hurt. I think doctors run the same risk when allowing emotion to get in the way. I say allow these medical students to view whatever they need in a way that THEY need and yes it may make the patient uncomfortable and cause some mental anguish, but in the long run these students won't make it personal. They will keep their professional opinions that will BEST help the patient.
Thomas Moss (post 14)

Sexuality and Disability

Eli Clare makes some great points in the essay "Reading Across the Grain" about societies view of the sexuality of disabled people. I think personally the main points are correct and many non-disabled people feel rather uncomfortable discussing disabled people in general let alone their sexuality. To be honest before this reading I never really thought about it. Besides just seeing the view TV shows that highlight a disabled couple starting a family and living on their own, I never really thought of disabled people of even having a sexuality or sexual feelings like a non-disabled person. I don't know why this is, but I think that if a survey was taken a lot of people in society would share the same opinion.

I think that it is wrong for people to share this view and know that I have become more aware it may cause me to think differently in the future. Personally I don't think that people with a disability should not be allowed to have a family or spouse and should have rights like everyone else. However, if that disability, whether it be mental or a serious physical disadvantage impairs their ability to be a responsible and caring parent then we should question whether or not they have the right to bring a child into this world. (Shawn Parkhurst, 18)

Having a Disability is an Advantage?

Although Eli Clare has trouble reclaiming the identity of freak, he suggests that some people reclaim offensive labels. It is my personal belief that individuals do this because it gives them something that others don't have. It makes them unique and different from the crowd. I feel that people with disabilities are often told things that they can't do because of their disability, which cause them to draw closer to the label. This is because although they may not be able to do some things, many times they are capable of doing things that a "normal" person can't.

On a similar note, yet different topic I think the title as a story of its own. "Exile and Pride," although people may be excluded from certain advantages or opportunities in society, those individuals are proud of who they are. These are the individuals that although are denied of certain rights and are looked down upon, ignore the insults and the dirty looks and continue to live their life in a way that makes them happy. (Shawn Parkhurst, 17)

Freek to Sheek

In Eli Claire's chapter of Freeks and Queers, we learn a lot about what is going on from a disabled persons point of view. These so called freeks are not just labeled as freeks. They have numerous names like retards, monkeys, and just plain being handicapped. The point that Claire is trying to make is that disabled people have feelings and are people too just like us. If we were to go out and call them deragatory names we are no better than them for even saying that.Disabled people are in fact normal they just take a little more time to fit in but that is not a bad thing. In fact, it is a good thing because it is our responsibility to help them and be friends with them so it can be easier for them to cope with society.

In class we were discussing our papers with our partners for the paper 2 assignment. It was very helpful to have some other person look at my paper for revising bevause they see differently than I do. My partner have me helpful tips and revising corrections to fix to make my paper better and more professional. It took a lot of time to have a good finished copy ready, but after numerous revisions and look overs of my paper I believe it is strong enough to achieve a good grade. Looking in depth to the stories I have chosen were also helpful in writing my paper because it allowed me to see what the message of the stories were and how they relate to everyday life. (Mason Roessler Post 16)

Making it Difficult

The sexuality of disabled people can be a very uncomfortable topic for the general public. It is not something that we really think about. We subconsciously think that disabled people should not be sexual; they are children who don’t necessarily have a gender. Eli Clare touches on this topic in her essay, “Reading Across the Grain”. I believe the points she makes about how uncomfortable the idea of disabled people’s sexuality is for non-disabled people are correct.

When she spoke about how disabled people used to be forced into sterilization, I was shocked to hear that it was legal until the 1970s. Hitler started sterilizing and killing disabled people before he started persecuting the followers of the Jewish faith. I thought that alone would want our government to make illegal, even if it was just to make us a little bit less like Hitler. I was also surprised to hear how difficult our government makes it for disabled people to get married, have children, and keep their children. I have a good friend who is in a wheelchair because of a complicated illness when he was a child, but he is one of the smartest people I know. I don’t believe that physically disabled people should have any difficulty from anyone about getting married or having children. Just because their bodies are disabled, doesn’t mean that they don’t understand what they are doing, or can’t take care of their children.

While I don’t think that it is necessarily right, but I can understand the point if it focused on mentally disabled people. They truly might not understand the consequences of their actions, and might not be able to take care of a child. It does take a certain level of understanding and knowledge to raise a child, so if mentally the parents were children themselves, I can understand why people might be concerned. I have heard of a case where the parents of a mentally disabled child had her uterus removed, based on that fact that she could not keep herself clean when she got her period. She didn’t understand what was going on, and how to keep herself clean. I think this might have been a little extreme of a reason to sterilize their child, but I understand their reasoning. I don’t think I would have been able to make this decision, especially because it is such a final decision. That young woman will never be able to have her own children, even if someday there is a medical breakthrough that miraculously cures her of her problems. But this idea of making it difficult for physically disabled people to get married and have children is upsetting to me because it doesn’t necessarily mean that they can’t understand what they are doing or be able to take care of a child just because their bodies don’t work the same way ours do.

(Sarah Jaworowicz, Post 18)