Asne Seierstad’s depiction of the life of an Afghani family is shocking and provocative. The Bookseller of Kabul is one of the first most intimate stories that recounts real life events of one of the nation’s more prestigious families. While they are not rich by the standards of our culture, they have been able to provide a home and shelter for a large family, something that is not always possible in a country embedded in poverty. After years of wars the cities and towns lay in rubbish; sidewalks mutilated, buildings that have had to be closed down from bombing. More shocking that the destruction of their communities is the calloused way in which the men treat women. In a place that practically defines the concept of patriarchy, there is no escape for the women who must spend all of their life under the ruling of an unfair dictation.

For her to really understand the culture of this family, Seierstad requested to reside with them for four months and was well received. David Spurr concludes in his book The Rhetoric of Empire, that in journalistic writing, the ability to maintain oneself on the fringe of the action is important to correctly depicting what happens. “The gaze is also the active instrument of construction, order, and arrangement” (15). This allows for the customs of the non-Westernized peoples to appear strange and uncultured, rather than simply different. He claims that by viewing the world through a journalistic pair of eyes, that person sets themselves in a position of authority and power. While Seierstad did receive unfair treatment in regards to the other women of the family, when she put on the burka she was simply another anonymous woman. In this sense she deviates from Spurr’s argument because she is not merely an observer, she is affected as well.

 

I've never been the type of person to log my thoughts in a journal. And to be completely honest, the concept of a blog fascinates and astonishes me. Not only does this medium allow for me to dispense all of the radical speculations that plague my mind, but others are able to read them and scrutinize. So I suppose that I'm just prefacing for my inevitable awkwardness in the next few posts until I get the hang of this. 

Okay. Enough of that tangent. 

My name is Emily and I'm a junior here at OU. I've arrived at the major of Creative Writing only recently after spending the past couple of years trying on different versions of myself. After Vocal Performance and Theatre Performance didn't instill excitement any longer I switched to English in the fall of my sophomore year. I couldn't imagine anything that is more suiting. I was drawn to english 284 Writing about Culture (consequently the class for which I am managing this blog) simply by the course name. I suppose it's foolish to "judge a book by it's cover", but with a title that incorporates writing and societal issues I think that my decision was justified.

I was in a class recently in which the professor outlined seven different prominent features of literature. These included ambiguity, parody, and satire. I was taken off guard when my professor proceeded to discredit the legitimacy of satire in literary contexts. Now, part of me wonders whether or not this is simply a cultural difference stemming from the fact that he grew up in Africa, (I assume? Is that politically correct for me to make that judgement? I figure that's a whole discussion topic in itself) but I've read and loved a great deal of satirical text. It's a wonderful way to communicate serious issues with the guile of humor. And it's proved itself to withstand the test of time dating back to Shakespeare, up through Oscar Wilde, and manifesting itself in works by Kurt Vonnegut and Chuck Palahniuk. What do others feel on this topic? Is satire outdated and illegitimate in today's society?