This paper requires you to reference and cite BOTH
“Reading Lolita in Tehran”by Azar Nafasi and “The Naked Citadel”by Susan Faludi in a well thought-out analysis. Azar Nafasi describes the life in the Islamic Republic after the revolution and the newfound laws which arose as a result of it. She explains how the totalitarian regime has oppressed women and limited them in their everyday lives and activities driving them to hide their true identities under the required black scarves and dresses. Susan Faludi describes the Citadel as a “living museum”, whose main attempt is to preserve the same ideals and traditions as when the school was first founded and shape the boys that attend the school into men.
Consider the following quote:“Our world in that living room with its window framing my beloved Elburz Mountains became our sanctuary, our self-contained universe, mocking the reality of black-scarved, timid faces in the city that sprawled below” (Nafasi 419).
Both Nafasi and Faludi are exploring group behavior and identity in their works, but how does the Citadel boys’ and Tehran women’s behavior change depending on who they are around and where they are at the moment? Are their true identities suppressed at any given time and how? What does the word sanctuary mean for both the Citadel and the women in Iran? The Citadel and Nafisi’s living room seem to offer different ideas of the word sanctuary. How does Faludi understand the way the Citadel presents itself as a ‘sanctuary’ from a libertine and effeminized world? Similarly, how do the weekly meetings in the author’s living room serve as a sanctuary for the women in the literature group and why do they find the need to expose their true selves and all their colors in this sacred space? Could the Citadel be considered functioning as a totalitarian regime? If so, how are the Citadel’s “laws” similar to the laws of the Islamic Republic after the revolution regarding their behavior towards women? You can also consider more broadly how space- open space, isolated space, can be a tool of both oppression as well as resistance. Provide a well thought-out analysis of BOTH texts and include quotes to support your argument. Consider whether the two authors would agree with each others’ writing and main idea, if not, what would they disagree on?