Without A Map: An Abandoned Woman's Search For Truth

Meredith Hall's memoir Without a Map is the story of a woman who as a young girl, was shunned by her family, church, school and the rest of her community after becoming pregnant at the age of 16. Having been exiled and abandoned over the course of her pregnancy, she works her way into the world alone, without family and without her child, to live a life full of sorrow as well as great strength.
Throughout her story, Hall focuses on the idea of shunning and abandonment, both within her family and her community in Hampton, NH. In her introduction, she explores the position of her 16 year old self in the midst of both familial and social disapproval, within a town full of tolerated imperfection; "They were the Community" (Hall xi). It is obvious that in writing Without a Map, Hall has given herself the opportunity to explore her life and the incidences which have made her who she is today, stating "Shunning is as precise as a scalpel, an absolute excision leaving, miraculously, not a trace of a scar on the community body. The scarring is left for the girl, an intense, debilitating wound that weeps for the rest of her life" (Hall xxvii).
Using Without a Map as my primary text, I will explore how Meredith Hall utilizes the genre of memoir to find her own answers. I will examine the psychology behind Hall's abandonment and how she uses her personal truth as a catalyst to find a greater truth: an understanding of past events.

Observing Myself

One of the first things I can say about my previous posts is that they are LONG. Really long. Ugh, I'm honestly surprised that the people in my group have "suffered" through reading all my jargon! Thank you all!

I spoke to fiance (an avid blogger) a week ago about how if I were writing an actual blog for personal purposes or what-have-you, most people would probably skip over my blog posts because no one has the patience to read through anything more than 500 words. I'm pretty sure my posts run a bit over that maximum. It's a problem I suppose I have always had as a writer. I am very into stream-of-consciousness type things. Often times when I sit to write my blog I find myself thinking about A LOT and cannot decide what to write about specifically and I feel like that clearly comes across...that I just couldn't decide on a topic. And I suppose that's something I can work on. I find that when I was given something specific to write about, for example, my first entry about Hurricane Katrina, I was a lot more reserved and precise. After that, I went a little haywire. The only other short, blunt post I have is a letter to Don Dellilo about his book Falling Man.

On average, my posts are around 7 paragraphs long, aside from the 9 paragraphs in the entry about 9/11. The entries get notably longer and the paragraphs get notably thicker as time goes on. I think this is because most of them, I make into a personal thing. I find that as a writer, I feel more secure when adding ideas and thoughts from my own point of view, whereas when I write something critical or something that I have to do research for, I feel a lot less confident about my work. When I write an analysis of a work I always find myself cringing as I edit because I can't help but feel that I write best when it's non-fiction or a personal narrative of some sort. I've always felt that this is my forte.

For example, in my post about the Falling Man...it was not necessary for me to write about where I was on Sept. 11 and what I felt on that day. In my post regarding torture, I didn't have to go off on a rant of what I think torture is and how I feel we live in a violent culture. I could have easily gone directly into the topic at hand, yet I found the need for some personal background information that wasn't required/necessary. No one asked me to write about it--I just did. It's an impulse. I've always felt that reader responses should be personal rather than strictly analytical. In this way, I am okay with the way I write because I feel like it allows me to grow as a person and as a writer. I love responding to texts in a way that not only makes me think, but makes me analyze the way I live my life, how I identifiy, how I interact with other people, etc.

Persepolis

I have actually read this graphic novel once before, but I am really excited to be reading it again! I loved it the first time around and I am falling even more head over heels the second time! This graphic novel is beautifully and inspirationally written by a courageous young girl during the Islamic Revolution. This was the first graphic novel that I had ever read, and in comparison to any of the novels we have read so far, I find this medium to be the most intriguing. This type of non-fiction literature tends to read faster than other forms of literature (which I love!).

It is amazing, the wealth of information that Marjane Satrapi provides the reader through comic-esque form. She paints a picture for her readers through the illustrations and dialogue that I don't think she could have ever accomplished in a full-on narrative memoir. I believe that the medium she chose, works particularly well for her story and I strongly advocate for the use of this medium for other writers in the process of writing memoirs or personal narratives (although I do recognize this is not a medium for every writer). I think it is a beautiful effective form of art that often times tells a story more intensely/effectively than words alone, ever could.

For example, on the first page of the first chapter of this book, we get the image of the veil in the elementary school. One of the first moments that sticks out to me is on the first page, when the caption plainly reads "We didn't really like to wear the veil, especially since we didn't understand why we had to."The brief, yet strong language is further enhanced by the vivid picture below in which schoolgirls are running around with their veils off, throwing them, playing jump rope, etc. They're pretending to be monsters and there is also the image of one girl choking another shouting, "execution in the name of freedom!" This quotation shocked me the first time I read it--I couldn't believe that a girl that young had been so...brainwashed.  In addition, not only does the veil symbolize a lack of freedom in certain ways, it also introduces the reader to the conservative ways of the Islamic religion.

The second image and quote that grabbed my attention is on the second page when the dictator claims that bilingual schools are symbols of capitalism and must be shut down. He is standing at a podium and there are civilians below him shouting "Bravo!" and "What wisdom!" I found myself overwhelmed by the fact that these people were so vulnerable to deception...willing to follow this evil man with an agenda. It goes to show how societies can think...when people get lazy and don't want to think for themselves, or ultimately that they can be in a situation where they have no choice. The prospect of the it...the reality of it...and the willingness of so many to just...follow without question, terrifies me. This chapter is a great introduction into the Marjane's world.

Other thoughts:
I know there is a film "Persepolis" that came out within the past 5 years or so. I think it would be something for our group to possibly consider...viewing the movie together and comparing the two mediums and how they tell the story. This is something that particularly interests me. You always hear people complaining either "The movie didn't tell the whole story!" or "The movie is so much better than the book!" What has to be left aside when creating a film? What is added? How does the story change, if at all? I would love to explore this as a group. We have already discussed in class, the different ways that media effects our view of events. I wonder what effect the media has in telling Marjane's story through film vs the graphic novel.

Falling Man:
There are certain similar themes between the books we have read in class and "Persepolis". There are themes of death, torture, government, war, etc. In a certain way, like 1 Dead in Attic, I really appreciate the truth of the narrative, the fact that it is written by someone who has experienced this. This was one of my main problems with "Falling Man" (aside from the fact that in certain ways I felt it was poorly written). I would have loved to read the memoir mentioned by Chris Rose, but that's for another discussion. I think that Persepolis would be a great alternative to "Falling Man", although we will be reading another graphic novel this semester. Also I am conflicted because I really enjoyed talking about the photographs from 9/11 and our overall class discussions, so to an extent, I feel like the theme of 9/11 should remain a part of the class. I just personally don't like "Falling Man."

Torture Is Torture Is Torture

It's that simple (or at least I think so).

I don't think fine lines exist here. I think torture is obvious enough for someone to recognize it when they see it. I think torture manifests itself in all forms of abuse including physical, emotional and mental abuse. Torture is a deliberate act of a person or group of people which aims to humiliate, degrade, harass, and ultimately dehumanize another human being or group of people.

Rape is as much torture as verbal abuse as what happened to Matthew Shepard as what happened...September 22...when that young man committed suicide by jumping off the George Washington Bridge because of the live-streamed video his roommate cast on the internet of him in sexual contact with another male student without his knowledge.

We live in such a violent culture.

I will never know what was going on in the minds of the MPs. I will never understand what it's like to break out of myself enough to become someone who can commit those despicable acts. I will never know how they felt when taking orders from superiors. Personally, I probably would have fought against these orders in court, but I don't know what it's like to be at war. Lastly, I will never understand why the photographs were necessary. But they are honest in a way that a painting could never depict.

As much as I love art, I don't think that Fernando Botero's art is as captivating as is claimed, in the link we read for class. As much as I can appreciate what Botero was attempting to do, I don't think that paintings can substitute the reality, the brutal honesty of the actual photographs. For one, I find his people to be too "full". They are lush and honestly don't look real enough for me to have a close enough connection to them to be effected in the way Botero appears to want to affect his audience. One thing I do appreciate is the fact that he uses multiple colors in the skin of each person so that we ultimately, as viewers, are unable to declare the race or ethnicity of those particular people. I can see how that would allow us to relate to them more, and therefore make them more human. 

For whatever reason, I personally find paintings of Jesus' Crucifixion more compelling and moving than any of Fernando's paintings. While both depict torture, there appears to be more humanity in the paintings of Jesus (or maybe a different kind?). But, maybe that's just because it's an association--He's the Son of God. There's a huge sad, honorable story about him dying for our sins...he's not just some stranger who is being tortured that we are attempting to find a connection with through skin color and the art's depiction of events. There is something profoundly different and more visceral...captivating in the paintings of the Crucifixion. For whatever reason, I feel that the paintings of Jesus do not require the perpetrators who crucify him. We know they are evil. We've heard the stories. We know the history and the beauty of the story. We know he had to be tortured and that he had to die. But no one knew this story before the photos...Americans committed these despicable acts and I think that's something we can't wrap our heads around. And honestly, without their presence in the paintings, I feel that they lack something. 

I can't help but feel that his paintings would be more moving if they incorporated the MPs who were involved, not just through a line of piss. This is one intense aspect which differ the photographs from Fernando's works. The brutality in the photos, wasn't necessarily the fact that the detainees were in pain and suffering, but the fact that the MPs were in the photographs showing delight in their work. Everything looks more deliberate in the photographs. Sure, the paintings bring out a humanity in the detainees which multiple cultures can understand and see, as art appears to be a more universal language, (everyone knows pain in some ways, and there always seems to be a dull ache you feel within when looking at something as beautifully moving as Fernando's works), however, I don't think that it's necessary for the detainees to have "humanity" placed upon them deliberately, as in the paintings (if that's even the proper way to express what I am attempting to say). Obviously they are human...it's the fact that these MPs...their faces...you just know, that they don't see them as human. Anyone looking at those photographs sees the dehumanization. There is no need for replication of these events (in my personal opinion); the photographs say it all. 

Art is deformation. There are no works of art that are truly 'realistic.'

-This event in history does not call for deformation. The photographs say it all. And while photography is a form of art (and after finding out about the Veit Cong photograph being deliberately relocated, I believe that that particular photograph has deformed reality), sometimes photography just tells a more brutally honest story. I applaud Fernando for his artwork and his talent. I just don't believe it's as effective in portraying what happened at Abu Ghraib.