French-Iranian author Marjane Satrapi, author of 'Persepolis', dies at 56

For reference, I also really enjoyed the Catcher in the Rye, and there are some superficial similarities: a young person is scarred by events in their lives and succumbs to depression. (there are a myriad of differences between the two stories -- I'm not drawing an equivalence, just making one comparison)

Catcher in the Rye is probably best read as an angry teenager: you meet Holden Caufield and he's witty, cynical, funny, defiant, etc. You might fall in love with the character, but what you ultimately learn is that he's a miserable failure; he lost the battle with his depression and so many of the people he was cutting down were just normal, decent people trying to enjoy their lives.

Crucially, we never meet Holden when he is young, bright eyed, and innocent. The narrative structure shows us who he is right away, and we the reader learn that this is actually quite a bad thing throughout the course of the story.

Persepolis works a bit differently: we spend the first half of the book with innocent, bright-eyed Marjane and we fall in love with that character. The character we fall in love with is taken from us by the events of the story, by living unsupervised in exile, etc. It's nothing but sad. It's well-written, it's very memorable, but I don't think there's anything wrong with feeling unhappy about an unhappy turn of events.

Indeed, the story is quite Western overall, which is perhaps unsurprising, given that the author had already been living in the West for over a decade when she wrote it.

There is almost nothing more Western than this kind of self-criticism: blaming oneself for not having imagined a wider range of possibilities. By the time this reflex reaches your shore, any criticism you might address to it has already been pre-assimilated into its canon. Worse: you may not even be heard, because the whole discourse is already busy talking about the voices it has supposedly suppressed.

That is the trick. It is often less interested in articulating what was actually suppressed than in endlessly reaffirming that something was suppressed. Self-criticism becomes a passion of the self: the subject punishes itself for not being the idealized Other, and in doing so expands its own range of motion.

Criticism becomes assimilation: it uproots you from the very world it claims to redeem. And the only way out of the double bind is to set off for distant shores, carrying the trial with you.

To whoever is downvoting this: it is not even a criticism. Just a description. When you discuss stories, Americans will frequently insist on the "hero story is the only one possible fun story" and simultaneously interpret bad ending as punishment for moral failure. French wont argue that all that often. And European literature is in general more likely not be that.

And second, using "western" as synonym for "american" wherever the author knows a lot about American and just assumes everything in Europe is exactly the same is something I noticed multiple times on HN.

Which ironically enough proves the precise point.

"Conspiracy" Theory: "CIA/MI6 coup of 1953 that overthrew Iran's democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests"

Evidence: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9ta... "On 19 August 1953, Prime Minister of Iran Mohammad Mosaddegh was fired by Mohammad Reza Pahlavi, the Shah of Iran .... It was instigated by the United Kingdom (MI6), under the name Operation Boot and the United States (CIA), under the name TP-AJAX Project or Operation Ajax. A key motive was to protect British oil interests in Iran after Mosaddegh nationalized the country's oil industry."

If you find any evidence that says CIA/MI5 were not behind the coup of a democratically elected government to protect Western oil interests, please let me know, I'm very interested in this topic.

"Conspiracy" Theory: "verifiable institutional actors with control over media outlets, public figures, and politicians -pointing to a systematic, decades-long negative framing of Iran"

Evidence:

State Department records list CIA “Political Propaganda” work in the TPAJAX files. https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951-54Ira... "CIA Confirms Role in 1953 Iran Coup" (from the National Security Archive) https://nsarchive2.gwu.edu/NSAEBB/NSAEBB435/ "American and British involvement in Mosaddeq's ouster has long been public knowledge, but today's posting includes what is believed to be the CIA's first formal acknowledgement that the agency helped to plan and execute the coup."

Since then, there is substantial evidence Western/U.S. coverage and official discourse has repeatedly framed Iran through threat, extremism, nuclear danger, terrorism, and regime instability. Rather than me spamming links, I will just say this evidence is very easy to find and read. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please present it.

"Conspiracy" Theory: "you almost never read anything good about Iran?"

Evidence: Go to the websites of major Western outlets such as BBC News, The Guardian, NYT - search for "Iran" and look at the first 50–100 headlines.

Then categorise them into things like: War/conflict Nuclear program Sanctions Human rights Economy Tourism Culture Science Daily life

Objectively, you will find mostly negative or negatively framed stories. If you find any evidence to the contrary, I'm very interested.

Are there any other "conspiracy theories" I have mentioned that are "objectively false"?