Book Review: “The Gardens of Consolation” by Parisa Reza.

Starting just after World War II and spanning over the course of twenty years, Parisa Reza’s The Gardens of Consolation (translated from the French by Adriana Hunter) ends with the military coup against Iranian Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh (as it is spelled in the book). However, the book is not just a history lesson; instead, it focuses on three members of a family in Tehran and the changes of their world as seen through their eyes.

The book begins with nine-year-old Talla being led away from the only home she knew, an isolated village in the mountains. Her husband Sardar had just returned from working in Tehran for three years. After his exposure to the world he became convinced that his town was cursed and he convinced her to travel with him back to the city (specifically, the district of Shemiran). Even though they move to a more modern setting than what they were used to, they still live simply through agricultural means. They also have a hard time adjusting to modern life. Both are illiterate, and Talla in particular doesn’t understand technology well. For example, in one flash forward we see that when she is an older woman a television set is introduced to the household, and she doesn’t understand that the small people in the set aren’t real, resulting in her wishing them good night at the end of the day.

By contrast, their son Bahram is the first in the family to go to school and learn of the outside world. The narrative of the book skips ahead through various phases if him growing up, settling on a period of his life when he finally becomes politically active, supporting Mossadegh and nationalizing Iranian oil. Yet, while he has a passion for learning he seems to only become involved in political parties through peer pressure (although he ultimately chooses a party opposing that of one of his best friends), preferring to let life pass him by while he sits under a tree on his family’s property. We also follow him as he chases women; however, he sees them more of a goal to attain as objects of desire than as other people deserving his affection.

His parents are supportive but disapprove of his extracurricular activities, which come to a head twice: once, he nearly got himself killed by getting embroiled in an affair with the “wrong” woman during holy celebration. The second time he joined a protest supporting Mossadegh and nearly got himself killed in the riot that erupted. Finally the coup happened, and just as he was pressured to get into politics he was pressured to burn any evidence that he joined any political party. He convinces his friends, even the one who joined an opposing party, to do the same.

Meanwhile, his parents move on with their existence. Sardar becomes transfixed to the radio but Talla has no interest in the country’s politics. Sardar doesn’t believe that there’s a sea beyond Iran but just endless mountains, while Talla seems only interested in the world around them. Bahram doesn’t contradict his parents worldview. Instead, despite the political system crumbling around him, he still obsesses with his own love life, or rather, the lack thereof.

The Gardens of Consolation freely shifts in tone depending on which character it follows but rarely feels jarring. It references points in Iranian history from the particular time period in which it takes place, but focuses it through the lens of a family trying to simply live their life in a world that is increasingly becoming less familiar. It reminds us that while the world can undergo major changes at large, even the most basic societal units can retain their own identity.

Making friends, not enemies. #friends #friendship #relationships #advertising #politics #iran

There’s a myriad of arguments of arguments both for and against the recent nuclear deal with Iran. However, there’s one argument that I’ve been hearing lately that makes me cringe whenever I hear it. I noticed it most predominantly on a recent Chris Christie ad.* The ad attacks the Obama administration of striking a deal with a country that for years has vocally opposed the States. Accompanying this message is footage that we can only assume comes from Iran of a protest, although it’s not exactly clear what the protest is about.** I take away that his point is that we shouldn’t support a country that has publicly denounces America, that we should keep them enemies.

Where’s the logic in that? Those are exactly the types of people that we want to try to make friends with. Keeping them enemies isn’t going to get us anywhere. A friendly relationship with somebody, despite having a different opinion from yours, is more constructive than an antagonistic one. If they are developing nuclear weapons, then we would want to avoid rubbing them the wrong way. I hate the idea of having a “nuclear deterrent,” but I’d rather take paranoia and turn it into friendship than continuing it, leading to disastrous results.

I must stress that you’ll notice that I’m only focusing on this one argument. As I said at the beginning of this post, there are numerous discussions to be had regarding our diplomatic relations to Iran. With this blog post I’m barely scratching the surface. I’m addressing a broad issue and using a recent big news story as an example. But it bothers me that this kind of bad logic is making it into presidential campaign ads. That isn’t a new issue but it is frustrating that there are still politicians using this hate-filled rhetoric to promote themselves. The worst part is that I’m afraid that there are people out there that buy into this crap.

But what if somebody started a campaign, not to run for office but to improve people’s lives in an individual manner regarding this problem? What if we make ads that show people making friends out of their enemies? One person in the video would make the first move to make peace with a longtime rival or bully. It wouldn’t have to be anything big. Maybe the office worker could bring cupcakes to work and leave one on his enemy’s desk with a kindly note. A person who works at home as a writer and needs to concentrate could offer to take her neighbor out for a drink sometime instead of yelling. These are little things, but if enough people make peace with each other then maybe this attitude could trickle upwards.

I’m not saying we would remove conflict or the anger that goes with it. (That would certainly make this blog more boring than it is.) Not everybody would even be able to make peace with everybody else. But really, I’m sick of the “they are our enemies because they were our enemies”  argument, especially in campaign ads. Circular logic is all over the place in politics, but this is one circle that we should learn to break.

—–

*Normally I wouldn’t give him the time of day but it’s hard to avoid ads on certain popular online video websites. Trust me, I click “Skip Ad” as soon as it becomes available. Of course, I do that anyway.

**Incidentally, since when do demonstrators stage a protest in favor of the government’s opinion? What exactly was the message of including that footage in the Christie video? That we should be opposing the people of Iran, the government of Iran but supporting the people, or does he assume that Americans are stupid enough to confuse the two?